U.S. abandonment of climate agenda will affect Kazakhstan

The largest player in the renewable energy market

U.S. President Donald Trump has declared a state of emergency in the energy sector, announcing the country’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Trump’s decisions nullify the efforts of former U.S. President Joe Biden to protect Arctic territories from drilling, promote electric vehicles, and develop renewable energy. Trump believes that previously adopted initiatives have increased costs for American consumers and negatively impacted the economy.

The American leader proposed halting support for large wind farms, which, according to him, “ruin natural landscapes and do not serve consumer interests.” Other proposed changes included canceling subsidies for electric vehicles and reducing investments in renewable energy.

Experts note that abandoning support for “green” energy and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement could not only weaken global efforts to combat climate change but also result in the U.S. losing its leadership in the development and implementation of innovative technologies.

Zhakyp Khairushev highlights that this approach could seriously slow down progress in renewable energy development. However, Trump’s supporters argue that such measures will reduce energy costs for Americans and strengthen traditional industries, including coal, oil, and gas.

“The U.S., as one of the largest players in the renewable energy market, has enormous potential. For example, in California, the capacity of solar power stations already exceeds 11,000 MW, while wind power stands at over 6,000 MW. Additionally, the U.S. adopted the Renewable Portfolio Standard, which mandates that renewable energy must account for 60% of electricity production by 2030, and by 2045, all retail electricity should be generated without CO2 emissions,” the expert commented.

He added that if the U.S. completely abandons its “green” course, it could not only negatively affect the clean energy industry but also undermine international efforts to transition to a sustainable economy.

“U.S. energy policy must maintain a balance between economic interests, environmental commitments, and political will,” the speaker stated.

Risks for the global economy

Experts suggest that abandoning support for “green” energy and leaving the Paris Agreement could bring the U.S. short-term economic benefits. Cutting spending on climate programs will support traditional industries such as coal, oil, and gas, which could lead to job creation and lower energy costs for consumers. Furthermore, freeing American companies from strict environmental regulations could reduce production costs, enhancing their competitiveness in the global market.

However, energy expert Zhakyp Khairushev warns of significant long-term risks.

“Today, renewable energy, including solar, wind, and hydrogen, is becoming one of the key drivers of global economic growth. If the U.S. remains on the sidelines, it will limit its opportunities for technological leadership and reduce its export potential. Moreover, in my view, the lack of active climate policies will intensify the impact of natural disasters such as hurricanes, droughts, and floods, leading to large-scale economic losses in the future,” he stated.

Additionally, abandoning the climate agenda could weaken the U.S.’s global leadership position and strain relations with key partners, particularly the European Union and China.

Oil and gas industry expert Askar Ismailov believes that reversing “green” policies will increase the market capitalization of oil companies.

“Investors will stop putting their money into green energy and will instead invest in the oil industry. However, it’s important to understand that this shift is temporary and will last only for the duration of Trump’s presidency. Nobody knows how the elections will turn out in four years. If the Democrats win in 2028, green energy will return to the agenda. So, these changes will primarily affect the next four years,” said Askar Ismailov.

Ora Lazić, a senior consultant on global commodity markets at Kpler SAS (London), emphasizes that “green” energy remains highly relevant worldwide.

“Just looking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, there were numerous topics and seminars on green energy development. Many U.S. states have already heavily invested in renewable energy. Additionally, around five oil refineries in the U.S. have shut down due to a lack of demand. In California, there are already substantial penalties on oil companies, and people are moving away from gasoline-powered cars. That’s why Trump is unlikely to reverse everything; he can only slow it down during his term,” said Ora Lazić.

She also noted that Texas alone produces more than a quarter of the world’s wind energy. Closing already-implemented green projects, where significant investments have been made, would not be an easy or quick process for Trump.

Challenges for Kazakhstan

According to Zhakyp Khairushev, the U.S. decision to withdraw support for “green” energy will have a significant impact on both the global market and Kazakhstan.

“For Kazakhstan, in my opinion, this creates both temporary opportunities and challenges. The increased demand for traditional energy resources such as oil, gas, and coal could boost export revenues. However, the decline in global interest in climate initiatives may make it more difficult to attract investment in Kazakhstan’s green economy. This threatens the development of strategically important renewable energy projects and may require a shift toward partnerships with Europe and China, which remain committed to environmental policies,” Khairushev noted.

He believes that the U.S.’s rejection of green policies will significantly impact the global market, providing Kazakhstan with an opportunity to strengthen its position in hydrocarbon exports. However, for long-term sustainability, Kazakhstan must continue developing low-carbon technologies to maintain its competitiveness amid global climate transformation.

Earlier, it was reported that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had operated with limited oversight while allocating significant funds to projects whose effectiveness and necessity have been questioned, according to the White House.