Climate Change

A just energy transition: A necessary and feasible path

Toward the phase-out of coal in Latin America

Santa Marta and the End of Fossil Fuels: From “Yes” to “How”

The First International Conference on the Transition Beyond Fossil Fuels has concluded in Santa Marta, Colombia. And all signs point to this initiative being here to stay.Many aspects deserve attention in this process launched by Colombia and the Netherlands. Are we witnessing the first step toward a new era?While the world is still processing what has happened and awaits the official report from the co-hosting countries in the coming months, we offer an early analysis. The OriginsThe Santa Marta conference was a response to the frustration caused by three decades of international climate negotiations—at the successive Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—failing to directly address the primary and undisputed cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels. And it was about time.Since 1992, the international community has negotiated emissions targets and market mechanisms without ever facing the elephant in the room. The words "oil," "coal," and "fuels" do not appear in the Paris Agreement. It wasn’t until 2021, at the Glasgow COP, that fossil fuels were acknowledged for the first time as causing climate change, but only a gradual reduction in coal was called for. In 2023, in Dubai, the greatest progress was made: the phrase "transitioning away from fossil fuels." And in 2025, in Belém, not even that could be maintained. But at least that frustration helped spark the Santa Marta conference, which was precisely the opposite: 57 countries representing a third of global GDP sat down to discuss how to phase out fossil fuels, not whether to do so. If it amounts to nothing more, this conference was at least a relief, a sign of sanity in a world that sometimes is truly hard to understand.And the discussion wasn't just about the "what," but also the "how," which includes justice. The official summary document circulated by the host countries discusses territorial plans for a just transition, labor restructuring with the participation of workers and communities, direct access to financing for indigenous peoples, and explicit prevention of "new forms of extractive dependency." Decentralized and community-based energy systems are mentioned as concrete examples of sustainable production.At AIDA, we believe this is a fundamental condition: without justice, there can be no viable transition. It is not merely an ethical or legal imperative; it is also a practical one. When the transition is carried out without involving communities, without safeguarding people and territories, and without a fair distribution of burdens and benefits, it generates resistance that can hinder the projects themselves. The evidence in Latin America speaks for itself.In times when humanity is going through such darkness, it is hard to be optimistic. Perhaps in this case, there are reasons to be so. A war that, paradoxically, shows the way forwardWith the war in the Middle East as a backdrop, the Santa Marta conference took on an unprecedented sense of urgency: the disruption to oil and gas supplies that it has caused puts us in a unique situation. Overnight, between 20 and 25% of the world’s oil and gas flow was cut off, wreaking havoc across the globe: skyrocketing living costs, blackouts, and faltering economies. A conflict in one specific part of the world is affecting nearly every economy on the planet.And that shifted the tone of the conversation. The transition is no longer framed solely as a climate or environmental necessity, but as a matter of security and sovereignty. The war demonstrated that relying on fossil fuels makes us tremendously vulnerable. It is time to recognize that the climate emergency and economic stability are on the same side—they are not at odds.Fatih Birol, director of the International Energy Agency, stated from Santa Marta that the war "has broken fossil fuel markets beyond repair," referring to the metaphor of the broken vase. This is not merely an environmentalist position; it is a global assessment. The Revitalization of Santa MartaIn addition to its content, the way the Santa Marta conference unfolded was also surprising and could be considered a breakthrough in climate diplomacy.The fossil fuel lobby was explicitly excluded. Countries that have historically blocked any progress were not invited. And the format of the high-level segment broke with traditional dynamics: instead of the computer-read statements that characterize COPs, ministers and delegates sat in small circles under Chatham House rules, without screens, alongside representatives of civil society and indigenous peoples under the same conditions. It didn’t happen at the end, when no one is listening anymore, but rather by setting the tone from the very beginning.Tzeporah Berman, chair of the initiative to establish the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, described the experience as "watching a dam break": "All that accumulated experience, knowledge, and passion suddenly translates into concrete steps to phase out polluting fuels." Science at the WheelAmong the concrete outcomes, the launch of the Scientific Panel for Global Energy Transition (SPGET) stands out. In the early years of climate negotiations, science led the way: COPs opened with an update on the latest scientific findings, and decisions were built upon that foundation. Over time, this approach eroded. Countries with fossil fuel interests gradually diluted scientific warnings and introduced what was openly called “false solutions” at the Santa Marta conference—such as carbon capture and offsets—to justify continued extraction. The conference set out to put science back in the driver’s seat.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) continues to produce essential reports, but it has limitations that the SPGET can address. It publishes reports every seven years, a slow process for a crisis that is accelerating. Its summaries for policymakers—which, in practice, are read by governments—are negotiated line by line with government representatives, including those from countries with fossil fuel interests, diluting the conclusions. And the IPCC is not authorized to make policy recommendations to countries. Carlos Nobre, one of the founders of the SPGET, recounted that he once sought to include information on the risks facing the Amazon in an IPCC summary, but a representative from his own country rejected it.The SPGET is completely independent. No government can veto its findings, and it will produce annual updates with concrete policy recommendations to support countries in developing roadmaps aligned with the 1.5°C goal. In terms of its structure, it is co-chaired by a Cameroonian economist (Vera Songwe), a German economist (Ottmar Edenhofer), and a Brazilian energy engineer (Gilberto Jannuzzi). If it works as promised, it could become the scientific arm that the transition needs. Continuity and Structure: A Commitment to the FutureThe Santa Marta conference was not a one-off event, but rather the start of a structured process. To begin with, a second conference has already been confirmed for 2027, co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland, cementing the commitment to North-South collaboration. With this in mind, three permanent working groups have been established that will continue their work until the Tuvalu conference.The first line of work will support countries in developing national transition roadmaps aligned with their climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. There are concrete examples: France presented its own roadmap to phase out fossil fuels from its energy mix by 2050—the first proposal of its kind submitted by a developed country. But the plan has been criticized by civil society. It does not address the remediation of territories damaged by decades of extraction, nor does it account for the new pressures that its electrification model could exert on the Global South, from which the vast majority of the minerals needed for batteries, grids, and renewable energy come.Colombia, for its part, presented its own plan at the academic pre-conference, with data showing that the transition would become economically viable starting in 2040.Unlike the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), these roadmaps address fossil fuel production. The NDCs focus on reducing emissions, but they do not commit to closing coal mines or power plants or ending tenders for fossil fuel extraction. However, NDCs also have something that roadmaps lack: legal standing, as they are part of the Paris Agreement. Thus, the promise lies in integrating roadmaps into NDCs, which would result in concrete and binding transition commitments. But, as the French case shows, if the roadmaps do not incorporate the remediation of affected territories or the supply chains that electrification demands, there is a risk of ending up with binding commitments that reinforce an unequal transition rather than correcting it.The second ongoing line of work will address financial barriers—debt, fossil fuel subsidies, and access to capital—with support from IISD, a research center specializing in subsidy policies and climate finance. And the third will seek ways to decarbonize international trade by connecting fossil fuel-producing and -consuming countries so they can work together on the transition, with support from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).In addition, there is the Scientific Panel (SPGET), which will provide the technical foundation for the entire process, and a permanent coordination group between the current co-hosts (Colombia and the Netherlands) and the future co-hosts (Tuvalu and Ireland) to ensure continuity. Everything that emerges from these lines of work will inform the official UN climate negotiations, including COP31, scheduled for November of this year in Turkey.Although there are no binding agreements to show for it, we already have concrete working mechanisms in place among the countries committed to moving forward, including supporting institutions, clear mandates, a second conference to review progress, and a commitment to influence official UN negotiations. It’s a good start, with a structure that sustains itself. What Remains to Be ResolvedThere is one issue that cuts across all of the above: timelines and urgency. We have only just begun discussing roadmaps to phase out fossil fuels, but their implementation should have begun 40 years ago. That delay should set the tone for everything that lies ahead.One area where the Santa Marta conference fell particularly short is financing. The issue—debt, fiscal space, subsidies, and the international financial architecture—was discussed at length, but this failed to translate into clear signals. For a process aimed at coordinating the global phase-out of fossil fuels, the absence of a financial roadmap is a serious limitation.This is nothing new, nor is it a matter of charity. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, enshrined in the UNFCCC itself, establishes that the countries that contributed most to the climate crisis must support those that contributed least and are suffering the most. On this basis, climate finance targets have been set, currently amounting to USD 300 billion annually by 2035, as agreed at COP29. But most of that financing comes in the form of loans, which means that countries in the Global South are taking on debt to solve a problem they did not create. The North’s climate debt to the South paradoxically becomes the South’s financial debt to the North. Thus, a just transition is not possible. And the Santa Marta conference failed to make any progress on this issue.Another structural barrier that was addressed in Santa Marta but still requires further work is the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows fossil fuel corporations to sue governments for adopting climate measures. At least $100 billion in compensation has been awarded to companies through international arbitration tribunals. ISDS was included in the official summary of the Santa Marta conference, but with lukewarm language. As long as governments can be sued for billions for closing a coal mine, the transition will not move forward—not for lack of will, but out of fear of lawsuits.Nor was the debate over natural gas as a "transition" fuel resolved. The official document acknowledges that "there were differing perspectives regarding the role of transition fuels and technologies"—a step forward achieved thanks to pressure from civil society, given the number of countries that openly promote gas as a solution. But gas is a fossil fuel, and methane leaks from it exacerbate global warming. Presenting it as a "transition" fuel only deepens dependence and delays the transition.Finally, an analysis from Latin America reveals a significant practical inconsistency: the gap between what countries say and what they do. The Mexican government actively participated in the conference while also establishing a committee to assess the viability of "sustainable" fracking. The Brazilian government, guardian of the Amazon, continues to auction off oil wells. And Colombia, host of the conference, announced that it seeks to expand the extractive frontier in the Caribbean Sea. It seems that different branches of the same government are acting with entirely contradictory objectives. The problem is that this undermines the credibility of the process, which is crucial for a coalition such as the one being sought.That said, perhaps it was too much to expect that the first conference of its kind—which sought and succeeded in laying the groundwork for a new process—would provide all the answers to the crisis of our times. The Santa Marta conference served to identify the problems, establish lines of action, and build trust. The next step cannot wait much longer. By the 2027 conference in Tuvalu, there should be no unresolved issues left, especially regarding financing. A plan without financing, no matter how good or well thought out it may be, cannot get off the ground. From a Coal Port to a Sinking Island The conference in Santa Marta, a major coal port in Colombia, has come to a close, and the next stop is Tuvalu, a small Pacific island nation facing an existential threat from rising sea levels. The route is symbolic: from a country that exports coal to one that is disappearing due to the global warming caused by burning that very coal. That these two nations are now working together to lay the groundwork for a change in course is precisely what we need: to acknowledge the past and look to the future with solidarity.The First International Conference on the Transition Beyond Fossil Fuels could go down in history as the cornerstone of a new era. Let’s keep building on this foundation. 

Let's talk about project closure and responsible exit

No mining, fossil fuel extraction or power generation project lasts forever. Their useful life is determined by internal factors, such as the quantity of resource reserves, and external factors, such as declining demand or financial problems.But no matter how long a project lasts or how it is affected, its promoters—whether public or private—must provide for a closure and responsible exit process that considers the natural environment and affected communities, and that is desired and promoted by all stakeholders.This issue is even more relevant in the context of actions needed to address the climate crisis, largely related to the energy transition, which generally implies the substitution of fossil fuel extraction and use projects, as well as the promotion of low-emission renewable energies associated with mineral extraction. In both scenarios, closure and exit issues are of great importance.In the first, it is necessary to incorporate concrete and enforceable commitments to close down and move on from existing projects. In the second, these requirements should be built in from the planning and pre-feasibility stages and should also be included in the environmental impact assessments and subsequent stages.In all projects, the role of the promoters is essential. Likewise, the obligation of the state to supervise and monitor is of great importance in order to protect and guarantee the rights of those who may be affected. In some cases, the responsible exit also includes other key actors that are part of the value and supply chains of the projects: investors, financiers, insurers, suppliers, distributors and buyers, among others.Therefore, the discussion of project closure and responsible exit is essential to environmental protection and climate management in Latin America.What do we mean by project closure and exit?All mining and energy projects have different phases in their life cycle: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and control, closure, and post-closure. In turn, they have supply and value chains that, as we have said, involve actors from different sectors.In this context, closure refers to the stage of a project in which it ceases to operate and is terminated. Exit, on the other hand, refers to the decision and subsequent process in which the different actors in the project's value and supply chain, in their own roles, completely disengage from the project.  What does it mean for a closing and exit process to be responsible?There is currently no consensus on the definition and scope of responsible exit and fair project closure processes. Sometimes these terms are used indiscriminately, which can lead to confusion about the responsibilities of the actors involved and the scope of the processes to be carried out. However, there are elements that allow these concepts to be explained precisely:Responsible and fair project closure is a planned, upfront process that should be considered from the earliest stages of a project and continually updated as the project evolves. Responsible closure ensures a planned, coordinated and participatory cessation of activities and dismantling, and guarantees the right to a healthy environment.The planning and development of a closure plan should focus on risk management as well as impact prevention and mitigation. This will ensure a responsible closure in which the affected areas can be readapted and made safe for both nature and communities, while allowing the ecosystems to recover their functions.The general obligation of the project developer is to properly identify the impacts that the project may cause and to adequately and timely comply with the measures approved by the State in its environmental management instruments.The main obligation of the State (in addition to its general regulatory duty) is to supervise and monitor the project to verify compliance with the developer's obligations and to prevent environmental and/or social damage.The role of other actors in the value and supply chain is to act with due diligence, to use their influence to encourage the promoter to comply with its obligations and, in the event of non-compliance, to act within their role and influence to ensure that the necessary corrective measures are taken.Responsible and fair exit refers to the process undertaken by the various actors in the value and supply chain when they decide to fully divest from a project, considering the responsibilities inherent in their role, which include fulfilling their obligations with respect to human rights and due diligence.  In Latin America, there has been important progress in regulating aspects related to the permitting, commissioning and implementation of mining and energy projects. However, experience has shown that there are significant challenges in ensuring that the closure and exit processes are responsible for the ecosystems and communities involved.To learn more about this issue, see our report Closure and Responsible Exit. A requirement for environmental and climate justice in Latin America (in Spanish).In the following video, we explain the main findings of the report, which documents and analyzes cases in several countries across the continent:  

Closure and Responsible Exit

A requirement for environmental and climate justice in Latin America No natural resource (material or energy) extraction project lasts forever. Its useful life is subject to many variables, including endogenous factors -such as the amount of resource reserves or the extraction rate- and exogenous factors -such as decisions to address the climate crisis, the decrease in demand, financial problems, etc.- that condition the moment in which the project must close or the moment in which an actor in its value and supply chain must leave. Regardless of the length of the project's useful life or how it may be affected, a responsible closure process with the natural environment and society must be contemplated, which must be desired and promoted by all the stakeholders involved.This issue is even more relevant in the context of the climate crisis we are experiencing, which makes it urgent to implement measures to manage it in the short, medium and long term. Many of the actions required to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation targets are related to energy transition, which implies, in general terms, at least two things: 1) the substitution of fossil fuel extraction and use projects and 2) the promotion of low-emission renewable energies, which are associated with mineral extraction. In both scenarios, closure and exit issues are of great importance.In both extraction and generation projects, the role of their promoters, whether public or private, is essential. Likewise, the obligation of supervision and oversight of the States is very important for the protection and guarantee of the rights of those who may be affected. On occasions, the responsibility of the exit includes other key actors that are part of the value and supply chains of the projects: investors, insurers, distributors and buyers, among others.In Latin America, there have been important advances in regulating aspects related to the authorization, start-up and implementation of mining and energy projects. In these phases, environmental principles such as prevention and precaution, as well as rights such as prior consultation and free, prior and informed consent, and access rights, have played a crucial role in determining the viability and progress of projects, as well as in protecting and guaranteeing the rights of communities in the region. However, experience has shown that there are significant challenges for the closure and exit processes to be responsible with the ecosystems and communities involved. Indeed, the lack of a closure process, as well as the lack of clarity about the obligations surrounding the social transition processes and overcoming the conditions of economic dependence, are complex obstacles that can exacerbate environmental and social impacts.   This report arises from the idea of proposing approaches based on law and science to address the closure and responsible exit of projects. To this end, we at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), in the period 2022-2024, interviewed various stakeholders and systematized 12 cases that exemplify the problematic situation of multiple fossil fuel extraction, mineral and power generation projects, which are in the closure phase or in exit processes in different countries of the region. These cases highlight the current challenges and legal, technical and administrative gaps regarding closure and exit in specific contexts.With this publication, we seek to provide answers to the following questions: what is meant by project closure and exit, what is the basis for closure and exit obligations under international law, what should closure and exit look like, who should be involved in these processes, and how should the social, environmental, economic and human rights challenges and impacts that arise from them be addressed? Read and download the report 

International Principles for Responsible Divestment from Fossil Fuels

Against the backdrop of an ever-worsening climate emergency, companies must rapidly withdraw from the extraction of coal, oil, and gas as well as associated fossil energy industries and ancillary facilities for transport, storage, refining, and processing. The urgent need to quit fossil fuels, however, does not justify irresponsible divestment by fossil energy companies. Rapid closure and responsible closure of the fossil fuel industry are not mutually incompatible agendas. Both are vital to achieve climate and environmental justice and a just energy transition.In the absence of responsible divestment policies and practices, communities are left facing legacy pollution, as well as the long-term health risks that come from abandoned infrastructure that is not properly decommissioned and a lack of proper ecosystem restoration. Many communities also confront significant loss of livelihoods and financial hardship as the fossil fuel industry divests with no regard for the local economic consequences, particularly where economic dependencies have been built up over time.Rooted in the lived experiences and demands of communities and workers affected by fossil fuel activities around the world, and in line with existing international obligations of states and international frameworks for corporate accountability, including the responsibility to respect human rights, these International Principles for Responsible Divestment from Fossil Fuels set out a positive agenda that all companies and states must follow to advance a just transition. They are designed to shift the power imbalance currently favouring powerful companies and states in order to ensure that affected communities and workers have agency and control over how fossil fuel divestment occurs. They are intended to be followed by companies and made obligatory by the states.   Read and download the document

Coal, a dirty and obsolete fuel

Historically, coal has been identified as an important source of non-renewable energy. It was the fuel that powered the Industrial Revolution, transforming the world's production methods, and for a long time, it was the main fuel for transportation, electricity generation, and heating.But it is time to leave that era behind. Today, we know that coal is the fossil fuel that generates the highest carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, one of the main greenhouse gases driving global warming, with effects such as melting glaciers and rising sea levels.In addition to climate and environmental arguments, there are economic, political, and human rights reasons to end the extraction and burning of this fuel.To better understand why coal is so polluting and what its impacts are on the environment and health, we have taken a closer look. Getting to know coalCoal is a rock formed from plant remains that were buried in layers of sediment and did not decompose due to the absence of oxygen.Over millions of years, through geological processes, this organic matter was exposed to high temperatures and pressures. The result was a material composed mainly of carbon.The energy in coal is released during combustion. When burned, coal generates heat. In thermoelectric plants, this heat is used to generate steam and produce electricity.When coal is burned to produce heat or electricity, it releases large amounts of carbon dioxide and, in smaller amounts, methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.All these gases harm the environment and human health. Why is it so polluting?Coal has an impact from the moment it is extracted, as open-pit coal mining involves excavating and removing large amounts of earth to reach the coal-rich layers.This means destroying landscapes, razing vegetation and animals, and even causing the forced displacement of populations.Coal mining also pollutes water and soil at extraction sites, both through mining the mineral and through the waste it generates.But the chain of impacts does not end there. During coal combustion, large amounts of CO2 are generated, the main gas responsible for global warming.At the same time, other gases are released during its extraction, handling, and combustion:Methane, which has a global warming potential up to 30 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.Nitrous oxide, whose global warming potential over a 100-year period is up to 273, and whose lifetime in the atmosphere extends up to 109 years. In addition to greenhouse gases, coal combustion also releases other pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and black carbon (soot), which affect air quality and have indirect effects on the climate, including altering precipitation patterns and contributing to acid rain. What damage does it cause to health?Despite the known environmental and health impacts of coal, for many economies it remains a reliable and cheap energy source.Following the decline in coal consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, global demand for coal has grown by more than 1.2 billion tons since 2020, according to the International Energy Agency's Coal 2024 analysis.Despite increased electricity generation from renewable sources, major consumers such as China and India continue to rely on coal.In Latin America, the future of coal is uncertain. On the one hand, the region continues to extract coal for export or for burning to generate energy. The most emblematic case is Colombia, the world's fifth-largest coal exporter.On the other hand, there are efforts towards decarbonization, such as in Chile, where coal-fired power generation has caused serious health and environmental impacts in so-called “sacrifice zones.”The government proposed a plan to have the entire National Electric System generate 100% clean energy by 2050. However, the recent accelerated burning of surplus coal at a thermoelectric plant, as part of its closure process, has put the spotlight on how this decarbonization is being carried out.As a coal-producing and consuming region, Latin America has a share of responsibility in global efforts to curb coal mining and burning and instead promote energy systems based on non-conventional renewable sources that are sustainable over time and respectful of the environment and people.Ending the coal era is possible. It is time to do so. 

The importance of the “how” in the energy transition

Of the global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels, one of the main causes of the climate crisis, nearly half come from coal use.  Latin America is no stranger to the problem because it participates in both coal burning and the extraction of the mineral, which, after export, is used as a fossil fuel source in other parts of the world.In this context, the closure of coal-fired power plants—as is happening in Chile—is both great news and an opportunity to steer the energy transition toward justice.But in a just energy transition, the "how" matters: every step toward defossilization must ensure energy systems based on non-conventional renewable sources, respect for the environment and human rights, and responsible closure and exit processes.    Thus, the Chilean case, which we explain below, is an important example of why the region needs to implement responsible decarbonization.     When decarbonization causes more pollutionIn early 2024, AES Andes SA closed the Norgener thermoelectric power plant in Tocopilla, a coastal city in northern Chile.    As part of the closure process, the company rapidly burned the 94,000 tons of coal it had stored at the plant, affecting a city already saturated with pollution and publicly recognized as an environmental sacrifice zone.The population of Tocopilla was exposed to potential health effects, including impacts on the respiratory system, increased risk of heart attacks, and—in children—perinatal disorders, developmental disorders, and impaired lung function, among others.The forced burning of coal was authorized by the National Electricity Coordinator (CNE)—the agency responsible for managing the various energy sources that enter the national electricity system—and displaced the use of renewable energy.    To stop the burning, AIDA, Greenpeace, and Chile Sustentable, together with local communities, filed an appeal with the Santiago Court of Appeals to halt it, but the court's decision came after the coal had already been burned. Furthermore, the court ruled that the case should be reviewed by a specialized court in a more lengthy proceeding. A bad precedent for Chile and for the continentBy authorizing the burning of the remaining coal from the Norgener thermoelectric plant, the National Electricity Coordinator made an exception to the law governing the order of energy dispatch. Shortly thereafter, in September 2024, the agency issued an internal procedure to order the early closure of power plants.  Although it is an attempt to streamline the closure process, the measure opens the door for other companies with coal-fired power plants in the process of closing to replicate what happened at Norgener: burn their remaining coal under the argument of “emptying stock” and generate energy that enters the national electricity system with priority, once again displacing energy from renewable sources.  In Chile, the National Electricity Coordinator decides which unit dispatches its energy to the system at any given time based on a criterion of increasing economic merit, according to which the energy with the lowest variable cost enters first. However, the internal procedure stipulates—without sufficient regulatory backing—that the agency may authorize dispatching energy outside economic order so that coal-fired power plants consume their remaining fuel before closing.    In response, AIDA, Greenpeace, Chile Sustentable, and MUZOSARE (Women in Sacrifice Zones in Resistance) filed a complaint on February 6, 2026, with the Superintendency of Electricity and Fuels against the Coordinator and his advisors for approving and implementing the measure.  The complaint represents an opportunity to do things right: for the sector's regulatory body to ensure that the planning for the closure of thermoelectric power plants does not end up rewarding poor coal inventory management at the expense of communities' health and a just energy transition. What the energy transition needsIn 2019, the Chilean government committed to closing all coal-fired power plants in the country by 2040. Since that public announcement, the timeline has been accelerated. But the urgency of decarbonization should not be used to favor companies operating thermoelectric plants or to harm communities near polluting industries.    Doing so weakens Chile's climate leadership and sets a bad example for any decarbonization process in the region.    In a just energy transition, companies along the entire coal and other fossil fuel supply chain have an obligation to ensure the responsible closure and exit of their operations.    The energy transition is not merely a change in technologies; it is an opportunity to rethink energy and development models and to correct injustices. This requires clear and appropriate rules that promote energy system security, competition, and a healthy environment. 

5 key facts about “rare” earth elements

In recent weeks, you have probably read or heard the term "rare" earth elementsContrary to what their name suggests, they are more common in everyday life than you might think. In fact, many of the technological innovations we use daily would not be possible without them.So why are they being talked about so much right now?Because today, "rare" earth elements and other minerals considered "critical" are at the center of disputes over their control, given their usefulness in the manufacture of technologies for the energy transition and for the military industry.But aside from the geopolitical tensions surrounding the issue, there are basic questions that arise when we hear this term, which is why we answer them here.By understanding where the raw materials behind the technologies we use come from, we can also rethink the kind of future we want. What are "rare" earth elements?There are 17 metallic elements, similar in their geochemical properties, used in many of today's technologies, from cell phones to electric cars.They include the 15 lanthanides of the periodic table of chemical elements—lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, and lutetium—as well as scandium and yttrium.Promethium is usually excluded from this group because under normal conditions its half-life is short. Are they really rare?Contrary to what one might think, they are not "rare" in abundance, but rather in concentration. In other words, deposits with high concentrations are rare, making their exploitation and processing difficult. As a result, most of the world's supply comes from a few sources.But when they were discovered (in the 18th and 19th centuries), they were less well known than other elements.  The most abundant "rare" earth elements are similar in concentration in the Earth's crust to common industrial metals (chromium, nickel, copper, zinc, molybdenum, tin, tungsten, or lead). Even the two least abundant rare earth elements (thulium and lutetium) are almost 200 times more common than gold. What are "rare" earth elements used for?They have unusual fluorescent, magnetic, and conductive properties, making them attractive for a wide range of applications.They are present in everyday objects such as smartphones, screens, and LED lights.In renewable energy, they are used to manufacture wind turbines and electric cars.Its most specialized uses include medical devices and military weapons. Where are they?They exist in various parts of the world, but just because a country has reserves does not mean that it exploits them. The countries with the largest reserves are:China: 44 million tons.Brazil: 21 million tons.India: 6.9 million tons.Australia: 5.7 million tons.Russia: 3.8 million tons.Vietnam: 3.5 million tons.United States: 1.9 million tons.Greenland: 1.5 million tons.In Latin America, besides Brazil, other countries where "rare" earth elements have been identified are Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Why is there so much talk about them now?The energy transition is intensifying competition for access to raw materials—including rare earth elements—needed for renewable energy technologies.To promote and facilitate access to these and other resources, some countries and international organizations refer to them as "critical."But they are not only important for renewable energy. "Rare" earth elements are also key to the military industry.Because global supply is concentrated in a few sources, there is growing interest among some countries in the Global North in controlling access to these resources. What are the impacts of their exploitation?The extraction of "rare" earth elements is mainly carried out in open-pit mines, which have serious environmental and social impacts:Water, air, and soil pollution.Heavy use of water and toxic chemicals.Radioactive waste.Loss of biodiversity.Health risks.Forced displacement of communities.Increased risk of economic inequality. "Rare" earth elements and other minerals considered "critical" are at the center of current debates over who controls their exploitation and production.As these are natural resources, often found in indigenous territories and critical ecosystems, a more urgent discussion is what kind of progress we want: one that encourages the excessive exploitation of resources, or one that respects the environment and people? If you would like to learn more about this topic, here are the links to the sources we consulted:- USGS, Rare Earths Statistics and Information: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/rare-earths-statistics-and-inform… - USGS, "Fact Sheet: Rare Earth Elements-Critical Resources for High Technology": https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs087-02/  - Science History Institute, History and Future of Rare Earth Elements: https://www.sciencehistory.org/education/classroom-activities/role-playing-games/case-of-rare-earth…  - USGS, "The Rare Earth Elements-Vital to Modern Technologies and Lifestyles": https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2014/3078/pdf/fs2014-3078.pdf - Institute for Environmental Research and Education, "What Impacts Does Mining Rare Earth Elements Have?": https://iere.org/what-impact-does-mining-rare-earth-elements-have/#environmental_impact_studies- Latin America’s opportunity in critical mineralsfor the clean energy transition: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/latin-americas-opportunity-in-critical-minerals-for-the-clean-ener…- U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2025 : https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2025/mcs2025-rare-earths.pdf pg 145 

10 environmental news stories to end 2025 on a hopeful note

We are nearing the end of a complex year, and taking stock seems daunting. Multilateralism is faltering as environmental crises worsen and urgently demand decisive action.In such turbulent times, it is worth taking stock of what we, as humanity, have achieved in building a more just and sustainable world for all who inhabit it.2025 will be remembered as the year when an underwater expedition thrilled us in real time, when we celebrated the implementation of agreements to protect life in the ocean, and when international court rulings transformed the pursuit of justice to protect people and the environment from the climate emergency.These are some of the environmental victories that this year has left us with, and they deserve to be celebrated, just as we honor the fire that shines in the darkness. Because even with small lights, we can continue to illuminate a path of hope toward environmental and climate justice. 1. International courts issued landmark decisions for climate justiceThe Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice released their respective advisory opinions on the climate emergency. Both decisions clarified the obligations of states to protect the rights of people and nature in the face of the climate crisis.These decisions are part of an unprecedented global movement for climate justice, which also includes the advisory opinion issued in 2024 by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and similar future decisions, such as the one expected from the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.Learn More: Dialogue Earth 2. Climate litigation exceeded 3,000 cases worldwideClimate litigation reached 3,099 cases worldwide, according to a report by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the United Nations Environment Program. Although climate litigation in countries in the global south is still in the minority (9.8% of the total documented), it has grown steadily. Brazil stands out as the third country with the most cases in the world (135), and other Latin American countries (Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and Chile) are among the top 15 with the most cases reported.This growth demonstrates the increasing use of strategic litigation to promote concrete action on the causes and consequences of the climate crisis.Learn More: Sabin Center for Climate Change Law 3. Colombia declared its part of the Amazon free from oil and large-scale mining activitiesDuring the 30th UN Climate Change Conference (COP30), Colombia declared the entire Colombian Amazon region a zone free from oil and large-scale mining activities, announcing it as a "reserve zone for renewable natural resources."The decision implies an unprecedented limitation on the expansion of mining and hydrocarbon activities in more than 48 million hectares, equivalent to 7% of the entire Amazon region. It is also a call to other Amazonian countries to follow suit.Learn More: InfoAmazonia 4. Countries create a global mechanism to promote a just energy transitionAn important step forward at COP30 was the adoption of the Belém Action Mechanism, created within the framework of the Just Transition Work Program.The mechanism will function as a coordinating space to centralize global initiatives, offer technical assistance, and strengthen international cooperation. It is an achievement driven by civil society to promote ambitious climate action and a transition that does not repeat the mistakes of the fossil fuel era.Learn More: AIDA and The Climate Reality Project América Latina 5. An underwater expedition in Argentina marked a scientific and technological milestoneThe expedition "Underwater Odel Plata Canyon: Talud Continental IV," led by scientists from Argentina's National Scientific and Technical Research Council, in collaboration with the Schmidt Ocean Institute, explored the deep ocean in the Mar del Plata submarine canyon for 21 days, while broadcasting live on YouTube and Twitch.The result: 40 new marine species and an unexpected diversity of cold-water corals were discovered, findings that were seen and celebrated in real time by millions of people.Learn More: CONICET 6. The High Seas Treaty will finally enter into forceIn a process that took more than two decades, the High Seas Treaty this year reached the 60 ratifications needed to trigger its entry into force, which will occur on January 17, 2026. This binding agreement allows for the protection of the part of the ocean outside of national boundaries, almost half of the planet, through the creation of marine protected areas in international waters and the conduct of environmental impact assessments of planned human activities on the high seas.  This is a historic milestone for the protection of the ocean and the well-being of millions of people in Latin America and around the world.Learn More: AIDA 7. Implementation begins on agreement ending harmful fisheries subsidiesThe World Trade Organization's Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies came into force in September this year. It is the first multilateral trade treaty to prioritize environmental sustainability, as well as a milestone in ensuring food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities.The agreement prohibits government subsidies that promote illegal fishing and the depletion of overexploited stocks.Learn More: WTO 8. Green sea turtles are no longer considered an endangered speciesAfter decades of decline, the population of green sea turtles is recovering. The International Union for Conservation of Nature no longer considers them endangered and has reclassified them as a "species of least concern."This sea turtle population has increased thanks to decades of conservation work to protect nesting areas, reduce capture, and prevent bycatch. AIDA was part of these efforts, protecting them in the 1990s from hunting—which was legal at the time—in Costa Rica.Learn More: AIDA and IUCN Red List 9. Protection of key ecosystems around the world, including the Galapagos, is growingUNESCO added 26 new biosphere reserves in 21 countries, the highest number in 20 years, and approved the expansion of 60,000 square kilometers in the Galapagos Biosphere Reserve in Ecuador to incorporate the Hermandad Marine Reserve.  This will protect the area where dozens of marine species, many of them protected, transit, and which is considered one of the most diverse ocean corridors in the world.Learn More: LaderaSur and Government of Ecuador 10. Deforestation decreased in Afro-descendant territories in Latin AmericaAfro-descendant communities in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Suriname have significantly reduced their deforestation rates, according to new research from Conservation International.The study showed that Afro-descendant communities are critical to environmental conservation, as 56% of their lands are located in the 5% of the world with the highest biodiversity.Learn More: Conservation International