Green hydrogen is all the rage these days. At the UN Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Egypt in November last year, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that Germany would invest more than 4 billion euros (US$4.27 billion) in developing a market for it. The administration of US President Joe Biden has made “clean” hydrogen a centerpiece of the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides subsidies for renewable energies. China, too, is so invested in electrolysis that some observers fear that it will take over the market the same way it did with photovoltaic panels. Even corporations such as Australian mining giant Fortescue are betting on it becoming a multibillion-dollar industry.
When a technology is hyped to such an extent, many environmental advocates tend to become nervous. Is “clean hydrogen” merely a way to greenwash so-called “blue” and “pink” hydrogen, generated from natural gas and nuclear energy respectively? Is it an attempt to produce a magic techno fix that vindicates absurd excesses such as space tourism and hypersonic flight, when the world’s middle and upper classes should be shrinking their energy and resource consumption? Or is this the next stage of extractivism, appropriating low-income populations’ land and water under the guise of fighting climate change?
The short answer to all these questions is yes, but that is neither inevitable nor the whole story.
Yes, the green hydrogen dream could well develop into a nightmare if we do not get it right. Still, it is an indispensable building block of the global economy’s transition from climate-destroying fossil fuels to sustainable models based on 100 percent renewable energies. It might be difficult to accept this ambiguity, but the urgent need to avert a climate catastrophe requires no less.
Given hydrogen’s many potential applications, some leading experts estimate that it could power 20 to 30 percent of global energy consumption by the middle of the century, but that does not necessarily make it the most efficient choice. Electric batteries, for example, require far fewer renewable kilowatt-hours per kilometer traveled to power cars and trucks than hydrogen fuel cells or e-fuels do.
Similarly, using heat pumps is more efficient than converting gas boilers to hydrogen. Organic alternatives to nitrogen fertilizer should also be given much more consideration.
However, there are several critical sectors with few economically viable zero-carbon alternatives to green hydrogen and its derivatives, including long-distance shipping and aviation, chemicals, and steelmaking. Notwithstanding the hype, many industries will clearly need vast amounts of clean hydrogen to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
To illustrate the scale of the challenge, Bloomberg New Energy Finance founder Michael Liebreich recently estimated that just replacing today’s “dirty” hydrogen — produced from fossil fuels — would require 143 percent of the wind and solar energy the world currently has.
Several countries in the Global South have been blessed with world-class solar and wind potential, enabling them to produce green hydrogen at very low cost. Some, such as Namibia, have built their industrial development strategy around this competitive advantage.
However, how could international trade in green hydrogen and its derivatives become a pathway to prosperity? And how can developing countries avoid the green extractivism trap and ensure that trade is fair and sustainable?
A series of consultations and studies in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Morocco, South Africa and Tunisia have explored these questions at length. A new report by the Heinrich Boll Foundation and Bread for the World synthesizes their findings and highlights the need to do no harm. To prevent the green hydrogen dream from becoming a nightmare, we must develop the sector with territorial planning and clear standards and policies, as well as uphold local communities’ right to prior informed consent.
To deliver on the promise of a post-fossil development and foster sustainable economies, governments must devise ambitious and realistic industrial strategies. These strategies must be embedded in a systemic approach to sustainable development and the energy transition.
Moreover, we need to consider how hydrogen is used — not just who can pay for it.
None of this will happen by itself. Achieving a sustainable future is a political choice that requires leadership and cooperation. Several countries could help make fair and sustainable trade in green hydrogen a reality.
Countries such as Chile, Colombia, Namibia and Brazil — under its newly elected president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva — have the right political conditions for balancing green hydrogen production with strong environmental and social standards. Over time, Argentina and South Africa could join this list and become producer countries.
As a prospective major importer and consumer of green hydrogen, Germany would need to form partnerships with producing countries, based on strong environmental and social standards. Given its progressive government, it can be expected to engage with its long-term partners not just as resource providers, but as fellow travelers on the journey toward sustainable, inclusive prosperity.
To that end, Germany and other energy importers must also support exporting countries in their efforts to localize value creation. In this way, the emerging international trade in green hydrogen could become a harbinger of a new, equitable trading relationship between the Global North and South. That is a future worth fighting for, and renewable energy holds the key.
Jorg Haas is head of international politics at the Heinrich Boll Foundation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS