Global climate accountability: An agreement with teeth that do not bite

________________

OPINION

By Karen Helmy Ademun

In 2015, the world watched as nearly every country on Earth signed onto what was hailed as a landmark deal in the global fight against climate change, the Paris Agreement.

With its promise to keep global warming below 2°C and ideally within 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the agreement was considered a turning point in international environmental diplomacy.

But nearly a decade later, critical questions have emerged: Does the agreement have the authority to enforce action? Can it hold climate polluters accountable? And, more specifically, what happens when a superpower like the United States, historically one of the world’s largest carbon emitters, walks in and out of it as if it were a social club?

The return of Donald Trump to the presidency sparked global unease. He already pulled the US out of the Paris agreement during his first term, arguing that the deal unfairly burdened American businesses while giving countries like China a free pass.

With the US rejoining under the Biden Administration in 2021, the world hoped for renewed leadership in the climate fight. But with Trump returning to office in 2025, there has been renewed American withdrawal and inaction.

When Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement in 2017, it sent shockwaves across developing nations. It signalled that even the most powerful and most responsible countries could walk away with impunity. Worse still, it emboldened climate sceptics and delayed momentum at a critical time for global emissions cuts.

Uganda’s contribution to global emissions is negligible, accounting for less than 0.01% of the total, according to the Global Carbon Atlas. Yet it stands among the countries most vulnerable to climate change.

The apparent inability of the Paris Agreement to enforce accountability among major polluters raises deep concerns. Increasing floods, prolonged droughts, and shifting rainfall patterns are already disrupting food production, damaging infrastructure, and straining the health system.

In Kasese, for instance, recurring floods have displaced thousands, destroyed homes, and overwhelmed medical facilities, affecting vulnerable populations, including those with chronic illnesses like diabetes.

Despite these realities, Uganda, like many African nations, has committed to ambitious climate action.

Its updated NDC aims to reduce national emissions by 24.7% by 2030. It promotes afforestation, clean cooking, and climate-smart agriculture. Yet financing remains a massive hurdle.

The bulk of Uganda’s NDC implementation depends on international support, especially from developed countries. So, when the US, a country responsible for about 25% of historical carbon emissions, waives in its commitment or potentially exits the agreement again, it directly undermines Uganda’s ability to adapt, mitigate, and plan for a sustainable future. Worse, it signals to other emitters that commitments are optional, and that the world’s poorest will bear the cost of inaction.

The Paris Agreement is built on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities". This is the idea that all countries must act on climate, but those who polluted the most (and benefited economically) must do more. This concept is essential to climate justice. Yet, in practice, the wealthiest countries are far from delivering.

The strength of the Paris Agreement lies in its inclusivity and shared vision. Each signatory sets its own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

NDC’s are a more technical term for targets geared towards reducing emissions, enhancing adaptation, and increasing climate finance. It’s a bottom-up framework that encourages cooperation, peer pressure, and progress tracking through a "name and shame" approach. If the Paris Agreement has teeth, as many claim, why then does it seem to lack the bite necessary to compel powerful countries into real, consistent action?

But herein lies the problem: it’s non-binding. There are no penalties for countries that fail to meet their targets or even withdraw entirely. The assumption was that global goodwill, reputational risk, and public pressure would keep countries in line. That assumption underestimated the power of national politics, especially in countries where climate denialism has strong political roots, like the U.S.

In 2009, rich nations pledged $100 billion per year in climate finance to support developing countries by 2020. That target has repeatedly been missed. Funding that is provided often comes as loans, not grants, pushing debt-laden nations further into financial hardship.

The agreement also lacks mechanisms to compel major emitters to increase ambition or face sanctions. When Trump left the agreement, there was no legal consequence. And while the Biden administration recommitted to US leadership, climate finance pledges remained underdelivered.

In the Ugandan context, this creates a double burden: local communities are urged to adopt sustainable practices, many of which require time, education, and investment, while the global system shields the biggest polluters from accountability.

Is the Agreement Still Worth It?

Some climate advocates argue that despite its flaws, the Paris Agreement remains the best tool available. Its global scope and flexibility allow for continued diplomacy, cooperation, and transparency.

It is the foundation for the Loss and Damage Fund established at COP27, which aims to compensate vulnerable nations like Uganda for climate-induced losses. Others, however, argue the agreement is symbolic at best, a climate club without enforcement, better at generating commitments than securing results. They question whether it’s time to rethink global climate governance by introducing binding legal instruments, trade penalties for non-compliance, or carbon tariffs on high-emission products.

From a grassroots Ugandan perspective, the frustrations are real. Many communities, especially in flood-prone informal settlements like Bwaise or parts of Kasese, struggle with immediate adaptation needs such as drainage, housing, and sanitation, while international negotiations drag on with little visible impact. Youth activists, farmers, and local leaders want more than promises; they want accountability, resources, and recognition of their lived climate reality.

Uganda cannot afford to wait for rich countries to keep their promises. While international cooperation is essential, there is growing consensus among Ugandan researchers and policymakers that local ownership of climate action is key. We need to decentralise climate adaptation funding to empower local governments, invest in early warning systems that reach vulnerable groups, including women and the elderly, and support community-based organisations that build grassroots resilience through traditional knowledge, nature-based solutions, and public education.

At the same time, Uganda must continue to raise its voice in global negotiations, demanding fair climate finance, technology transfer, and stronger compliance mechanisms within the Paris framework. Diplomatic pressure must remain on countries like the US to not only stay in the agreement but also lead meaningfully, through deeper emissions cuts and fulfilled financial pledges.

The writer is an MSc Climate Change and Development, Makerere University [MAK]; Miss Climate Change Awareness - Community Impact (2025- 2026)