By Asha Wandulu
On a brisk January 20th, 2025, President Donald Trump was sworn in for his second term, marking the occasion with an inaugural speech that reasserted his administration’s focus on traditional energy sources over green alternatives. One of the pivotal announcements was the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement, a move that has significant implications for U.S. policy, international relations, and global climate efforts. One of the central tenets of President Trump’s political ideology is the “America first” approach which in his inaugural address, he explicitly stated “With my actions today, we will end the Green New Deal, and we will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American autoworkers.”
This statement, delivered with the authority of a returning commander-in-chief, was not merely rhetoric but a precursor to concrete policy actions, including the withdrawal from one of the most pivotal international agreements on climate change, The Paris Agreement. This agreement officially adopted in December 2015, is an international treaty within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aimed at combating climate change by keeping global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This accord involves internationally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to the impacts of climate change, and finance climate mitigation.
The United States formally joined the Paris Agreement on September 3, 2016, under President Barack Obama. The agreement was ratified by the U.S. without Senate approval, leveraging the executive agreement authority which only requires the signature of the president and the Secretary of State, not Congress. This approach was chosen because it was believed that obtaining Senate approval would be politically challenging.
President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on January 20, 2025, echoes his first-term policy where he had already begun the withdrawal process in 2017, which was completed in November 2020. The reasons for this 2025 withdrawal, as can be inferred from his policies and statements, which he has argued that the agreement disadvantages the U.S. economically by imposing stringent emissions targets that could hamper industrial growth and increase operational costs for businesses, particularly in energy-intensive sectors. The emphasis on “drill, baby, drill” and the revocation of what he refers to as the “Green New Deal” signify a return to policies that favor oil, gas, and coal, which are seen as central to U.S. energy independence and economic prosperity. Additionally, there’s a persistent theme of national sovereignty, with Trump and his administration viewing international commitments like the Paris Agreement as infringing on U.S. autonomy to set its own environmental policies.
Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, many of which are still developing their energy infrastructure, might see this as an opportunity to pursue fossil fuel-based development without the pressure of meeting stringent climate targets. This could accelerate economic development through increased access to energy, and the U.S. retreat might open up avenues for investment in African energy sectors, particularly in oil and gas, where U.S. companies might now look to expand their operations.
Additionally, the Ugandan government, observing the U.S.’s decision to step back from stringent climate commitments, could find inspiration in prioritizing national economic interests over global climate accords. Here’s how Uganda could strategically follow suit:
EACOP (East African Crude Oil Pipeline) Momentum: With the U.S. setting a precedent of favoring energy independence and traditional energy resources, Uganda could accelerate the development of the EACOP. This project, designed to transport oil from Uganda to Tanzania’s port of Tanga, is pivotal for Uganda’s economic trajectory. By focusing on this infrastructure, Uganda could secure financial benefits through oil revenues and job creation, much like the U.S. aims with its energy policy.
Economic Development Over Environmental Constraints: Uganda could argue for a developmental approach where immediate economic growth is prioritized. This might involve easing regulatory burdens on oil and gas projects, drawing investment, and fostering industrial growth without the pressure of international environmental standards that could slow down these initiatives.
Global Energy Market Dynamics: With one of the world’s major economies reducing its commitment to green energy, Uganda might see an opportunity to position itself as a reliable oil supplier in a potentially resurgent fossil fuel market. This could enhance Uganda’s negotiating power in global energy markets and attract more direct investments from countries and companies looking to capitalize on oil resources.
Balancing Act: However, while following this path, Uganda should also consider integrating sustainable practices where feasible. The focus should not entirely shift away from environmental considerations but rather balance development with long-term sustainability. This could mean investing in technologies that mitigate environmental impact.
President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement underscores a significant pivot in U.S. climate policy, emphasizing national economic interests over global environmental commitments. For Uganda, this move by the U.S. could serve as a blueprint for prioritizing its own energy projects like EACOP, with a focus on economic development and energy sovereignty. However, the Ugandan government must navigate the complexities of global energy policy, it’s imperative to integrate technological innovation and economic development to ensure long-term sustainability.
The author is a founder of Ashalumi Governance Network.
