The former Minister of Mines and Energy, Amylkar Acosta, analyzes the pros and cons of the proposal made by the president, Gustavo Petro, to the member countries of the United Nations Organization during his speech at Assembly No. 77, to abandon consumption of coal and oil.1) by alluding to the enormous environmental damage inflicted by the consumption of coal and oil, and equating it with that of cocaine consumption in the world, we can say that he had already said that in a campaign speech and now he repeated it in his speech at the UN.In this sense, President Petro has been consistent.In my opinion, they can be compared in the sense that in both cases it is an addiction to consumption, but it is a reality that, with all its pitfalls, without coal the first industrial revolution would not have been possible and without oil we would be in the fourth industrial revolution.2) although it seems paradoxical that while in his speech he insisted on his thesis of abandoning fossil fuels, such as fuels (derived from oil), the diesel subsidy is temporarily maintained and only the gasoline subsidy is beginning to be dismantled authorizing an increase in its price starting in October of $200 per gallon per month, it must be understood that politics is the art of the possible and if the increase in the price of gasoline extended to diesel, the government would most certainly be exposed to a trucker strike with unforeseeable consequences.And after what happened to President Lasso in Ecuador with the increase in fuels that he decreed, the adage applies that when you see your neighbor's beard burning, soak yours!3) finally, in my opinion, given that between coal and oil they represent between 20% and 24% of the current income of the Nation and no less than 40% of the investment budget of the territorial entities, the government of the President Petro should not give them up, at least for now, as long as there are no equivalent alternative sources of income.If we do without coal and oil, its consequences would be catastrophic: it would accentuate the twin deficits (fiscal and foreign trade) and we would have a hyper devaluation of the peso.Ortega y Gasset said well, “I am myself and my circumstances, if I don't save them, I won't save myself either”.We have to see ourselves in the mirror of Europe, where they had given up coal-fired thermal generation and nuclear reactors and have returned to them by force of circumstances.There they are dependent on imports of coal, oil and gas, in Colombia we are dependent on their production and exports!In fact, due to the inertial effect of the current situation (with coal prices exceeding US $400 per ton and oil prices above US $90 per barrel) in the next 2 years, at least, we will export more coal than in In previous years, in the case of oil, on the other hand, the limitation that Colombia has is that since 2014, when production reached one million barrels per day, it has been falling hopelessly to around 750,000 barrels/day and we only export 50% of this volume, because the other 50% is required by our refineries to produce fuels.It goes without saying that we are referring only to the spot market, because in both the coal and oil markets, contracts are usually made that commit production for two or more years, in addition to futures markets.MISSION To have a positive impact on society with honest, transparent and quality information.News of national and international importance with special sensitivity towards the environment.A different and eco-sustainable approach to everything that affects the planet, with a positive view of technological and digital transformation.VISION Improve the quality of public opinion.Form a society with better human beings at the same time that our medium generates a relationship of trust with our readers, allied companies and advertisers.President Jaime de Polanco Director Marcial MuñozWelcome!Login in to your account