Greta Thunberg and fellow climate activists demonstrating outside the Swedish parliament in 2019. Liv Oeian/ShutterstockIn 2022, Sweden took a rare step: the country banned all fossil fuel production.The quirk is that Sweden has never actually produced any fossil fuels. So why would a country with no fossil fuel production decide to ban such production? In a newly published study, I explain the curious case of this ban – and how it boosted Sweden’s reputation as a global leader on climate issues.Sweden is often praised for its ambitious climate policies and fast reductions in climate-damaging emissions. Its former centre-left government decided to ban all exploration and extraction of coal, oil and gas just a year after its neighbouring oil and gas producer, Denmark, had done so. This was part of a growing international effort to phase out the supply of fossil fuels.My research into the Swedish government’s ban comes as more than 50 nations attend a major initiative to develop a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels, hosted by the Colombian government. I interviewed 17 high-profile people in Swedish climate politics, including some of the main architects of the ban.I found that a single driver can play a decisive role. The ban was largely the result of a concerted effort by the Green party, which had campaigned on this issue for several years and already included it in its national election manifesto in 2014.The Green party called on the Swedish Geological Survey to conduct a study on the potential effects of a ban, which provided the necessary scientific basis. It then used its proposal as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the Social Democrats, when forming a coalition government after the 2018 election.That study showed how much easier it is to implement new climate policy when there is no strong fossil fuel industry and associated lobbying. And because the government had already banned uranium mining in Sweden in an attempt to make future nuclear power production more difficult, it had a blueprint for how to ban fossil fuel extraction.The ban was mostly symbolic – but it may also have helped prevent future fossil fuel production in Sweden. Technological advances and exploding oil and gas prices can make previously untenable resources attractive to exploit. That would, of course, have harmful consequences for the climate, so the ban does have a material dimension.In contributing to global momentum against fossil fuels, the ban bolstered Sweden’s reputation as a leading country in climate negotiations. This proved important: several of my interviewees pointed out how Sweden was able to push the EU toward a more ambitious position in its Fit For 55 climate package – a set of laws aiming to cut the EU’s emissions by 55% by 2030 – in part due to the respect the country commands from others on decarbonisation. Following the ban, Sweden also joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance of like-minded countries and regions working to encourage other countries to join the global movement for a phaseout.The path to transitionColombia’s government is now hosting the first global conference on the transition away from fossil fuels in collaboration with the Dutch government, in the city of Santa Marta.Located on Colombia’s sun-kissed Caribbean coast, Santa Marta is at the heart of the country’s vast coal industry. As one of the world’s largest coal exporting countries, as well as a major oil and gas producer, the symbolism is clear: Colombia is not just talking the talk but walking the walk. More than 50 countries including the UK, Brazil and Norway are gathering to agree a roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels. This comes only months after the UN’s climate summit Cop30 in Brazil, where nations failed to agree to end reliance on fossil fuels and negotiations faltered in the face of powerful fossil fuel lobbying. The first Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels Conference takes place in Santa Marta on the Colombian coast. Jhampier Giron M/Shutterstock Rather than let laggards like the US or Saudi Arabia obstruct negotiations, this conference brings together a “coalition of the willing”. Ahead of it, experts are laying the scientific and academic foundations for the political need for a phaseout. My colleagues and I are presenting our research into the failures and successes of first-moving countries trying to phase out fossil fuel production.The following questions will be at the heart of discussions in Colombia.What kind of financing do developing countries need to phase out their production and consumption of fossil fuels? How can the legal obstacles be overcome? What does a just, equitable and fair phaseout look like? And crucially, what can be learned from existing attempts to phase out fossil fuels? In Sweden, climate policies have been gradually rolled back by its current rightwing government, which is not sending any representatives to Santa Marta. Yet the fossil fuel ban still stands.Sweden’s ban did not lead to any direct reduction in global fossil fuel production. But it did name the problem and show the way for other countries. It provided an alternative pathway where future investment goes into renewables and green technologies, rather than climate-damaging energy sources.Now it’s up to the countries attending the Santa Marta conference to make further progress on this long, difficult path to transitioning away from fossil fuels.Lukas Slothuus receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.