Environment & Energy

...their products with the good ole' bait and switch "we're going hydrogen" game.

Toyota, Honda, BMW, Siemens, Alstom, Cummins, all dependent on fossil fuels for their business, what a nice list!

Personally, I'm offended by giant fossil fuel dependent companies declaring themselves arbiters of the future, because I think they're full of shit.

If we had a dime for every marketing scam by fossil fuel dependent companies to claim they're "green," we could be rich.

If I were running a scam to pretend my company is "green," the 50 year old hydrogen scam, which has always had great marketing value because people value marketing over science, is obviously a great way to divert attention from the fact that all of these companies are involved in having created the extreme global heating condition now observed.

Of course they want to divert attention from reality, pretend they're going green.

The laws of physics are not subject to marketing budgets put out by giant corporations, nor articles in business magazines hyping the marketing budget.

Personally - and indeed people are free to believe cheap marketing scams by corporations, in fact, the usually do, I rely on scientific journals, not transparent advertising.

I love to point to one of my favorite posts in this space, which has reference to scientific publications, not dishonest news releases from the marketing departments of corporate "leaders."

A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.

In it is a nice graphic from a scientific publication showing how the filthy product hydrogen is made, and how it's used:



The caption:

Progress on Catalyst Development for the Steam Reforming of Biomass and Waste Plastics Pyrolysis Volatiles: A Review Laura Santamaria, Gartzen Lopez, Enara Fernandez, Maria Cortazar, Aitor Arregi, Martin Olazar, and Javier Bilbao, Energy & Fuels 2021 35 (21), 17051-17084]

I referred to this graphic, and reproduced it, separately discussing a paper in the journal I discussed above here: The current sources and uses of hydrogen.

What part of this picture is hard to understand? The black dangerous natural gas 48% part? The green coal 18% part? The red 30% oil part? (My link above demonstrates for the 4% electrolysis, what part of that is electricity generated by burning fossil fuels.)

My general feeling as a scientist is that scientists need not be, should not be, offended or intimidated by smarmy marketing, but rather have a responsibility to point to it for what it is, to confront it. I am unashamed to do so, and in fact, consider it an ethical responsibility.