News

Claudia Strambo and Elisa Arond of the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), alongside Daria Ivleva of adelphi, explore how the Colombian and Nigerian governments justify extraction of oil and gas for the SUS-POL Research Programme.

The science is clear: limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C requires a dramatic reduction in fossil fuel production. Yet, despite global commitments to phase out fossil fuels and mitigate climate change, governments still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than what would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. 

How then do national governments reconcile plans for expanding fossil fuel production with their climate commitments? Understanding the discursive strategies they employ is important to develop effective counter-narratives and strategies that challenge fossil fuel dependency and support equitable supply-side transitions.

Our article in Political Geography explores how the governments of Colombia and Nigeria employed various narratives, to justify the continued extraction of oil and gas between 2015 and 2022. Like many middle- and low-income countries that produce fossil fuels, they depend on these to fund essential public services, sustain infrastructure, and retain political support.

Oil and gas production narratives

The first narrative, present in both Colombia and Nigeria, revolves around the role of oil and gas in economic development. In Colombia, this discourse underscores the importance of fossil fuel revenues in funding government programmes, including the implementation of the 2016 Final Peace Agreement, economic recovery efforts post-COVID-19, and regional development initiatives, such as the “ Cesar Life Corridor”, which aims to focus on creating environmental and socio-economic alternatives for local communities. Meanwhile, Nigeria frames gas production as a central driver of industrialization, which remains a strategic national priority for economic growth and diversification.

A second key narrative is that of energy security, with fossil fuel production portrayed as essential for ensuring a stable domestic energy supply, reducing reliance on foreign energy imports, and addressing energy poverty. These development and energy security narratives are persistent features in the rhetoric of both state and corporate actors, though they are continuously adjusted to align with shifting policy priorities and socioeconomic circumstances.

A third narrative positions oil and, particularly, gas as essential for the global energy transition. This discourse rests on two key – and contested –  assumptions: first, that oil and gas production can be decarbonized through technological improvements, efficiency gains, reductions in fugitive emissions, and carbon capture and storage technologies; second, that gas serves as a bridge fuel that is both less carbon-intensive than coal and oil and more reliable than renewables, thus providing a stable transition pathway to a low-carbon future. In Colombia, this argument is further reinforced by claims that fossil fuel revenues are necessary to finance green investments.

In Nigeria, a final narrative focuses on the geopolitical importance of fossil fuel production, emphasising how oil and gas enhance the country’s regional influence and strengthen its position within global energy markets. By contrast, Colombia’s government has largely sought to position itself as an international climate leader, attempting to emphasize its sustainability commitments while continuing fossil fuel extraction, to maintain its credibility in the global environmental arena.

Beyond narratives: mobilising scale and technocratic language

Our study reveals how governments normalize and depoliticize oil and gas in their energy futures. One tactic is the use of technocratic language, which presents climate change as a purely technical issue rather than a political one. In Colombia, discussions on carbon neutrality and efficiency portray fossil fuels as part of a technology-driven transition. Nigeria similarly focuses on emissions management over phase-out, positioning gas as a necessary bridge to renewables.

A second tactic is the use of scalar strategies to shape public perceptions, emphasising global climate impacts and historical responsibility when discussing emissions reductions, while simultaneously downplaying local environmental conflicts and social opposition to extraction. For instance, in Colombia, discourse about  oil and gas as a driver of development was leveraged by the national government to reduce local resistance to extraction at the subnational level, influencing royalty distribution reforms. In Nigeria, the focus on national energy security hides oil-related violence and the risks faced by environmental defenders at the local level.

A third tactic is that alternative visions that question the role of oil and gas in the country’s future are often delegitimized as ideological or unrealistic. Colombian officials, for example, label criticism of fossil fuels as "environmental fundamentalism" or “demagoguery”. These strategies work together to present fossil fuel production as an inevitable and necessary aspect of national development, reinforcing carbon lock-in and delaying meaningful transitions away from fossil fuels.

Discourses and carbon lock-in

Discourses play a key role in sustaining carbon lock-in by shaping future expectations, which, in turn, drive infrastructure investments and institutional development. In Nigeria, large-scale projects like the Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano pipeline—potentially extending to North Africa and Europe—and the expansion of liquefied natural gas infrastructure illustrate how government narratives around industrialization, energy security, and geopolitical positioning justify continued fossil fuel investments. Similarly, in Colombia, Ecopetrol's 2040 Strategy aligns with transition rhetoric while committing around $12 billion to upstream oil and gas activities between 2022 and 2024.

Beyond infrastructure, government discourses also justify institutional arrangements that perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels. In Colombia, the 2020 reform of the general royalty system increased oil and gas revenue allocations to producing regions, reinforcing subnational dependence on fossil fuel revenues, while being framed within a territorial development narrative. In Nigeria, the 2021 Petroleum Industry Act introduced incentives to attract investment in oil and gas, including production subsidies, ensuring the sector's continued expansion. The government justified these measures using security and international positioning narratives, emphasizing Nigeria’s role in global energy markets.

National elites and the politics of energy transitions

While narratives around oil and gas have adapted to reflect evolving energy transition goals, they do not disrupt existing power structures, which have long been shaped by the control and distribution of natural resources, including fossil fuels. Historical  experience suggests that non-renewable resource wealth often fails to drive broad-based prosperity due to mismanagement, unequal revenue distribution, socio-environmental burdens on vulnerable groups, enclave economies, and global market volatility. In Colombia and Nigeria, government narratives that sustain the political status quo around fossil fuel production are often shaped by national elites in collaboration with local actors, emphasising economic benefits while downplaying local and global costs.

Equity concerns in the supply-side transition further complicate the picture. While high-income countries should lead in phasing out fossil fuels, their continued expansion and mixed policy signals create uncertainty in the Global South. Additionally, multinational corporations continue to extract significant profits from fossil fuel operations around the world andreinforce narratives of fossil fuels’ centrality  to national and local economies.

Though elites in developing countries cite the hypocrisy of the Global North’s continued expansion of fossil fuel production to justify domestic fossil fuel investments, this argument masks their own role in maintaining domestic and global dependencies on fossil fuels. Regardless of claims about gas as a transition fuel, the viability of long-term fossil fuel investments remain highly questionable against a global backdrop of competitive decarbonisation. Addressing these challenges requires both improved efforts from high-income countries to transition away from fossil fuels and greater scrutiny of how elite and corporate narratives take hold and perpetuate carbon lock-in.

----

This blogpost is a deliverable of Mistra Geopolitics phase II, research theme Decarbonization, hosted by the Stockholm Environment Institute and funded by MISTRA – the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research. It is also a product of SEI's Initiative on Carbon Lock-In, funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

Further information: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/research/projects/sus-pol/about

Back to news list