SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
netherlands
What the First Conference on Transitioning Away From Fossil Fuels Must Achieve
Civil society will push states to act in line with their existing legal obligations to phase out all fossil fuels—including by advancing a Fossil Fuel Treaty that can govern a just and rights-based transition.
Apr 23, 2026
Governments and climate leaders gather this month in Santa Marta, Colombia for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels. This landmark conference is happening as millions suffer from devastating and unlawful wars, and the global economy reels from oil price shocks. The task for those attending is clear: not to debate whether to phase out fossil fuels but to determine how to do it—rapidly, fairly, and in line with science and the law.
Co-hosted by the governments of Colombia and the Netherlands (April 24–29), the Santa Marta conference will gather more than 50 countries from around the world to work on implementing a managed, financed, and equitable fossil fuel phaseout. That the gathering is happening is itself progress, particularly after decades of obstruction at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where a handful of countries have held climate action hostage and made fossil fuels taboo.
The enthusiasm the conference has generated—and the written submissions it has elicited on strategies to overcome economic dependence on oil, gas, and coal; transform supply and demand; and advance international cooperation and diplomacy—signals a turning point. The momentum for coordinated global action to move away from fossil fuels is unstoppable.
This conference could not come at a more crucial time, as the escalating climate crisis, mounting geopolitical turmoil, and violent conflicts deepen human suffering, upend economies, and lay bare why continued dependence on fossil fuels is a colossal vulnerability. It has never been more urgent to leave behind oil, gas, and coal than it is today.
Phasing out oil, gas, and coal is not just a scientific necessity and a legal obligation, it’s also an opportunity to break free from a destructive system.
The Center for International Environmental Law, along with other civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples, and frontline communities, will be present in Santa Marta. We will push states to act in line with their existing legal obligations to phase out all fossil fuels—including by advancing a Fossil Fuel Treaty that can govern a just and rights-based transition.
The Duty to Phase Out Fossil Fuels
Less than a year ago, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarified that states have obligations under multiple sources of international law to prevent climate harm and protect the climate system. The court also affirmed that states have a duty to cooperate—effectively and in good faith—toward that end. Meeting these obligations requires coordinated action to address the primary driver of climate change: fossil fuels.
The implications are clear. States must cooperate to tackle the policies, norms, and practices that lock in fossil fuel production, facilitate expansion, delay phaseout, and sustain the fossil economy. This includes eliminating mechanisms like Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) that allow fossil fuel companies to demand compensation when governments take climate action, potentially making it prohibitive for countries to comply with their phaseout obligations. The law requires ending new fossil fuel licensing and public subsidies; halting the buildout of oil and gas—especially in the ocean; tackling petrochemicals used for products like plastics and ammonia; and rejecting dangerous distractions like carbon capture, offsets, and geoengineering, which only prolong the fossil fuel era and introduce new risks.
Why Santa Marta Must Advance a Pathway for a Fossil Fuel Treaty
A legally binding international agreement focused on fossil fuel supply—a Fossil Fuel Treaty—would provide a framework for countries to cooperate effectively on the phaseout of oil, gas, and coal, and manage the transition in a just and equitable way. In doing so, it would fill a governance gap on fossil fuels, while complementing and supporting existing multilateral processes under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. These processes focus largely on climate action at the national level, including through nationally determined contributions (NDCs) for emissions reduction and adaptation, with support and finance based on historical responsibility and equity.
The Santa Marta conference offers a critical opportunity to build support for the negotiation of a Fossil Fuel Treaty that facilitates reciprocal and collective state action toward a fossil-free future. A treaty would enable countries to align timelines, shape how phaseout unfolds, remove barriers to the transition, and reduce the costs while increasing the benefits of leaving oil, gas, and coal behind.
What a Credible Transition Requires
As States gather in Santa Marta, several issues must be on the table:
Eliminating Barriers to Phase Out
States can’t comply with their legal duties to phase out fossil fuels if they risk being sued by fossil fuel investors for enormous sums of money. Yet, ISDS allows just that, making it prohibitively costly for states to curb fossil fuel production, consumption, licensing, and subsidies as science demands and the law requires. At Santa Marta, we will look for states to recognize ISDS as a structural barrier to phaseout and take steps to dismantle it.
Speculative, ineffective, and harmful responses to climate change, such as carbon capture, offsets, and geoengineering, are additional barriers that delay phaseout and divert resources from proven climate solutions. These dangerous technologies perpetuate the myth that we can “manage” emissions rather than phase fossil fuels out. Instead of subsidizing such approaches, public funds should be directed toward measures that prevent further climate harm by rooting out its source: fossil fuel production and use. Governments must also support strict limits on geoengineering and advance a global non-use agreement.
Moving Toward a Fossil-Free Ocean
The fossil fuel industry is increasingly turning to the ocean as a new frontier for oil and gas development, despite the legal and scientific imperative to phase out fossil fuels. Halting the expansion of offshore oil and gas—starting with an end to new licensing—is a necessary step for states to meet their legal obligations to prevent marine pollution and climate harm, as clarified by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the ICJ.
Marine health is critical to ecological integrity, human rights, and climate stability. Protecting the ocean is vital for all life that depends on it. There can be no fossil-free future without a fossil-free ocean.
Cutting the Industry’s Lifeline
Santa Marta needs to address drivers of fossil fuel supply and demand beyond energy—especially petrochemicals like those used in plastics and ammonia. As demand for fossil fuels declines in the energy and transport sectors, the fossil fuel industry is increasingly relying on petrochemicals to sustain growth. A credible transition requires that states halt petrochemical expansion—especially new plastics and ammonia infrastructure.
Financing the Transition
A just transition away from fossil fuels must be funded by those most responsible for the climate crisis. This means that the largest cumulative polluters act first and fastest to phase out fossil fuels, as well as provide adequate finance and support to low income countries, including debt relief, reparations, and contributions to address mounting loss and damage from climate change. Adequate funds are available if they are just allocated appropriately. Ending the subsidies that prop up the fossil economy, including financing and tax breaks for fossil fuel production and speculative technologies, and defunding militarization and war, would free up billions if not trillions in public finance that could be put toward a just transition.
Delivering a Just, Rights-Based Transition
To chart the path to a livable, fossil-free future for all, the discussions in Santa Marta must be grounded in the law, rooted in human rights, and responsive to demands for justice and accountability. That requires centering communities, honoring the leadership and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples, and listening to those on the frontlines of the climate crisis and the forefront of real climate solutions. The rapid and equitable transition away from fossil fuels will not be dictated from on high or administered top-down. To achieve transformational change, we must transform the way we make policy and take action, ensuring meaningful participation by those whose lives and livelihoods, histories, and futures are on the line.
Phasing out oil, gas, and coal is not just a scientific necessity and a legal obligation, it’s also an opportunity to break free from a destructive system. On the journey to a fossil-free future, Santa Marta can be a turning point where a "coalition of doers" commits to a dedicated forum for coordinated action on fossil fuel phaseout, including a follow-on conference to begin negotiating a Fossil Fuel Treaty. Countries must cooperate effectively to leave oil, gas, and coal behind so that, together, we can walk the path ahead.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dutch Voters Have 'Turned the Page,' Center-Left Leader Says as Far Right Rebuked in Elections
"We’ve shown not only to the Netherlands, but also to the world that it is possible to beat populist and extreme-right movements," said Rob Jetten.
Oct 30, 2025
The leader of the Netherlands' center-left Democrats 66 Party hailed the results of Wednesday's snap parliamentary elections as proof that "millions of Dutch people have turned a page and said goodbye to the politics of negativity," with the far-right Party for Freedom set to lose 11 seats and its vehemently anti-migration leader, Geerts Wilders, appearing to have no path to a majority.
"We’ve shown not only to the Netherlands, but also to the world that it is possible to beat populist and extreme-right movements," D66 Leader Rob Jetten, who is now likely to become the Netherlands' youngest and first openly gay prime minister.
Full election results may not be known for weeks, but the Dutch news outlet NOS reported Thursday morning that the D66 was in the lead by 15,122 votes, putting Jetten in a likely position to lead talks on forming a new coalition government.
Both D66 and the Party for Freedom (PVV) were projected to win 26 seats in Parliament's 150-seat lower house.
The results represented a precipitous fall from power for PVV, which stunned observers in 2023 with its first-place finish in that year's elections, capturing 37 seats.
Wilders has led the far-right party for nearly two decades, and his surprise victory two years ago earned him the nickname the "Dutch Donald Trump" as he promoted his virulently Islamophobic rhetoric and pushed to eliminate all migration from Muslim-majority countries, end asylum, and revoke Dutch citizenship from people with dual passports.
He also called to revoke climate regulations and pull the Netherlands out of the European Union, but as the New York Times reported in an analysis of the election, Wilders "could not rally the support to turn those extreme stances into reality."
In June, Wilders—whose chants against Moroccan immigrants at a rally in The Hague led to him being convicted of inciting discrimination in 2016—withdrew his party from the governing coalition after failing to get support for his extreme anti-migration proposals.
The PVV's campaign ahead of the parliamentary elections promised those same policies and led other major parties to pledge that they would refuse to form a new coalition with Wilders.
René Hendriks, an election volunteer in the Hague, told the Times that "the Netherlands is a bit fed up" with PVV's leadership.
Jetten's party focused heavily on affordable housing, proposing the construction of 10 new cities to help solve the country's chronic housing shortage. D66 also called for "making smart use of [artificial intelligence] and digital progress" to pave the way for a four-day workweek, ending fossil fuel subsidies, the passage of an Anti-Discrimination Act, and “well-thought-out and effective policies, rather than using strong language" on migration.
D66 did shift to the right on some migration policies, however, backing a proposal requiring refugees to submit their asylum applications outside of Europe.
But Kristof Jacobs, a political scientist at Radboud University, told the Times that the election results suggest the far right in Europe may not be poised to seize power as it campaigns on anti-migration policies.
"We thought it was almost a deterministic thing, that the radical right was always going to become bigger—that they were bulletproof," Jacobs said. “Not so bulletproof after all.”
Far-right movements have recently gained favor with the public in Germany, the United Kingdom, and France, although have largely failed at actually achieving power within governments.
Jetten said as the election results came in that "the positive forces have won!"
"I want to get to work for all Dutch people," he said, "because this is the land of us all!”
Meetings to start the process of forming a new coalition government are expected to begin next week.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Will Popular Pressure Finally Push Western Governments to Stand Up for Palestine?
People's power is proving more than capable of swaying some governments to impose sanctions and sever diplomatic ties with Israel.
Sep 05, 2025
Is it finally happening? Is the West turning against Israel? Or are we, whether motivated by hope or driven by despair, simply engaging in wishful thinking? The matter is not so simple.
In July 2025, a significant number of countries and organizations signed the "New York Declaration," a strong statement that followed a high-level meeting titled, "Conference on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine."
The conference itself and its bold conclusion warrant a deeper conversation. What matters for now, however, is the identity of the countries involved. Aside from states that have traditionally advocated for international justice and law in Palestine, many of the signatories were countries that had previously supported Israel regardless of context or circumstance.
These mostly Western countries included Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, among others. Some of these nations are also expected to formally recognize the state of Palestine in September.
Of course, one has no illusions about the hypocrisy of supporting peace in Palestine while still arming the Israeli war machine that is carrying out a genocide in Gaza. That notwithstanding, the political change is too significant to ignore.
In the case of Ireland, Norway, Spain, Luxembourg, Malta, and Portugal, among others, one can explain the growing rift with Israel and the championing of Palestinian rights based on historical evidence. Indeed, most of these countries have historically teetered on the edge between the Western common denominator and a more humanistic approach to the Palestinian struggle. This shift had already begun years prior to the ongoing Israeli genocide.
But what is one to make of the positions of Australia and the Netherlands, two of the most adamantly pro-Israel governments anywhere?
In Australia's case, media accounts argue that the friction began when the federal government denied an Israeli extremist lawmaker, Simcha Rothman, a visa for a speaking tour.
The precious blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza deserves for history to be finally altered.
Israel quickly retaliated by ending visas for three Australian diplomats in occupied Palestine. This Israeli step was not just a mere tit-for-tat response but the start of a virulent campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to wage a diplomatic war against Australia.
"History will remember [Australian Prime Minister Anthony] Albanese for what he is: a weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews," Netanyahu said, again infusing the same logic of lies and manipulation tactics.
Israel's anger was not directly related to Rothman's visa. The latter was a mere opportunity for Netanyahu to respond to Australia's signature on the New York Declaration, its decision to recognize Palestine, and its growing criticism of Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Though Albanese did not engage Netanyahu directly, his Home Affairs Minister, Tony Burke, did. He answered the accusations of weakness by boldly arguing that "strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up."
This statement is both true and self-indicting, not only for Australia but for other Western governments. For years, and numerous times during the genocide, Australian leaders have argued that "Israel has the right to defend itself." Since blowing people up hardly qualifies as self-defense, it follows that Canberra had known all along that Israel's war is but an ongoing episode of war crimes. So, why the sudden, though still unconvincing, shift in position?
The answer to this question is directly related to the mass mobilization in Australia. On a single Sunday in August, hundreds of thousands of Australians took to the streets in what organizers described as the largest pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the country's history. Marches were held in more than 40 cities and towns, including a massive rally in Sydney that drew a crowd of up to 300,000 people and brought the city's Harbour Bridge to a standstill. These protests, which called for sanctions and an end to Australia's arms trade with Israel, demonstrated the immense public pressure on the government.
In other words, it is the Australian people who have truly spoken, courageously standing up to Netanyahu and to their own government's refusal to take any meaningful step to hold Israel accountable. If anyone should be congratulated on their strength and resolve, it would be the millions of Australians who relentlessly continue to rally for peace, justice, and an end to the genocide in Gaza.
Similarly, the political crisis in the Netherlands, starting with the resignation of Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp on August 22, 2025, is indicative of the unusually significant change in European politics toward Israel and Palestine.
"The Israeli government's actions violate international treaties. A line must be drawn," said Eddy van Hijum, the leader of the country's New Social Contract Party and deputy prime minister.
The "line" was indeed drawn, and quickly so when Veldkamp resigned, ushering in mass resignations by other key ministers in the government. The idea of a major political crisis in the Netherlands sparked by Israeli war crimes in Palestine would have been unthinkable in the past.
The political shift in the Netherlands, much like in Australia, would not have happened without the massive public mobilization around the Gaza genocide that continues to grow worldwide. While pro-Palestine protests have occurred in the past, they have never before achieved the critical mass needed to compel governments to act.
Though these governmental actions remain timid and reluctant, the momentum is undeniable. People's power is proving more than capable of swaying some governments to impose sanctions and sever diplomatic ties with Israel, not only through pressure in the streets but also through pressure at the ballot box.
While the West has not yet fully turned against Israel, it may only be a matter of time. The precious blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza deserves for history to be finally altered. The children of Palestine deserve this global awakening of conscience.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular