Uganda’s climate change situation came to the fore this month – a troubling knowledge and accountability gap. Deputy speaker of parliament Thomas Tayebwa told the plenary on October 20, 2026, that the committee on climate change had not presented a single report during the five-year term of the 11th parliament, despite receiving and utilising public funds.For starters, parliamentary committees are expected to scrutinise government programmes, assess policy implementation and hold public institutions accountable. Now, at a time when climate-related misinformation and disinformation are gaining ground, the absence of parliamentary scrutiny risks weakening public trust, undermining policy implementation and leaving vulnerable communities further exposed.The 39-member committee failed to adequately scrutinise the implementation of Uganda’s National Climate Change Policy, the National Climate Change Act, 2021, and the country’s climate finance commitments.The National Climate Change Policy was inaugurated in 2018 and provides the framework for coordinating climate action, including adaptation, mitigation, public awareness and resilience in vulnerable sectors. Meanwhile, the National Climate Change Act establishes responsibilities for coordinating climate action, monitoring greenhouse gas emissions, preparing climate plans, mobilising finance and reporting on progress.Uganda has also developed climate finance instruments, including the National Climate Finance Strategy and the Green Taxonomy, intended to improve how climate finance is mobilised, tracked and reported, and to identify activities that qualify as environmentally sustainable.These are not merely documents for government shelves. They should guide decisions on how Uganda prepares for floods, droughts, food insecurity and other climate-related risks. Parliamentary scrutiny is essential to establishing whether the commitments translate into tangible benefits for citizens.Without committee reports, parliament has less evidence on which to base debate, question government priorities or demand corrective action. When the committee on climate change was inaugurated, its then chairperson, Lawrence Biyika Songa, promised decisive action.“We assure Ugandans that this committee will, on their behalf, and without fear or favour, treat the matter of climate change as a national emergency and therefore, employ a strict code of operation that will ensure and enforce compliance with guidelines by all stakeholders and citizens,” Songa said.However, beyond parliament, climate change is increasingly discussed through the lens of misinformation and disinformation, which can distort public understanding, erode trust in credible institutions and undermine support for evidence-based responses.At the Climate Change and Information Integrity Masterclass organised by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and UNESCO during the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2026 (#FIFAfrica26) in Mauritius, participants examined the growing reach and complexity of climate misinformation and disinformation in African digital spaces.The discussions highlighted how misleading narratives can encourage harmful environmental practices, exhaust communities through repeated exposure to false claims, and undermine confidence in trusted sources of information. These effects can deepen existing inequalities, particularly where people have limited access to reliable, timely and locally relevant climate information.Climate misinformation takes several forms including through narratives that deny climate change exists or question the reliability of climate modelling without engaging with the available evidence. Others use “whataboutism”, arguing that Uganda’s contribution to global emissions is too small anyway to justify action, while overlooking the country’s need to prepare for climate impacts and protect its natural resources.Another tactic shifts responsibility to individuals and consumers, suggesting that personal lifestyle changes alone can solve a problem that also requires institutional action, public investment and effective regulation. But like MTN Group president and chief executive Ralph Mupita said in the 2022 report, climate change still remains one of the most pressing challenges of the time and affects even the less concerned people or entities. For example, the April 2022 devastating storms that struck South Africa and killed more than 400 people in the Eastern Cape also affected and disrupted connectivity at more than 500 MTN sites. “We are proud of our progress [on climate], but there is still much complex and challenging work to do — within our own business and as an industry. No single company can do it alone, and we intend to use our influence, technology and reach to inspire and enable wider action to tackle the climate emergency — by our customers, our suppliers, our industry and beyond,” he said.The company’s climate commitments to protecting the environment and achieving net-zero emissions by 2040 include working with its 208 suppliers to support the target and is transitioning some network sites to alternative energy sources. It also diverted over 817 tonnes of network waste from landfills for refurbishment and reuse at new sites in underserved areas.Other narratives argue that society will accept only voluntary policies and that restrictive measures are inevitably doomed to fail. The ongoing controversy surrounding Uganda’s charcoal restrictions illustrates how climate and environmental policies can become contentious when communities are not adequately consulted or when affordable alternatives are unclear.A further tactic is to redirect responsibility by insisting that someone else should act first. In Uganda, debates about budget allocations, industrial emissions and the responsibilities of wealthier countries have become opportunities to evade scrutiny of domestic action. While the historical responsibility of industrialised countries for greenhouse gas emissions is a legitimate issue, it should not be used to dismiss Uganda’s own climate risks or the need for effective policies.Doomism presents another challenge. It portrays climate impacts as irreversible and all mitigation efforts as futile, encouraging resignation rather than informed action. The so-called climate “doomers” claim humanity should just wait for its extinction because, according to them, nobody is capable of fighting nature, and that humanity is being punished for its past mistakes against the planet. Such claims, which are gaining popularity among young social media users, can weaken public support for measures that still have the potential to reduce risks and strengthen resilience. And as UN scientists have repeatedly pointed out, according to the BBC, there must be “rapid, deep and immediate” cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions within three years to stave off the worst impacts.The media has a critical role in challenging these narratives, but journalists themselves face significant obstacles. Limited resources, insufficient specialist knowledge, limited factual information and data, as well as a lack of fact-checking capacity can make it difficult to investigate climate change-related claims and explain complex scientific findings accurately.Climate change affects communities differently. A report about drought, flooding or changing rainfall patterns needs to reflect local realities and the experiences of the people directly affected. Generic information from foreign publications may provide useful context, but it cannot always substitute for local research, community voices and evidence relevant to Uganda.Social media has further complicated the information environment. Influencers and online commentators can reach large audiences without necessarily having the scientific expertise or editorial safeguards needed to assess climate claims. Misleading content can remain accessible long after it has been challenged, while the absence of clear reporting channels makes correction difficult.Recent public debate over El Niño forecasts in Uganda illustrates the challenge. When social media commentators mock or question meteorological warnings, the issue is not whether public institutions should be scrutinised. They should. The question is whether criticism is grounded in evidence or whether it spreads claims that discourage people from taking credible warnings seriously.Even when environmental policies pursue legitimate objectives, poor communication and uncertainty about alternatives can make them vulnerable to ridicule and public resistance. The concerns of households that depend on charcoal cannot simply be dismissed as ignorance. Effective policy must address affordability, access to alternative fuels and the practical circumstances of vulnerable communities.Yet at the same time, fear of disruption can become an excuse for delaying necessary action. The pursuit of a policy that satisfies every affected party before implementation may leave the government unable to respond to urgent environmental threats. The challenge is to develop workable, evidence-based measures, communicate their purpose clearly and provide support to those likely to bear the greatest costs.Climate misinformation can also aggravate tensions over land, forests and scarce resources. During the masterclass at FIFAfrica, participants discussed how climate-related hazards can compound displacement and protection risks. In Terego district, a refugee-hosting area, MP Wilfred Erima Babanga recently raised concerns about forest clearing by refugees compared with local communities’ conservation efforts. Such claims require careful verification and context. Without reliable evidence, attributing environmental degradation to refugees or another vulnerable group risks turning a complex problem involving land pressure, resource management and climate stress into a source of social hostility. Climate and conflict can overlap, with women, children and men facing displacement as internally displaced people, refugees or victims of trafficking.Those most exposed to climate risks are often also the people most vulnerable to misleading information. They need accessible forecasts, credible early warnings and practical guidance that supports informed decisions about livelihoods, movement and access to resources.Public institutions should provide timely, transparent and accessible information. Journalists need training, resources and reliable sources. Civil society organisations and technology partners can help develop fact-checking tools, strengthen collaboration and improve the visibility of evidence-based reporting. Initiatives such as those supported by Code for Africa can help journalists use technology and collaborative methods to investigate climate-related claims.Citizens, too, need media literacy skills to distinguish credible information from false or misleading claims. Climate change must not be presented as an elite concern divorced from the daily struggles of ordinary Ugandans. It affects food production, household incomes, health, housing and access to natural resources.The discussions at the CIPESA-UNESCO masterclass also underscored the importance of examining how rapid internet growth, dependence on digital platforms, shrinking space for environmental journalism, surveillance and harassment can affect climate reporting across Africa. These challenges make it even more important to protect credible information and ensure that climate debates remain open to evidence and scrutiny.As Uganda prepares for future international climate negotiations, including COP31 in Ankara in November 2026 and COP32 in Ethiopia in 2027, the country needs more than ambitious announcements. It needs transparent implementation, credible public information and institutions that can account for their decisions and spending.Parliament has a particularly important role to play. The reported failure of its committee on climate change to table a report during the 11th parliament should prompt a clear explanation of what the committee did, how its funds were used, and why its oversight work did not produce reports for the House.When institutions fail to explain their actions, they leave gaps that rumours, conspiracy theories and misleading narratives can exploit.The post Uganda’s climate change knowledge and accountability gap is fuelling disinformation appeared first on The Observer Media Ltd.