The recipe that seems to work in Latin American politics is clear, and Colombia has not been immune to falling into it. Well-intentioned proposals, no matter how imprecise or unfeasible they may be, are more readily accepted than those that claim change will require time and effort.

In Colombia, populist-leaning candidacies appear to be gaining momentum in the lead-up to the 2022 elections, and what is dangerous about this style of politics is that it doesn’t distinguish between parties or ideologies, constantly exposing voters to its influence.

Both self-proclaimed right-wing and left-wing leaders, and even the questionable center, use this type of activism to gain ground in the race, completely ignoring that their ambition jeopardizes the stability of sectors essential to the country, such as the electricity market.

But what is populism? In the words of Nobel laureate Mario Vargas Llosa, populism could be described as a political practice that uses demagogic proposals and scapegoats to blame in order to garner votes. Populism uses exaggeration as a key element to instill fear in the citizenry. Fear that translates into votes. The populist sells the idea that if we choose a different proposal, the nation’s interests would be in danger, and for that reason, their election would represent true change or the only salvation.

Thus, environmental protection and energy transition have become the new commonplaces that candidates are targeting. Promising feats related to these two issues is fashionable on the international stage and fits perfectly with the popular discourse of conceiving the public administration as our great, nurturing mother.

It is no coincidence that the most widely accepted proposals on both topics tend to conclude that the State must impose near-prohibitive limits on any initiative that seeks to use non-renewable natural resources, as this would guarantee citizens a protected environment and the generation of cleaner energy.

In Colombia, the green discourse has its own particularities. While the populist version exaggerates the dangers of exploiting non-renewable sources and proposes their elimination regardless of the risks such a measure would pose to the reliability of the electricity market, the truth is that our country has managed to design a system in which coal and hydrocarbons play an important role without neglecting environmental protection.

Colombia leads the world in the environmental sustainability index for energy generation, surpassing countries such as Denmark, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Germany, and Canada. This is because our energy mix is ​​composed of over 70% renewable sources, primarily hydroelectric, meaning that non-renewable sources serve as backup during droughts.

For this reason, a discourse that defends hydrocarbon exploitation as an ally for energy generation may not be particularly popular. But elected officials are chosen to make decisions that are relevant to meeting the needs of the citizenry—a duty they seem to forget during election season.

In this sense, it would be dangerous for a country’s democracy and economy if the most widely accepted proposals were not those based on evidence but rather those that, through a feel-good narrative, seek to attract voters. It is precisely these proposals that disregard the needs and challenges of our market, jeopardizing the stability of an entire sector.

For all the above reasons, and understanding that environmental protection and energy transformation are paramount objectives for the development of any society, we must demand that our leaders base their proposals on verifiable data, that their action plans be executable and verifiable, and that they weigh the risks of their initiatives against social welfare.