Policy groups, NGOs and lobbyists
Crafting false narratives to block a successful transition to hydrogen
While corporate lobbying is understood and accepted as a necessary component of the policymaking process, the profusion of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), research centres and think-tanks has meant that there are now ever-more avenues for special interests to assert their influence.
Today in Europe philanthropy is a prevalent and accepted part of the process of arriving at consensus regarding decisions made by the European Commission, Parliament and other branches of the policymaking aparatus. According to Transparency International, there are now over 25,000 corporate lobbyists and 12,000 special interest groups making a combined total of 48,000 individuals working to influence policy and industry in Brussels.
Within the scope of this book, the obvious issues which concern lobbying and policy groups are climate and energy policies, which are both highly contentious even within normal public debate and thus even more contentious and open to interpretation when various commercial and ideological factors are included.
Specifically, lobbying represents the most effective way to undermine and block effective policies from being passed by policymakers. This is extremely important, because policymakers represent the only genuine way that an effective transition is going to occur: there is no way that the current system is going to lead to net zero propelled by market forces alone. At every level of the energy and transport system, fossil fuels currently hold dominance and this dominance is supported by policy in the form of subsidies and regulation to facilitate the use of conventional fuels which are an intrinsic part of the entire economic system.
Starting at the beginning, the task today as set out in Ursula von der Leyen’s Green Deal is to get to net zero emissions within Europe by 2050, which is now a legally binding commitment. The Commission, Parliament and member state governments are therefore obligated to work towards this goal, with various milestone targets set for renewables, transport emissions or carbon pricing systems. This has until now proved mostly effective, and in many cases a balance has been found where industry and policy work together to arrive at successful outcomes.
The problem that is becoming apparent however, is that the narrative of a successful transition where Europe achieves a timely reduction in emissions to zero within 25 years, looks more and more unlikely as problems start to stack up. And sadly, while many of those problems are external (inflationary pressures or the war in Ukraine), many of the barriers to achieving a realistic transition are firmly rooted in the motivations and objectives of special interests within Europe itself.
With large budgets and focused campaigns, EU institutions are vulnerable to various kinds of lobbying, which often has a very negative impact on draft EU legislation. As the European Trade Union Institute write
“A fundamental problem behind the privileged access enjoyed by big business lobbyists is the widespread belief in neoliberal ideology within the EU institutions, a set of beliefs that is centred around free markets, deregulation and the idea that what is good for big business is good for society. This approach has an inherent risk of enabling the corporate capture of decision-making.”
At the core of the problem lies the power and influence of the fossil fuel industry, which in Europe and around the world, holds a de facto monopoly position on energy. Governments require energy to maintain their economies, and this energy requires investment which must be subsidised to ensure its availability. In Europe, these subsidies are substantial — on average €56 billion per year over the period 2010–2020 according to the EU Commissions own figures, and including the full range of supports, sometimes double this. Of course, with so much at stake, and entire industries dependent on complementary policy, lobbying is naturally going to occur. However, this direct lobbying has over the years been supplemented by indirect lobbying by policy groups and NGOs who are often more closely aligned to policymakers, with a remit which superficially mirrors the perspective of policymakers themselves; calling for more regulations and more cogniscient of public interests rather than corporate profit-making. This is borne out by the statistics; in Europe it has traditionally been citizen groups rather than business actors who are successful in achieving lobbying success, contrary to popular belief.
Unfortunately, the business community have over the years become more and more aware of what it really takes to win over the opinions of policymakers and successfully impact the legislative process. As Ben Franta writes in his widely cited 2021 study, Weaponizing economics: Big Oil, economic consultants, and climate policy delay, the strategies used by fossil energy companies have taken on an insidious nature, and as we now know, for some time they have been using a wide range of tactics to completely undermine effective policies in favour of an anti-climate, pro-fossil fuel agenda. One particular ‘guidebook’ on lobbying notes
“Regulatory policy is increasingly made with the participation of experts, especially academics. A regulated firm or industry should be prepared whenever possible to co-opt these experts. This is most effectively done by identifying the leading experts in each relevant field and hiring them as consultants or advisors, or giving them research grants and the like. This activity requires a modicum of finesse; it must not be too blatant, for the experts themselves must not recognize that they have lost their objectivity and freedom of action.”
Beyond isolated experts being co-opted to minimise the damage of regulatory policy to fossil energy companies and their shareholders, is the concept of philanthropy being legitimate sponsors of policy groups, think tanks, NGOs and research institutions. The idea is really quite simple and there is ample evidence of links between philanthropic foundations and fossil fuel interests, although the complexity of these organisations and their relationship to investors, shareholders and the financial industry makes identifying these links directly a difficult task. As one of the world’s leading climate scientists, James Hansen, observes in a recent study Global warming in the pipeline, young people need to realise that even large environmental groups are being co-opted by fossil energy companies and their shareholders
“It is asking a lot to expect young people to grasp the situation that they have been handed — but a lot is at stake for them. As they realize that they are being handed a planet in decline, the first reaction may be to stamp their feet and demand that governments do better, but the effect of that is limited and inadequate. Nor is it sufficient to parrot the big environmental organizations, which have become part of the problem, as they are largely supported by the fossil fuel industry and wealthy donors who are comfortable with the status quo. Instead, young people have the opportunity to provide the drive for a revolution that restores the ideals of democracy while developing the technical knowledge that is needed to navigate the stormy sea that their world is setting out upon.”
Specifically, a new study by Jessica Green, professor of political science at the University of Toronto, shows that three quarters of what she terms “the climate establishment”; being “insider INGOs [International Non-Governmental Organisations] working within the multilateral process and with large corporations to influence rulemaking, soft law and firm behavior” have direct links with one or more members of the ‘dirty dozen’ — banks that provide the most funding to fossil fuel projects. The risk in this way is that with such close cooperation with banks that are avoiding regulation, the possibility for the financial industry to influence NGO behavior, particularly via philanthropy, increases dramatically.
Throughout this, we can see that lobbying against effective policy, or simply diverting policy away from arriving at accurate assumptions, has become widespread. The borders between economists, scientists, academics, lobbyists, researchers or public interest campaigners have become blurred.
As chairman of the EU Parliament’s environment committee, MEP Pascal Canfin explained in a 2022 article published in the Euractiv website which specifically covers news relating to EU politics, the level of lobbying in Brussels has reached new extremes. As he is quoted
“I can share a fact — it’s a tsunami of lobbying”
In response to the new wave of lobbying following on from the implementation of the European Climate Law which was enshrined in 2021, the EU Parliament set out a strategy to counteract the advances of corporate lobby groups, specifically by limiting their access to Commissioners and other measures. But behind the scenes a much more subtle lobbying campaign was quietly working, and had been for some time.
Crafting the social narrative
While the strategy arrived at to deliver the energy transition in the US and the EU is not dissimilar, the narrative surrounding the transition to net zero in Europe is in many instances more carefully articulated. Because decisions are made by the Commission, the Parliament and the Councils, there is far more room for subtle influence to change the outcome of a legislative proposal. For example, in the US, policy is mostly dependant on the particular administration delivering the policy, and lobbying is conducted by well defined groups who operate within a legal context to defend or promote opposing policy perspectives. Often in the US, this legal context is overt — the State Policy Network which consists of a group of affiliated think tanks located in all 50 states, and is funded by right-wing and corporate donors, has now openly announced that it will focus on working with state lawmakers to prevent states from adopting wind and solar power in 2024. The situation is far more multifaceted in Europe and therefore the ‘narrative’; particularly the perception of policy developments held by civil society, is far more important.
What is now occuring is that the ‘consensus view’ in the EU is in many cases being formed by those who are not in fact wholly committed to arriving at the successful result that proposed legislation is designed to achieve. Having spent many years watching how good policy subtley becomes ineffectual via the interventions of seemingly well-intentioned policy groups and NGOs, it is valuable to see how the ‘narrative’ of the energy transition has become so important.
I will start first with a group of NGOs which have actively obstructed and undermined EU policy, and offer some realistic assumptions about their motivations and funding channels. While transparency is a problem for NGOs (recently this transparency suffered new setbacks as they are no longer required to report precisely who is sponsoring them, among other measures), it should be easy to understand what is happening by presenting specific case studies. It is important to recognise the role NGOs play however, as often they are relied upon to provide assessments and inform parliament and the general public about specific policy options and choices; often being quoted by the media and generally considered to be voicing the opinion of civil society, rather than that of corporate influence. Of course no such distinction exists, and it becomes ambiguous where partial truths are interspersed with good intentions which ultimately have a singular goal: to maintain the status quo.
Case study: Transport & Environment
Transport represents one third of all emissions in the EU, and in contrast to every other sector (electricity, industry etc) transport emissions have overall increased significantly since 1990. Obviously, car ownership and car sizes have contributed to this fact, but even over the past decade have been steadily rising. This massive and growing source of emissions is lobbied over by various groups, but none more so than the Dutch-led NGO Transport & Environment. Integrity Watch EU, a database presented on the Transparency International website detailing EU lobby activities, ranks Transport & Environment just below Google in terms of importance — which they count via the number of meetings held with EU officials — and therefore the fifth overall most important lobby group in Europe.
While the group holds a position of responsibility (a public interest group concerned with transport emissions), upon detailed examination it becomes obvious that the motivations (and by this measure, sponsorship) of the group, start to come into question. Over the past decade of my research and analysis of the energy transition, mostly as contested over by seemingly non-partisan NGOs such as Transport & Environment, various themes have become apparent. The first is the building of trust by the group in question, for example in this case by ongoing lobbying by Transport & Environment against alternatives like biofuels, and the promotion of electric vehicles. This is all very good, and to be commended, with thorough research and helpful information. However, this group (like others) have also consistantly attempted to block and undermine hydrogen from even gaining a minor standing in the transport arena.
Just as one example of the tactics used by T&E can be found in a report regarding trucking, where the group predicted that by 2040, only 0.2% of all trucks would be powered by fuel cells using hydrogen. This may seem plausible, but only if you are not aware of what is occuring within the industry. Nearly every truck manufacturer has invested heavily in hydrogen, with multinational Bosch for example investing €2.5 billion in fuel cells for trucks, as well as initiating the implementation of a dedicated refueling strategy. A consortium of all major truck manufacturers previously pledged to put 100,000 hydrogen trucks on the road by 2030, and fuel cell manufacturing facilities are being built throughout Europe. Almost 10,000 fuel cell trucks are already on various companies’ order books. But despite this, Transport & Environment stay resolutely opposed to hydrogen — whereever it might be used. With over six different models of hydrogen trucks now commercially available in Europe, and hydrogen refuelling stations mandated at every 200km of motorway, it is ludicrous to think that by 2040, no hydrogen trucks at all will be on European roads.
Articles published by Transport & Environment highlight the potential problems, downsides and perceived ‘risks’ of pursuing hydrogen, for both investors and policymakers, as well as the media platforms which they donate to. In his article Less is more — time for a hydrogen reality check, William Todts calls for a complete reappraisal of the European Commission’s revised hydrogen strategy, which — just like in the newly created suite of policy packages in the US — massively increases expected hydrogen production for every sector. In the article, he attacks the use of hydrogen in any sector at all — even green steel — despite every steelmaker in Europe fully committing to hydrogen, and prices already expected to be lower than coal for many hydrogen production projects.
A similar argument outlined in an obviously scripted report by T&E tried to claim that hydrogen imports from countries outside Europe would “hamper decarbonisation goals within exporting countries”. This is a highly implausible reason to try to block the global trade of hydrogen, with three major hydrogen pipelines being built from the Middle East and North Africa, and trade agreements signed up with countries all around the world. There may be issues with shipping costs from more distant countries, but nothing so far insurmountable, if subsidies become anything like the level offered to fossil fuels. Various liquid hydrogen (LH2) tankers are also being built (1, 2, 3, 4). The report continues with the argument that water stress in those exporting countries presents another reason to abandon the pursuit of hydrogen as an alternative to fossil fuels, and to call off the extensive European hydrogen pipeline network now being built.
The argument that water stress should preclude the international trade of hydrogen was thoroughly rebuked by trade association Hydrogen Europe. The T&E report, entitled Hydrogen Hype: Why the EU should be cautious about uncertain imports from far-flung places claims that European ambitions for the use of hydrogen are false, that other energy solutions are viable, that water supply and other issues were a problem, and that ultimately there is actually no case for international hydrogen trade at all. The arguments presented by T&E are farcical in nature, and are very quickly and easily shown up for what they are in a comprehensive statement made by Hydrogen Europe following the reports’ publication. Hydrogen is central to the EU’s overall Green Deal and European Climate Law (represented specifically by the REPowerEU strategy which quadrupled the volume of hydrogen to be used following the loss of Russsian oil and gas imports), with even more ambition presented by the US Inflation Reduction Act (over $137 billion, uncapped, in subsidies specifically allocated to hydrogen).
Unfortunately, despite this obviously cynical and treacherous lobbying by a group purporting to be completely non-commercial (now impossible to authenticate following changes to lobbying transparency rules in 2021), their attacks against a viable hydrogen economy do not stop there.
The Delegated Acts
The head of the group, Geert de Cock, among others was also actively involved in undermining the very basis of the development of hydrogen in Europe as set out by the REPowerEU strategy by acting — as if in good faith — to impose a series of completely arbitrary regulations regarding the adoption of electrolysis. Put simply, electrolysers convert electricity into hydrogen, and with ambitious targets for hydrogen production and the necessity to create entire value chains, the best option would be minimal regulation initially, until the grid itself becomes decarbonised. At this point, the cost of electrolysers is reduced, value chains are in place, and hydrogen is zero carbon by default: the EU grid is expected to fully decarbonise by 2035 (up from 40% VRE plus 26% nuclear today).
The regulations consist of a number of rules, including the additionality rule (electrolysis must use only new renewable energy, rather than existing renewables), temporal correlation (the electrolysis must use only renewables at the precise time these newly built renewables are generating) and spatial correlation (the electrolysis must use only renewables in the same regional area). These rules are complex, require a lot of bureaucracy, will be time consuming to fully apply, and ultimately do not serve a lot of purpose — if the grid is decarbonising in a decade, then by the time the electrolysis is built and running then they will not apply anyway. What they do ensure is that there is significant uncertainty about whether developers will in fact conform to the criteria, and that there are absolutely no easy wins; for example building an electrolysis facility next to a grid-constrained renewables development that is currently heavily curtailed (switched off) and would benefit greatly from utilising this excess supply, at low cost. In effect, the rules are an outright assault on the nascent industry, and while taking three years to actually decide in the first place, will now mean that realistically, another decade will go by before electrolysis can be rolled out at sufficient scale.
As Hydrogen Europe state
“These strict rules can be met but will inevitably make green hydrogen projects more expensive and will limit its [hydrogen’s] expansion potential, reducing the positive effects of economies of scale.”
Considering the extreme uncertainty associated with the rules, and whether / when they will finally be introduced, this is somewhat of an understatement. Without certainty about large projects (eg no assurance retroactively adopted rules would preclude the continuing awardance of subsidies), timelines are delayed and final investment decisions are much harder to reach, thus weakening overall confidence in the sector.
The rules were met with the same reaction by the bosses of major power companies, such as RWE
“This unnecessarily limits production for electrolysers and thereby increases costs of domestic hydrogen production, putting the EU at a competitive disadvantage”
The rules also apply to exporting nations, thus jeapardising multi-billion euro projects already underway. As Hydrogen Europe boss explains
“When I was in Egypt, I saw anger during the Sharm el-Sheikh [COP 27] conference -anger of Egyptian project bosses, who say ‘we built this all up and where is the offtake now? The US is much more attractive’.”
Another industry association representative continued
“The industry has been waiting for legal clarity, investment and planning certainty [since 2018]. The process was at times very bureaucratic and became extremely ideologically charged. The result is a very bureaucratic act.”
In all, the rules have meant that it will be extremely difficult to quickly roll out electrolysis and build the value chains necessary, and which are crucial to achieving net zero goals. But worse than this, the success of the many ‘seemingly’ ideologically motivated NGOs — who are really only interested in blocking hydrogen completely, with no interest in a successful energy transition — would then be replicated by a similar group of US NGOs who are also specifically committed to blocking hydrogen.
In the US, the Inflation Reduction Act contains a provision for hydrogen production called the ‘production tax credit’ or 45V PTC. This subsidy amounts to up to $3.00 per kg of hydrogen — with a value initially expected at over $137 billion to flow to eligible projects over the next 10 years. This now outpaces the EU which has historically invested more heavily in hydrogen, and is projected to spend over $100 billion in subsidies during a similar time period. These are significant levels of subsidies if they reach industry on time, and while at only about one fifth of fossil fuel subsidisation, would considerably speed the adoption of hydrogen as a fuel.
Strict rules are in place within both the EU and US policy suites to ensure extremely low or zero emissions are produced (beyond for example the EU delagated act stipulations).
The problem however, is that these new rules — completely at odds with the development of hydrogen as an industry and lobbied for by those with a clear and unwarranted bias against hydrogen — have been copied line for line by a group of NGOs and ‘interest groups’ who have similarly been lobbying against any form of hydrogen for decades.
The arguments offered in the US media as published in UtilityDive and top US political outlet The Hill offer a a refreshing view of the so-called ‘Three Pillars’.
The Hill summarise this openly anti-hydrogen bias in great clarity
“To scale up clean hydrogen, we must avoid immediately imposing additionality and other constraints on the nascent industry. These requirements were never applied to previous emerging clean energy sectors. Similarly, hourly time matching and regionality rules would hinder clean hydrogen projects in the crucial early years, which we cannot afford.”
This observation should not go unmentioned: at no time have the vast emissions produced by EVs running on coal or natural gas ever been questioned — nor the extensive emissions associated with battery production — nor even the human rights abuses attributed to child labour for exotic battery minerals.
UtilityDive continue
“As the new, more stringent, requirements being demanded of hydrogen were not envisioned when the IRA was written and passed, these new requirements would effectively rewrite the Inflation Reduction Act to include serious restrictions on the types of clean energy that can be used, where it can be used, and even when it can be used. If the goal is to scale clean hydrogen, we should be exploring ways to encourage its production, not creating new hurdles before it can even get off the ground.”
The attacks against the hydrogen economy must be seen within context: all these groups have openly undermined hydrogen as a replacement to fossil energy for many years, despite the incredibly weak nature of the arguments they use to support their case. To think that the groups lobbying for the absurd ‘Three Pillars’ regulatory imposition were not commercially or ideologically biased is inherently niave — all commentaries fighting for the use of these ‘rules’ have long histories of anti-hydrogen campaigning.
The initial lobbying crusade against hydrogen started in Europe by a core set of policy groups who have an obvious commercial bias towards maintaining the fossil fuel monopoly, in the interests of the shareholders who are supported by huge public subsidies. Hydrogen represents the end of the fossil fuel monopoly, and the tactics they use to preserve the status quo are severe, but often difficult to identify.
So, continuing from T&E’s openly hostile crusade against any form of hydrogen whatsover for whatever use, we can also identify similarly nonsensical criticisms of hydrogen from similarly biased policy groups within Brussels. The core six lobby groups who campaign virulently against hydrogen include Bellona Europa, E3G, Agora Energiewende, Fraunhofer ISI and the European Environmental Bureau. I will look at each in turn to highlight the farcical implausability of the rhetoric they use to maintain the fossil fuel monopoly, and show how they serially undermine effective policy to support the profits of their shareholder-funded sponsors.
Case study: Bellona Europa
Bellona Europa is a Norwegian-funded lobby group with offices around Europe, headed in Brussels by Director Jonas M. Helseth and supported by Senior Policy Advisor Marta Lovisolo. It is easy to identify a consistent theme associated with Bellona’s lobbying efforts; and that is the wholesale assault against the development of hydrogen in Europe, in almost comical fashion. Conjuring visions of mediterreanean Italy, the group purports itself to operate in the interests of climate and the environment, supporting such causes as the Nature Restoration Law and other cosmetic efforts to paper over Europe’s massive fossil fuel problem. Immediately, it should be mentioned that Norway’s primary export is oil and natural gas, being the largest single supplier to the EU of each fuel at about 15% and 30% respectively; as well as sponsorship from Norges Bank which is the 7th largest institutional investor of fossil fuels globally — the top ten shareholders collectively financing 49.5% of potential global fossil fuel emissions. Protecting the viability of these shareholder assets and revenue streams is therefore a priority for Bellona Europa, and their lobbying tactics do little to betray this fact.
The assault against hydrogen continues in much the same way as Transport & Environment, citing fictional issues such as water scarcity and lobbying intensively behind closed doors for the ‘Three Pillars’ criteria which have effectively sunk the implementation of hydrogen until the grid is 100% decarbonised. The sophistry employed by the group is exceptional, but the illusion of maintaining public interests over shareholder profits falls short on any close examination.
In a sponsored article published on the Euractiv.com platform, Helseth targets precisely what his shareholder-funded sponsors fear the most: the shifting of subsidies away from fossil fuels to hydrogen. His article “Why von der Leyen’s ‘European Hydrogen Bank’ is a bad idea” reiterates the rhetoric against hydrogen as presented by T&E, but with a slightly different twist in that the cost of building the hydrogen industry could ‘damage the EU economy’. As he writes
“This obsessive, misguided insistence on hydrogen to replace Russian gas will prolong fossil dependency, throw the EU Green Deal under the bus, drive consumer and business energy costs up even further, and risk inducing another recession.
To make things worse, it seems as though the European Parliament is as lost to the Hydrogen Hype as the Commission. At the time of writing this, MEP Pieper’s Amendment to Article 27.3 of the EU Renewable Energy Directive was approved.“
The desperate tone of the article is hardly the result of a fear of lower-income households suffering unduely from the cost of an effective transition away from fossil fuels — but instead, the very real fear that subsidies will shift wholesale and shareholder revenues face the genuine possibility of being lost.
He continues his farcical outrage on a LinkedIn post
“Too long, has this #HydrogenHype madness been allowed to unfold across 🇪🇺 & beyond *How* is it possible“
In an almost infantile style, with generous use of emoticons, he repeats the hackneyed and stale arguments that ‘hydrogen is a waste of electricity’ and various other straw man arguments, primarily focusing his attacks on the EU Hydrogen Bank. Given the enormous subsidies provided to fossil fuels, the logic that providing initial funding to hydrogen production is a waste of taxpayers money could not be more cynical.
His colleague, Marta Lovisolo sinks even lower in her outright contempt for the use of hydrogen in any form. Desperately, she summarises her feigned ‘anger’ at hydrogen, linking to a twitter thread by another anti-hydrogen campaigner. As her tweet reads
“#Hydrogen is on its way to becoming our new #climate nightmare: how?
Reversing our energy transition by cannibalising our SCARCE #renewableenergy sources and increasing global warming if leaked (see [thread])“
The thread then claims that producing hydrogen from renewables and water is not in fact climate neutral because if hydrogen escapes, the molecule can interfere with the breakdown of other greenhouse gases, thus potentially being a net contributor to global warming. The suspension of belief required to think that this precludes the implementation of hydrogen to replace fossil fuels is utterly absurd, and only highlights the desperate ideological conceit that pervades the hydrogen debate. The use of such tactics shows just how far anti-hydrogen rhetoric is prepared to go to sew doubt about the use of hydrogen as a fuel.
Beyond the laughable arguments provided by Bellona Europa and Transport & Environment to block the use of hydrogen, still more policy groups have made it their mission to block hydrogen, and thus the energy transition itself.
Case Study: E3G
Anti-hydrogen fervour reached a peak within the ‘Brussels bubble’ after the roll out (and subsequently, implementation of) the Hydrogen and Decarbonised Gas Market Package in early 2021. Upon announcement of the package, which — under the proviso that hydrogen would start replacing natural gas (and, as a matter of course, other fossil fuels) — the policy group space started to reiterate their openly hostile opinion of hydrogen with the drawing up of the Civil Society Gas Manifesto. This Manifesto, drawn up by long-time anti-hydrogen campaigners but most specifically E3G, the EEB and CAN Europe, sought to firmly denounce the use of hydrogen in favour of much simpler technologies such as batteries, bicycles and walking, housing renovation and behavioural changes.
The package, which is supported by various other policy measures including the Hydrogen Strategy, the Sectoral Integration Strategy, REPowerEU and various others, is a very well thought out and technically accomplishable shift from natural gas to hydrogen in Europe’s gas grid. It was made within the context of the Transmission System Operator (TSO) planning process, which combines both electricity and gas utility companies who currently operate Europe’s entire energy grid. The planning process is called the Ten Year Network Development Plan and is a complicated technical report produced to highlight physically how the EU energy system will decarbonise. In all scenarios, hydrogen replaces natural gas: there is no debate about what can be used as energy storage and what the limitations of the infrastructure currently are.
In response to a stakeholder workshop held by the EU Commission to gather views on the upcoming release of the Hydrogen and Decarbonised Gas Market Package however, policy groups — led by E3G, the European Environmental Bureau and CAN Europe along with 20 others, devised the rather oddly titled ‘Civil Society Gas Manifesto’. The Manifesto, which in essence sought to completely undermine the hydrogen and decarbonised gas package, is emblematic of the campaign against hydrogen which these groups had been waging for many years. As the Manifesto states: “hydrogen should not be used to heat homes or for passenger cars” while also trying to ban blue hydrogen (which is a practical necessity) or hydrogen blending (again, a necessity for the the initial upscaling of hydrogen production) which essentially rules out the entire gas package — or indeed the use of hydrogen anywhere at all. Central to the package is the premise that hydrogen would remain an expensive and extremely scarce resource, despite nearly all serious projections understanding that hydrogen costs can be lowered dramatically with policy focus, in only a few years — the official stated goal being a cost of €1.80/kg by 2030 in the EU, and most countries around the world aiming for between €1–1.50/kg within a decade. The conceit that hydrogen costs cannot be lowered sufficiently simply means the continuation of fossil fuels — but to actively try to block the package under this false pretence shows how desperate these groups are to block a realistic energy transition.
Low cost hydrogen in a hydrogen gas grid has obvious advantages: hydrogen could then power all transport modalities such as trucks, cars, shipping, aviation, and then everything else.
Following the consultation, the package was formally adopted, and was not at all revised in favour of the groups protest against the use of hydrogen. Hydrogen will replace natural gas in the gas grid, and trying to ban its use for essentially any application is incredibly dangerous as fossil fuel use continues, and temperatures climb.
What the ‘Manifesto’ highlighted however, was that the outright war against hydrogen by lobby groups is ferocious; and the vague insistence that ‘energy poverty’ must be avoided at all costs only underlines what the genuine reality actually is: to protect shareholder interests and drive the biosphere into collapse.
There are ultimately three reasons that these policy groups all signed up to support the Civil Society Gas Manifesto, which at its core is a case to ban the use of hydrogen
1. Misinformation
Perhaps they were misinformed about the expected cost/efficacy of using hydrogen, or the inherent difficulty of replacing many conventional fuel applications with batteries or direct electrification. They could also be misinformed about the expected cost of climate impacts should we fail to electrify conventional fuel use
2. Commercial reasons
Many policy groups are funded by sponsors who wish to preserve the status quo. Blocking hydrogen, within knowledge that electrification alone does not pose a structural threat to the fossil fuel industry, may be considered a first line of defense against stakeholder losses
3. Ideologic reasons
Some proponents are pushing an agenda which suits an ideologic perspective that conflicts with policy and industry developments. If hydrogen is not there, full electrification seems logical. Despite the potential that this may not eventuate, in this case a failed transition may also present advantages
During the course of my research and advocacy, I have found (and summarised) 31 reports — mostly independent or funded by governments — which show that hydrogen for heating is affordable and necessary — indeed outside the policy group space this is the consensus opinion, as held by both gas and electric utility companies in their energy system planning.
Following the announcement of the Hydrogen and Decarbonised Gas Market Package, and its recent conversion to binding law (66% of all gas used in Europe must be hydrogen, biomethane or synthetic methane by 2050); the Commission also announced the REPowerEU strategy, which effectively quadrupled the targeted volumes of hydrogen use in Europe by 2030. Under REPowerEU, the goal is to source 10 million tons of hydrogen within Europe and import a further 10 million tons, which together make up approximately 20% of all EU gas consumption. The hydrogen is aimed for use in a variety of sectors including blending in the distribution grid, transport, blast furnaces (steel) and industrial heating as well as existing industrial hydrogen use.
Unfortunately, because of the incredibly strict ‘additionality’ rules which dramatically reduces the widespread use of electrolysis, as well as the increase in interest rates set by the central banks which has effectively doubled the price of renewable electricity, it is unlikely that the ambition of the REPowerEU strategy will be achieved by 2030. The finance- and shareholder-funded lobbying industries are conspiring to sink any chance of an effective transition in Europe.
These factors will not stop the industry entirely however, and as well as this, foreign developers are still likely to keep on track to develop the electrolysis and renewable capacities required. New US ambitions to achieve a dispensed hydrogen price of $7/kg for transport by 2028 in a continued policy drive (making the fuel much more likely to start replacing hydrofractured shale), and China have also announced that hydrogen fuel cell trucks will be cheaper than diesel trucks by 2027. Indeed, policy and investment focus globally is accelerating, with countries around the world continuing to invest heavily in domestic, import and export markets. The battle between vested interests in fossil fuels as well as the purely ideologically motivated anti-hydrogen campaigners against these developments continues to rage.
The danger obviously is that these developments will occur too late, and climate impacts may start making an effective transition to hydrogen impossible.
Case study: Agora Energiewende
Continuing the roll call of policy groups and NGOs who seek to obstruct, delay and otherwise block the shift from many conventional fuels to hydrogen, is the German policy group Agora Energiewende. As usual, their policy prescriptions are fundamentally at odds with actual EU policy, and particularly regarding hydrogen, the campaign is the same as the other policy groups mentioned: to maintain an iterative approach to the transition which does not involve the wholesale replacement of gas or oil with hydrogen.
A brief trawl through Twitter/X makes it obvious what opinion Agora Energiewende ‘consultants’ have regarding hydrogen
Micheala Holl, senior associate:
“3 years into the Hydrogen hype the first MS wakes up to where the true investment challenge lies — electricity grids. https://pro.politico.eu/news/161387“
Lobbying against hydrogen in the gas grid or international liquid hydrogen trade:
“The “hydrogen ready” delusion continues. After supposedly hydrogen ready lng terminals and boilers in EU rules, also German law carves out exemption for mostly fossil ready boilers. https://pro.politico.eu/news/161906“
The usual argument that subsidies should not be offered to hydrogen, when fossil fuels are still subsidised approximately 50 times more (the price support is for fossil fuels following the Russian invasion of Ukraine; and missing comma intended):
“Jesus. More money going into hydrogen without anyone knowing what the requirements for “low carbon” are? Some cleaning up to do before, money s a bit scarce in EU after 700 bln going into price support“
Her colleague Andreas Graf (Programme Lead EU Climate & Energy Policy) continues to refute the Commission’s legally binding policy
Lobbying against hydrogen in the gas grid:
“While they don’t even exist yet, ‘hydrogen-ready’ boilers will just be fossil gas boilers, since hydrogen in buildings will never be anything but an ultra-niche solution. Instead of hydrogen readyness, shouldn’t we be talking more about setting a hybrid readiness? [article about hybrid heat pumps]”
The usual partially founded or ambiguous claim, when hydrogen testing and certification have been carried out in literally hundreds of trials (capital ‘G’ intended):
“Long-suppressed hydrogen explosion risk report and video released after ruling from UK commissioner Gas distributor SGN,which is due to carry out an H2 heating trial in Scotland next year, had refused to release full details for “fear of misinterpretation”
The desperation to block hydrogen in any shape or form continues, with their colleague and program lead hydrogen Matthias Deutsch, however this time in the form of short reports and briefings. An announcement for one such briefing ’12 insights into hydrogen’ is met with a very revealing comment by James Kaff, a veteran hydrogen campaigner on Twitter/X
“Agora’s ‘analysis’ of hydrogen is simply a manufactured psyop intended to undermine support. Who uses language like ‘no-regret’? There is some trade off or regret in any form of energy. Agora simply overestimates challenges and underestimates benefits.”
Identifying these groups, as well as the various ideologues who have made it their mission to block the hydrogen economy, a considerable list forms: Micheal Liebriech (and the famous ‘Hydrogen Ladder’), Jan Rosenow (NGO RAP Online), Michael Barnard (journalist and consultant), Christian Breyer (professor LUT Finland), Jesse Jenkins (professor and director of ‘Zero Lab’) and Auke Hoekstra — all singularly work to block hydrogen from ever becoming a significant component of the energy industry.
These vocal anti-hydrogen campaigners do affect the ‘social narrative’ surrounding hydrogen within the public discourse, however it is policy groups and their influence both on policymaking (as effective or ineffective as this may be) but also via the media, who often cite their reports and findings as being completely authentic and which then become ‘the news’. If The Guardian considers RAP Online to be the singular provider of unbiased and non-partisan analysis regarding which way countries in the UK or Europe should decarbonise their heat networks, while forgetting or losing track of the broader system benefits of decarbonising transport and industry applications concurrently, then the situation may develop along a false agenda — one that the Guardian may not even be aware of. This capture of the social narrative and of ‘consensus’ opinion is in many ways the most dangerous threat to the energy transition being achieved.
Today, because of lax financial regulation or no regulation particularly regarding climate (as set by non-democratically elected European Central Bank officials and among other central banks), much of the actual profit generated by society is captured by financiers and shareholders, which is then diverted from any genuine reinvestment. The vast €135 billion profits made by banks in 2023 (of which €120 billion went directly to shareholders), is being spent on defending currently held fossil fuel assets and blocking continued investment in the energy transition. Policy groups and private consultants sponsored by these shareholders conveniently and consistently steer the debate away from any realistic change.
Unfortunately, this system leads most observers to despair and apathy — without understanding who is ultimately benefiting and not seeing how the data is being manipulated to serve specific ends, the result becomes one where alternatives to some kind of collapse seem impossible to avoid. The only answer to this as percieved by many — and sadly, momentum is even growing within those with a robust knowledge of the current ‘polycrisis’ as it is being labelled — turn to such ambiguous labels as ‘degrowth’ and other ideological manifestations as being the only way out. As I believe, it is very foolhardy to believe that behavioral change and “downsizing” is in any way going to bring about the structural reduction in emissions required to avoid planetary disaster. While some level of downsizing is going to be inevitable as the planet degrades, to think that a focused effort should not be made to actually achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement rather than continuing a fictional and cosmetic storyline which avoids the realities that must be faced, is morally reprehensible. Blocking investment in renewables via monetary policy, banning hydrogen from replacing conventional fuels due to regulatory capture, and as I show hiding the true cause of recent extreme warming trends are all unnecessarily leading to a horror story which is avoidable, if governments are able to act effectively.
