The Climate Summit That Dared to Exclude Trump: A New Power Emerges?
There’s something deeply symbolic about the fact that Donald Trump wasn’t invited to the recent climate conference in Santa Marta, Colombia. It’s not just a snub—it’s a statement. Personally, I think this exclusion speaks volumes about the shifting dynamics of global climate leadership. What makes this particularly fascinating is that the conference, organized by the Netherlands and Colombia, deliberately sidestepped the UN’s COP process, which has become synonymous with gridlock and empty promises.
In my opinion, the UN’s climate COPs have turned into a theater of the absurd. Despite the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels, these gatherings often end with little more than vague commitments and no concrete action. Jean Lemire, Quebec’s climate envoy, hit the nail on the head when he said, ‘Right now, at the UN, we will not make big advancement on anything… because we are under the rule of consensus.’ This consensus-driven system allows the biggest polluters to water down progress, leaving the rest of the world to grapple with the consequences.
What this really suggests is that the traditional frameworks for addressing climate change are broken. The Santa Marta conference, dubbed the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels, represents a bold attempt to bypass this paralysis. By focusing on a ‘coalition of do-ers,’ the organizers aimed to bring together countries genuinely committed to action. From my perspective, this is a refreshing shift—a recognition that real change requires a smaller, more focused group willing to take risks.
One thing that immediately stands out is the absence of the United States, the world’s largest fossil fuel producer, at this conference. Trump’s administration has been a relentless adversary of climate action, pulling out of the Paris Agreement, gutting environmental protections, and promoting fossil fuel expansion. But what many people don’t realize is that this absence isn’t a weakness—it’s a strength. As Colombia’s Environment Minister, Irene Velez Torres, pointed out, the presence of the largest emitters at COP negotiations has often been a barrier to progress. By excluding them, the Santa Marta conference created space for meaningful dialogue and action.
This raises a deeper question: Can a coalition of smaller, committed nations drive global change without the involvement of major polluters? Personally, I think the answer is yes—but with a caveat. While the 60 countries in attendance represent nearly 50% of the global population, the absence of key players like the U.S. and China means that the conference’s impact will be limited unless its initiatives can be scaled up. What this really suggests is that we need a multi-pronged approach: smaller, agile coalitions pushing for change while larger frameworks like the UN adapt to become more effective.
A detail that I find especially interesting is the role of sub-national actors, like U.S. states and Canadian provinces, in filling the leadership vacuum left by federal governments. California, for instance, has emerged as a climate powerhouse, using carbon markets and low-carbon fuel standards to drive its transition to clean energy. Sarah Izant, the state’s deputy secretary for climate policy, emphasized California’s commitment to carbon neutrality by 2045, highlighting the economic and public health benefits of this shift. This is a powerful reminder that progress doesn’t always require global consensus—it can start at the local level.
But here’s the rub: even when regions like California or Quebec take bold steps, they face significant challenges. Quebec’s ban on new fossil fuel exploration, for example, has been met with resistance over costs and energy security. Lemire’s warning that global efforts remain slow is a stark reminder of the scale of the problem. What many people don’t realize is that the financial system itself is rigged in favor of fossil fuels. Developing countries, in particular, are trapped in a ‘debt–fossil fuel trap,’ where high borrowing costs for renewable energy projects make it cheaper to stick with oil and gas in the short term.
If you take a step back and think about it, this is the real obstacle to a just transition: the global financial architecture. Amiera Sawas, from the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, pointed out that many countries aren’t ideologically tied to fossil fuels—they’re financially constrained. This raises a deeper question: How can we restructure the global economy to make clean energy the more attractive option? In my opinion, this requires a fundamental rethink of how we finance development, with wealthier nations and institutions stepping up to provide affordable capital for renewable projects.
What this conference has shown is that a new power is emerging—one that prioritizes action over empty promises. But this power is still fragile. Without addressing the systemic barriers to a just transition, even the most committed coalitions will struggle to achieve their goals. From my perspective, the Santa Marta conference is a beacon of hope, but it’s also a call to action. We need to build on this momentum, not just by excluding the Trumps of the world, but by reimagining the systems that enable their destructive policies in the first place.
In the end, the question isn’t just about who’s at the table—it’s about what kind of table we’re sitting at. The Santa Marta conference has shown that a different approach is possible. Now, it’s up to us to make it work.
