Is Hydrogen the solution? Nobody knows

We just don't know how to deal with some environmental problems. A recent UK government study points to some of the uncertainties about the impact that use of hydrogen as an energy carrier could have on the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect. Thus: 

Leakage of hydrogen into the atmosphere will decrease the tropospheric concentration of hydroxyl radicals (OH), the major tropospheric oxidant, and thereby increase the atmospheric lifetime of methane and its impact on climate. Atmospheric implications of increased Hydrogen use, Nicola Warwick, Paul Griffiths, James Keeble et al, Universities of Cambridge and Reading, April

Other uncertainties could arise from more hydrogen leaking into the atmosphere and increases in the concentration of both tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapour, boosting a 'radiative forcing' effect that raises temperature. 

The key concept here is uncertainty. It would seem foolish, but not inconsistent with government behaviour, to go all out for a 'hydrogen economy', which might end up creating more environmental problems than it solves. Or it might not. Nobody knows. In circumstances like this, where the science is uncertain, I would advocate Climate Stability Bonds. These would target what we want to achieve for the world's climate, but not how to get there. Bondholders would have incentives to work out the best ways of achieving our climate goal, even over the necessarily long period that such achievement will take. Most likely a range of technologies, including hydrogen, will need to be researched, refined, experimented with and implemented. No government policy can bring about the diverse, adaptive range of activities that will be necessary to achieve a climate goal. Our knowledge is too scanty and ever expanding to determine how best to proceed. But what government can do (perhaps with the help of supra-governmental bodies, non-governmental organisations and the public) is to raise funds that, in a Climate Stability Bond regime would ultimately reward those who help reach our goal.

The aim of Climate Stability Bonds isn't isn't to create a stable climate: it's to reduce the probability of catastrophic climate breakdown, now being seen by some as climate emergency. In the face of the uncertainties that bedevil almost every aspect of this emergency (some question even whether it even qualifies as an emergency), it is tempting to do nothing, or make only token, highly-publicised gestures in the right direction. A Climate Stability Bond regime would address the reluctance (or hypocrisy) of governments to channel taxpayer funds into possibly solving a long-term problem when there are so many more immediate claims on society's scarce resources. It would do so because, under a bond regime, until our climate goal has been achieved, government need spend nothing. All risks would be borne by bondholders. 

I have written extensively on Climate Stability Bonds. Links are here.