In the heart of Colombia's Caribbean coast, where the air is thick with the scent of mangoes and the whispers of the sea, a group of environmental activists gather under the mango tree, their voices echoing with a sense of urgency. They are not just fighting for the future of their country; they are battling against the shadows of Trumpism that loom over the upcoming presidential election. This election, they believe, will decide whether Colombia remains a beacon of environmental stewardship or succumbs to the allure of fracking, mining, and the fossil-fuelled extractivism that has plagued Latin America for too long.
Personally, I find this scenario particularly fascinating, not just because of the high stakes involved, but also because it highlights the complex interplay between politics, economics, and the environment. What makes this election so crucial is the potential shift from green to grey, from a country that has been a global leader in climate action to one that might embrace the very practices that have contributed to the climate crisis in the first place.
From my perspective, the movement led by Susana Muhamad, a former environment minister and one of the most admired socio-environmental campaigners in the world, is a testament to the power of grassroots activism. Muhamad's call to action, "We must win in the first round because the future of Colombia will be decided here, in this very complicated international context. If we don’t win, our country will be another in Latin America aligned with Donald Trump," resonates deeply. It's not just about winning an election; it's about preserving the progress Colombia has made in declaring its part of the Amazon rainforest a fossil fuel-free zone, and about protecting the country's potential as a "great power for life."
What makes this situation even more intriguing is the contrast between Colombia's efforts and the actions of neighboring countries like Bolivia and Ecuador. While Colombia has made strides in curtailing mining and protecting its environment, Bolivia has sold off tracts of the Junín River basin to a lithium mining company, and Ecuador's far-right president, Daniel Noboa, is trying to weaken indigenous land defenders and open up protected lands for mineral exploitation. This raises a deeper question: How can countries in the region balance economic development with environmental protection, especially in the face of global economic pressures and geopolitical instability?
One thing that immediately stands out is the role of the United States. The interference of US President Donald Trump, who has talked of military intervention in Colombia, adds a layer of complexity to the election. It's not just about the environmental policies of the candidates; it's about the geopolitical implications of their decisions. The world is watching, and the outcome of this election could have far-reaching consequences for the region and the global fight against climate change.
What many people don't realize is that the strength of Colombia's commitment to climate justice draws its force from grassroots activists. Despite being one of the deadliest countries for environmental defenders, Colombia's activists are not deterred. Juan David Amaya, a 19-year-old climate activist, highlights the stark contrast between the risks faced by activists in Colombia and those in Europe, where "they don’t kill you." This underscores the personal sacrifices and risks that many are willing to take to protect their environment.
The Pacto Historico government, led by President Gustavo Petro, has demonstrated a commitment to environmental leadership that has moved the phaseout of oil, gas, and coal from the margins into the center of global diplomacy. According to Tzeporah Berman, the founder and chair of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, this election will make international waves. The implications of this election reach far beyond Colombia, as the world watches to see whether this leadership continues or whether political pressure from the fossil fuel industry succeeds in pushing countries backward.
However, the Petro government's rhetoric has not always been matched by actions. While deforestation of the Amazon has slowed, it continues to rise, and illegal gold mining is widespread. Many parts of Colombia are virtually ungovernable because they are controlled by armed groups. This raises a question: How can a government that has made significant progress in political discourse and action effectively address these challenges?
Domestically, climate and environment are rarely mentioned directly in campaign debates, but they shape the context of hot-button issues such as security and health. Drug trafficking often overlaps with illegal mining and forest clearance, and shortcomings in medical provision are shown up by water contamination, rising temperatures, and floods. This highlights the interconnectedness of environmental and social issues, and the need for a holistic approach to governance.
In the end, the outcome of this election remains unclear. Polls suggest that Iván Cepeda, Petro's successor as Pacto Historico candidate, will lead in the first round but fall short of the 50% needed for an outright victory. If there is a runoff, either one of his two right-wing challengers would be the favorite. A victory by Paloma Valencia or Abelardo de la Espriella would mark a return to an extractivist model, where the country's resources are handed over to the economic interests of the world's elites without taking into account the rights of nature.
From my perspective, the election in Colombia is more than just a local event; it's a global test of commitment to climate justice and environmental stewardship. It's a moment that could either reinforce the progress made by countries like Colombia or push them back into the shadows of fossil-fuelled extractivism. As the world watches, the future of Colombia and the environment hangs in the balance.
