Absolutely. A sane hydrogen strategy can not be left to the lobbyists. Unfortunately, these companies have a lot of money to throw around, and they have no qualms about speaking to peoples "anti-ideological" impulses. In Germany, we have seen this strategy employed a number of times now politically: There is a clear technological winner (EV, battery, heat pumps, etc...), however with enormous transition costs (new infrastructure, people changing habits). So it's inconvenient. You then simply claim that you are pro-climate, but you want a "technologically neutral" solution, claiming that the slightly inconvenient winning technologies are driven by "green" moralizing and ideology. As no alternative technologies are ready to go, and their trade-offs and inconveniences (e.g. where do you build all the wind farms to produce the electricity to get your hydrogen) are not apparent in the immediate future, you get to not inconvenience your electorate, seem pragmatic/rational (vs the "green ideologues"), while still talking pro-climate.

It's not exactly been a winning strategy electorally for those who employ it the loudest, but it's been an effective strategy to prevent political wins of the parties and politicians that actually want to make the sustainability transition happen.

So far, it seems to have empowered the anti-establishment populist right instead...

A reason I think carbon pricing makes sense. Then you can calculate the most economical solution rather than going with the slickest politicians.

Carbon pricing is great theory, but also is a massive cop-out politically. It moves the pain point into the future. If todays governments can't implement measures that are somewhat uncomfortable, why do you believe that a government in five or ten years will actually be able to implement or sustain a carbon price that is effective?

I will not believe a policy based around future increases in carbon price unless it is implemented at a constitutional level (i.e. hard to reverse), comes with a detailed plan to redistribute the taxes raised in a manner that makes it socially just, and includes detailed information campaigns what the future price means for investments done now.

Having a huge carbon price in 10 years, for example, implies that internal combustion engine cars are worthless then. Just trying to implement a policy to stop selling them in ten years already causes a huge backlash, the idea that there will be the political capital to turn all existing ICE cars into expensive paper weights that only the richest few can afford to drive is wishful thinking.

Carbon prices do have an important role to play, but for those situations where we need to transform large systems in our societies (heat sector, mobility) that are incredibly ingrained in the status quo, relying on market mechanisms that depend on a politically backed price does not seem feasible.

Absolutely agree.