The system has built-in incentives to keep burning fossil fuels
In the mountains and coastal cities of Colombia, sixty nations convened this week around a question that is as much philosophical as it is political: whether humanity can willingly abandon the economic engine that has powered its modern age before that engine consumes the conditions for life itself. The summit surfaced a deeper argument — that climate change is not merely a technical problem of emissions but a symptom of an economic order structurally resistant to its own reform. The United States, the world's largest historical emitter, was absent, and oil markets trembled from conflict in the Middle East even as delegates debated leaving oil behind.
- Sixty nations are attempting something historically rare — a collective, negotiated retreat from the energy systems that built the modern world, under the pressure of a tightening climate clock.
- Critics inside the summit are not mincing words: they describe the prevailing capitalist model as suicidal, arguing it doesn't merely tolerate ecological destruction but depends on it, while also feeding the wars and authoritarian movements destabilizing the planet.
- The United States' conspicuous absence from the table signals a fracturing of global climate consensus, leaving the world's largest economy outside a conversation that will shape the next century of energy policy.
- In a sharp irony, rising oil prices driven by the Iran conflict were reshaping energy markets in real time — the very geopolitical instability that fossil fuel dependence is said to produce was casting a shadow over negotiations meant to end that dependence.
- What Colombia produced was not a binding roadmap but a statement of collective recognition — that the current trajectory is unsustainable — leaving the harder structural work of dismantling fossil fuel incentives still ahead.
Sixty nations gathered in Colombia this week to negotiate a collective exit from fossil fuels, a meeting that quickly became something larger than a policy conference. It became a forum for an argument about the economic systems at the root of the crisis itself.
The most pointed voices at the summit did not stop at emissions targets. They described the current model of capitalism as structurally incompatible with planetary survival — not passively indifferent to climate collapse, but actively dependent on the extraction that produces it. The same logic, they argued, generates geopolitical instability, war, and the conditions in which authoritarian movements flourish.
The absence of the United States gave the gathering an unmistakable shape. Sixty countries working toward a shared energy transition while the world's historically largest emitter remained outside the room said something about how fractured global climate consensus has become.
Geopolitics pressed in from outside as well. Conflict involving Iran was pushing oil prices upward even as delegates debated leaving petroleum behind — a live demonstration of the very instability that fossil fuel dependence is said to accelerate. The theoretical argument critics were making was unfolding as immediate economic pressure on the negotiations themselves.
What Colombia yielded was less a plan than a declaration of intent — an acknowledgment, shared across sixty governments, that the current path cannot hold. The harder work of dismantling the incentive structures that keep the world locked into fossil fuels remains ahead, and whether this summit's recognition will translate into binding commitments is still an open question. But the conversation had been named, and that, for now, was the summit's most honest achievement.
Sixty nations gathered in Colombia this week to negotiate a path away from fossil fuels, a convergence that some observers are calling a potential inflection point in how the world addresses climate change. The summit itself became a stage for a larger argument about the economic systems driving the crisis in the first place.
Critics at the conference made a stark case: the current model of capitalism, they argued, is fundamentally incompatible with planetary survival. Some went further, describing the system as actively suicidal—not merely indifferent to climate collapse but structurally dependent on the extraction and consumption that produces it. The language was blunt because, in their view, the stakes demanded it. These same economic pressures, they contended, do not simply warm the atmosphere; they fuel geopolitical instability, war, and the rise of authoritarian movements.
The absence of the United States from these negotiations was conspicuous. While 60 countries worked to chart a collective exit from fossil fuel dependence, the world's largest economy and historically largest emitter remained notably absent from the table. That void carried its own message about the fracturing of global consensus on climate action and the political divisions now shaping energy policy.
Geopolitics added another layer of complexity to the discussions. An ongoing conflict involving Iran was driving up oil prices even as nations gathered to discuss moving away from petroleum altogether. The irony was not lost on observers: the very instability that climate advocates warn will worsen as resources become scarcer was already reshaping energy markets in real time. The connection between fossil fuel dependence and international conflict, which critics had articulated as a theoretical problem, was playing out as immediate economic pressure on the negotiations themselves.
What emerged from Colombia was less a unified plan than a statement of intent—a declaration that the world's nations recognize the need to transition away from coal, oil, and gas. Whether that recognition would translate into binding commitments, enforceable timelines, or the kind of systemic economic restructuring that critics insisted was necessary remained an open question. The summit had created space for the conversation, but the harder work of actually dismantling the incentive structures that keep the world locked into fossil fuels lay ahead. For now, the gathering represented something: acknowledgment that the current path is unsustainable, even if the will to change it remained fragmented across borders and ideologies.
Citas Notables
The current model of capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with planetary survival— Critics at the climate summit
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the absence of the U.S. matter so much if 60 other countries are moving forward?
Because the U.S. is still the largest economy and historically the largest emitter. You can't solve a global problem without the largest player in the room. It signals that the world is fracturing on this issue.
The critics at the summit called capitalism itself suicidal. That's a pretty radical claim. Do they mean all capitalism, or a specific version of it?
They're pointing to the current model—the one built on endless extraction and consumption. They're saying the system has built-in incentives to keep burning fossil fuels because that's where the profit is. It's not just bad policy; it's structural.
How does the Iran conflict actually affect what's happening at this summit?
Oil prices go up when there's conflict in the Middle East. So even while nations are meeting to phase out fossil fuels, the market is being driven by the very geopolitical instability that climate advocates say will get worse if we don't act. It's a live demonstration of their argument.
Is this summit actually going to change anything, or is it just talk?
That's the question everyone's asking. There's a statement of intent, which is something. But intent and binding commitments are different things. The real test is whether countries actually restructure their economies, not just their rhetoric.
What would it take for the U.S. to come back to the table?
That depends on who's in power and what political winds are blowing. But structurally, it would require accepting that the transition away from fossil fuels is non-negotiable. Right now, that's not the consensus in Washington.