CCS and “green” hydrogen are losing their shine—what happens to the clean-energy trade war next?

Two separate energy-technology narratives are colliding in the latest reporting: carbon capture and storage (CCS) is “starting to crack,” while green hydrogen has “fizzled out completely” after years of lab work without meaningful commercialization. The CCS article points to how the technology surged in popularity during the Covid-19 period, when governments and private companies pledged support for a green transition, largely on the promise that CCS would decarbonize hard-to-abate industries. The hydrogen article frames green hydrogen as the former “silver bullet” for sectors such as shipping and steelmaking, but argues that the pathway has failed to scale economically and operationally. Together, they signal that the policy and investment assumptions underpinning parts of the decarbonization agenda are being stress-tested. Geopolitically, the stakes are less about lab science and more about who controls the next wave of industrial leverage: energy-intensive manufacturing, shipping corridors, and the supply chains for capture equipment, electrolyzers, and related inputs. If CCS and green hydrogen fail to deliver at scale, governments may be pushed toward alternative approaches—such as shifting timelines, increasing subsidies for different technologies, or leaning more heavily on fossil-linked abatement—each with distinct trade and diplomacy consequences. Countries that bet early on CCS or green hydrogen could face stranded assets and political backlash, while suppliers of proven industrial equipment and conventional energy infrastructure may gain relative advantage. The implied power dynamic is a competition over credibility: which states can translate climate commitments into bankable projects, and which will have to renegotiate industrial policy. Market and economic implications are likely to concentrate in clean-energy capex, industrial decarbonization services, and the broader hydrogen ecosystem. CCS “cracking” can weigh on sentiment and financing for capture/storage developers and contractors, while also affecting demand expectations for specialized engineering, monitoring, and storage-site development. The green hydrogen slowdown can depress the forward outlook for electrolyzer deployment and for hydrogen-adjacent offtake contracts tied to shipping and steel, potentially shifting capital toward natural gas-based hydrogen with carbon management or toward electrification and efficiency. For India specifically, the hydrogen-train story—described as replacing 3,000 liters of diesel with steam emissions—highlights how national demonstration projects may become the focal point for domestic industrial narratives and procurement decisions, even as global commercialization benchmarks wobble. What to watch next is whether policymakers and investors recalibrate targets, funding, and procurement criteria in response to commercialization gaps. Key indicators include the pace of CCS project final investment decisions, the level of storage capacity permitted and actually commissioned, and whether hydrogen projects move from pilots to sustained offtake at competitive cost. For hydrogen, watch electrolyzer order books, capacity utilization, and the emergence of credible demand anchors in shipping and steel rather than only technology showcases. In India’s case, track the operational performance and lifecycle emissions accounting of the hydrogen train initiative, plus any follow-on orders or infrastructure buildout that would indicate scaling beyond a demonstration. The trigger point for escalation would be a visible pullback in subsidies or bankability standards, while de-escalation would come from clear evidence of cost-down and repeatable deployment across multiple geographies.

Geopolitical Implications

• 01

  Industrial decarbonization credibility may shift bargaining power in energy-intensive supply chains, affecting trade and procurement decisions.

• 02

  If CCS/green hydrogen timelines slip, governments may renegotiate subsidies and standards, creating new diplomatic friction over technology pathways and financing.

• 03

  Alternative hydrogen routes (e.g., waste-to-hydrogen) could change the competitive landscape for feedstocks, waste management, and infrastructure buildout.

Key Signals

• —CCS: number of projects reaching final investment decision and actual storage commissioning rates.
• —Hydrogen: electrolyzer order book momentum, capacity utilization, and signed long-term offtake contracts in shipping/steel.
• —Policy: changes to subsidy eligibility, carbon accounting rules, and bankability criteria for CCS and hydrogen.
• —India: operational metrics and lifecycle emissions verification for the hydrogen train, plus infrastructure scaling announcements.