There are two historical events that accelerated the global search for an energy transition that would reduce dependence on fossil fuels. The first was the 1970s oil crisis, which had a profound impact on the global economy—something quite similar to what we’re experiencing today.
The second was the growing awareness of the environmental impact of human activity. Although this awareness began to emerge in the 1980s, it wasn’t until 1992, with the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), that it started to translate into concrete action.
Today, this global transition is still in its early stages. Despite decades of effort, meaningful progress remains limited. Just look at the numbers: in 1990, fossil fuels supplied 91.3% of global primary energy demand; by 2017, that figure had only decreased to 90.4%.
In the past five years, little has changed. As Vaclav Smil—a favorite author of Bill Gates—points out, energy historians are not surprised. History shows that dominant energy sources are not displaced quickly or within short timeframes. A transition is not the same as a disruption.
Smil also notes that unlike past energy transitions, this one is driven by a goal of decarbonization—that is, reducing or eliminating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the energy and production systems to combat climate change.
In this story, the villain is emissions—which is why decarbonization is such a critical topic. It’s important to emphasize that if this transition doesn’t occur at a global scale, then even if a country like Colombia stops producing fossil fuels, the impact would be negligible if others continue emitting at the same rate.
In fact, even a high-emissions country on its own wouldn’t make a major difference. The real impact would come from nations like China, which since 1990 has quadrupled its fossil fuel consumption to meet the demands of over a billion people, or India, which is following a similar development path.
For a country like Colombia, where deforestation significantly contributes to climate change, a truly committed climate action strategy would involve focusing maximum efforts and resources on the fight against deforestation—which is responsible for 33% of Colombia’s GHG emissions, making it the leading source.
This represents an opportunity for Colombia to lead on this front—especially in Latin America, where Brazil, once a model for climate policy after making deforestation its core issue in 2009, saw its worst deforestation levels in 15 years in 2022 and lost that position.
Moreover, implementing an outright ban on fossil fuels would likely increase tree-cutting for firewood, since the loss of energy self-sufficiency would drive up energy costs. In a country with deep social needs, the rational choice for many would be to spend on food—and if there’s no money left for energy, return to firewood.
Carolina Rojas Gómez
Student, Executive Master of Management in Energy
BI Norwegian Business School
