Whenever you make a case against hydrogen as a plank of the low carbon economy, the rejoinder you usually get is “we need to use every tool in the toolbox”. On one level that sounds convincing – we’re facing an existential threat, so all hands to the pump etc, but in practice it’s downright stupid.

The whole point of having a toolbox of tools is you get to pick the right tool for the job. If you are an electrician, you need predominantly electrical tools – screwdrivers, wire cutters/strippers, soldering iron, multimeter etc, but you will have little need for a lump hammer. Lugging a lump hammer around in your toolbox just in case takes up space that could be used for tools you will actually use (and it weighs you down).

And that’s the problem with hydrogen – despite gazillions of investment over the years, it has delivered next to nothing. There is a finite amount of money available at any time and so much money could have been invested in more promising technologies once it became clear that there is almost always a cheaper alternative to hydrogen. Pick the right tool for the job, not every tool.

Here are some other Sustainability myths that we never seem to be able to shake off, despite their inherent limitations:

“We’ve got to make Sustainability everybody’s responsibility” Really? That usually works out as making it nobody’s responsibility as everybody assumes somebody else will do it (paraphrasing the old proverbial rhyme). Instead we’ve got to make sure Sustainability is the responsibility of the decision makers who are actually in a position to change things (hint: they don’t live in the Sustainability department).

“Offsetting is just greenwash” Offsetting underpins much of our international climate finance agreements. In addition, companies who buy carbon credits tend to have above average climate performance. Yes there have been some high profile scandals, but offsetting funds some fantastic projects. Think of it as an internal carbon tax ringfenced for environmental projects and it makes complete sense.

“Recycling is pointless” Quite the opposite – how do you create a circular economy without domestic recycling? Almost every material has a much lower carbon footprint when recycled compared to the virgin equivalent. Plus it is the basic Sustainability touch point for the ordinary person in the street and can be used as the launchpad for wider engagement. I hate the sneering tone used by many green campaigners dismissing recycling as a displacement activity – it is vital.

“Not everybody can ride a bike” Yes, but most people can and if we all shifted to Copenhagen/Amsterdam levels of cycle commuting, our cities would be much cleaner and greener. Somebody once challenged me on carrying capacity of a car vs bike and I pointed out that most cars I see queuing on the morning commute contain one person and a bag – a bike can easily carry these and you can get many more bikes on a piece of road than cars. I call this the perfection fallacy – the idea that a green alternative has to cover all possible use cases, not just the main one.

“Plastic is evil” Plastic in the wrong place – rivers, oceans, our blood – is bad, because the very qualities that make plastic a fantastic material – light, durable, cheap – aren’t compatible with the natural world. But they undoubtedly have environmental benefits elsewhere – lightweighting vehicles and logistics, extending the life of food products etc. We need to keep improving the circular economy model and keep plastics in the economy and out of the natural environment.

Do you have any more?