The recent election in Colombia has sent shockwaves through its environmental movement, and I can’t help but feel a sense of déjà vu. The narrow victory of far-right president Abelardo de la Espriella marks a stark reversal in the country’s energy trajectory, one that activists like Yuvelis Morales Blanco are bracing to resist. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it encapsulates a global tension: the clash between fossil fuel dependency and the urgent need for sustainability.
From my perspective, Morales’ story is more than just a local struggle. Her fight against oil extraction in Puerto Wilches, for which she won the Goldman Environmental Prize, symbolizes a broader battle for environmental justice. What many people don’t realize is that Colombia’s environmental defenders face some of the highest homicide rates globally. This isn’t just about policy—it’s about survival. Morales’ determination to keep fighting, even in the face of a hostile government, is a testament to the resilience of grassroots movements. But it also raises a deeper question: How long can activists like her hold the line against systemic power?
The economic argument for fossil fuels in Colombia is often framed as a necessity, but I think it’s more nuanced than that. Critics argue that a middle-income country can’t afford to abandon oil, coal, and gas, which still account for 5% of its GDP. Yet, the data shows that non-mining, non-energy exports surpassed extractive industries for the first time in a decade under the previous administration. If you take a step back and think about it, this suggests that Colombia’s economy is already diversifying—a trend the new government seems determined to reverse.
What this really suggests is that the push for fossil fuels isn’t just about economics; it’s about ideology. The incoming administration’s alliance with the United States, particularly under a potential Trump presidency, adds a geopolitical layer to this issue. Personally, I think this alliance could spell disaster for Colombia’s environmental progress, especially in vulnerable regions like the Cordillera Occidental, which is ripe for large-scale copper extraction.
One thing that immediately stands out is the regional divide within Colombia. De la Espriella’s victory was concentrated in areas less directly affected by extraction, while communities like Morales’—who have borne the brunt of pollution and environmental degradation—voted overwhelmingly against him. This isn’t just a political divide; it’s a reflection of lived experience versus abstract economic promises.
The irony here is that Colombia had begun to position itself as a global leader in the energy transition. Hosting COP16 and the fossil fuel transition conference in Santa Marta were bold moves that signaled a commitment to sustainability. Now, the country risks becoming a cautionary tale rather than a model. What makes this shift so troubling is the potential rollback of environmental protections, with the new government likely to loosen regulations and prioritize extraction over conservation.
A detail that I find especially interesting is the role of violence in this narrative. Colombia’s mining ambitions often collide with its history of armed conflict, particularly in remote regions where illegal mining thrives. Reclaiming these areas will require a military response, putting rural communities at even greater risk. It’s a grim reminder that environmental issues are inextricably linked to social justice.
As I reflect on this, I can’t help but wonder: What if the election had gone differently? Iván Cepeda, the leftist candidate, lost by fewer than 250,000 votes. Susana Muhamad, a former environment minister, points out that the lack of a proper debate between the candidates left voters without a clear comparison of their visions. This raises a broader question about the role of discourse in shaping public opinion—and how easily it can be manipulated.
Despite the setbacks, Morales remains optimistic, and her message to the international community is clear: Colombia’s fossil fuel treaties must be upheld, and local communities must be protected. I think her resilience is a call to action for all of us. The fight in Colombia isn’t just about one country’s energy policy; it’s a microcosm of the global struggle for a sustainable future.
In the end, what this situation highlights is the fragility of progress. Environmental gains are often reversible, and the forces pushing against them are powerful and persistent. But as Morales and countless others demonstrate, resistance is not futile. It’s a reminder that change isn’t linear—it’s a constant battle, one that requires vigilance, solidarity, and an unyielding commitment to justice. Personally, I think that’s a lesson we all need to take to heart.
