Speaking via his X account, Petro argued that failing to explicitly name fossil fuels as the root cause of climate change amounts to hypocrisy. He insisted that human existence is only possible if the world transitions away from oil, coal and natural gas , in line with scientific evidence.

Petro was not alone in his objections. More than 80 countries had pushed for a binding fossil fuel exit roadmap during the COP30 talks but ultimately failed to secure a reference in the final agreement. The president’s climate team has described this as a betrayal of scientific consensus and a missed opportunity for a just energy transition.

Colombia’s acting Minister of Environment, Irene Vélez, threw her support behind Petro’s stance, affirming that the government will not yield on the principles of climate justice and scientific truth. She argued that stronger multilateral action and clearer targets are needed to avoid perpetuating dependency on fossil fuel capital.

Petro’s rebuttal to the COP30 declaration has sparked wider debate in Latin America and around the world about climate ambition. While the summit did result in a non-binding “Global Mutirão” agreement on accelerating climate action, critics like Petro say it lacks teeth, particularly without a roadmap to eliminate the fossil fuels most responsible for climate change.

This year, all nations are expected to submit their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) outlining their strategies for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to help meet the global goal of limiting temperature increases to 1.5ºC and preparing for the effects of climate change. The NDCs are revised every five years in accordance with the Paris Agreement.

However, Jusper Machogu, a 30-year-old farmer from Kisii, Kenya , questions the morality and fairness of rich countries, asking Africa to abstain from the very path they used to industrialise.

Machogu, a prominent advocate for the use of fossil fuels in Africa through his social media, presents a counter-narrative—one he says is grounded in the lived experiences of many Africans and shaped by a critique of international climate policy dynamics.

 “Why should Africa stop exploring fossil fuels?" he questioned. "There is no country that has developed using solar and wind. Every developed country is literally burning a lot of oil, coal, and natural gas,” Jusper told Global South World.

He suggests that Africa be given a century-long window to use its fossil fuel resources to lift itself out of poverty before committing to a full transition.

 “We can listen to them once we beat poverty and hunger in Africa—maybe by 2100. That is when we should stop burning fossil fuels, after ensuring every other person in Africa is fed, housed, and has access to water and energy.”

Africa contributes just 4% of the world's total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, both in absolute and per capita terms.

Machogu points out the global inequality in energy consumption, highlighting the stark gap between Africa and developed nations.

“The US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day. Their population is 330 million people. Africa consumes 4 million barrels per day—our population is 1.5 billion people.”

 “Why should those people expect me to care about the climate?” he questions.

This imbalance, he argues, disqualifies the moral authority of developed nations to lecture Africa on its energy choices.

While renewable energy dominates global discussions, he argues that most of Africa already uses "renewable" sources—but not the kind typically promoted.

 “Almost 90% of our energy in sub-Saharan Africa is from biomass—cow dung, firewood, charcoal, crop residue. That is it.”

He distinguishes between real energy needs and electricity, arguing that the conversation around solar and wind often misses the point.

 “When they say renewable energy, they’re referring to solar and wind. But solar and wind only produce electricity. They cannot run industries, they cannot power transportation... Our energy needs are far broader.”

Africa has historically made much larger investments in fossil fuel infrastructure than in renewable energy initiatives. In the region, solar and wind projects received only $1 USD for every $3 USD invested in fossil fuel power plants between 2015 and 2024. But for the first time in Sub-Saharan Africa's history, investments in wind and solar energy exceeded those in fossil fuels in 2023. 

Leaders set a goal last year to raise $1.3 trillion a year from all international sources to support climate action in developing nations by 2035.

It is pledges like this that he says have fuelled African leaders into chasing green funds for political gain. 

“The green energy industry has got a lot of money... Of course, African leaders are going to say, 'we want solar and wind'—that is what gives them funds. But they’re not doing it for the people.”