About real fight round «the green myth»

Saying that the world endures a «green» trend it is necessary to ask which world? Let me explain it.

The economic landscape of the planet the farther, the more is defined by the countries which we got used to call «developing». The term became hopelessly obsolete as we should rank China and India therefore. It is better to speak about «fast-growing economies» as the «developing» countries. These economies sharply need resources, first of all China. The governments do not put before the companies especially rigid «green» restrictions, especially if that very Chinese company works outside China. As a result Chinese rush about worldwide and buy up power assets, and «green» encumbrances do not disturb them at all. It remains to be envious for the public companies of the western countries: they would ignore with pleasure all «green» trends, but it is impossible because of the pressure of both the regulator and public opinion. As a result it is often easier to large public companies to throw off these or those assets to the Chinese or Indian players and to forget about them. The reporting of the western companies «turns green», but the ecology does not benefit from it, such a sad paradox.

In such a situation it is important how the regulatory landscape is built; therefore I will characterize it in brief. In EU countries the «green» rhetoric gradually comes nearer to rationality limit and in places already passes this limit. According to the rhetoric also the policy of the regulator is built. Serious appeals sound to refuse hydrocarbons completely and to pass to renewables as which recently hydrogen most often acts. The USA diligently supports «green» rhetoric but works rather pragmatically. So, when it became clear that there are large deposits of slate oil and gas in the country Americans started their production without deliberating continuing to argue «on ecology» in words. At last there are fast-growing economies which do not pay attention to a «green» discourse at all.

There are no special doubts that the «green» trend will win in the remote prospect, but it is necessary to live here and now. And «here and now» strategy of the USA appears seemingly the most advantageous. The American companies save face and «handshake» not to detriment of own interests. Meanwhile the situation close to a panic reigns in Europe. Industrialists and sober economists speak to the governments, «What are you doing, after all we cannot replace hydrocarbons completely yet. There are no such technologies». But the regulator cannot also go against public opinion.

In this situation Europe risks to descend from the economic world map. Do the European governments understand it? More than understand. Do they have a plan in this respect? Of course, they do. Europe tries to impose to the other world «hyper green» ideology, to secure technological advantage in this sphere and to achieve that all other countries went begging behind these technologies. The next attempt «to make Europe great again» consists in introduction of a carbon tax: let the whole world pay Europe because Europe decided so, and we, Europeans, we will patch social programs and to develop technologies at the expense of these means. The plan looks good but only looks: this very China has absolutely other views in this respect.

There is also other moment which does «hyper green» rhetoric unrealistic. Let’s take the same hydrogen. Today the most reasonable is to take it from natural gas. It would seem that there is no problem, let’s extract. “No,” speak radical «green», “we will get it from water”. But there is one nuance: it is necessary to spend more energy than you will receive from hydrogen to extract hydrogen from water. Generally, it is madness. Nevertheless plans are made and strategy is drawn on so shaky basis.

And what about Russia? Its position in brief is as follows: we see a «green» trend and we try to be built in it. Do you need hydrogen? We have natural gas, and we are ready to extract hydrogen from it in unlimited number and to deliver it to you by means of fine modern pipelines, for example, through the same Nord Stream-2. Whether this tactics will work?

There is no answer so far. There is a cruel fight round «a green course» in the world. Producers of cars tell, «Grant and we will glut the market with cars on hydrogen». The oil and gas companies echo, «Give grants and we will create infrastructure on filling cars with hydrogen». The transport and extracting companies do not stand apart too, «Give grants and we will construct infrastructure on hydrogen pumping (because hydrogen cannot be swung on traditional pipelines)». Everybody asks grants, everybody share future and not yet existing in reality «green» budgets. The Russian companies are more than in a trend and in business. But today nobody will be able to predict who will win. There will be undoubtedly winners and lost, of course, too. It only seems that in a battle for «the pure nature actors wave with freshly picked bouquets of daisies». In reality everything is very rigid, even cruel in this fight for the blue sky and green grass.