Now we have a choice: focus on identity issues, or do what is right for everyone. Good luck, world.
The trouble with that statement is that it’s always the people in power deciding what “benefits everyone” and what is “identity issues”.
For example, you can make an extremely solid argument that a focus on disability rights benefits everyone, since most people are various kinds of disabled at various points in their lives and adaptations benefit everyone now (curb cut effect). Also, we are still experiencing a global health event that is leaving random people with serious long term health issues.
However, the discourse around it in the media absolutely not that. Why? Because power, that’s why. The people that pull the strings want to spend the money in other ways, so disability rights are framed as extravagant luxuries that only benefit a minority. Meanwhile they keep systems in place that lock disabled people in government enforced poverty while the companies that pay them below minimum wage get tax breaks.
I believe we’re still using more hydrogen to make industrial ammonia than that we produce from green sources, so I guess even if we only switch over ammonia production without worrying about fuel cells or hydrogen vehicles or power generation, we still come out ahead.
Then there’s the hydrogen used in oil refining that, iirc, is still mostly sourced from methane, but I’m hesitant to suggest we replace that with green hydrogen since if you want to be carbon-negative the oil refining will have to go down A LOT anyway.
Anyway, I guess my point is that hydrogen is an important commodity for all sorts of things. Before we start burning it for energy it’s easier to use it as is in industrial processes. The methane we save that way (that would be used to produce industrial hydrogen) we can burn as is in existing gas power plants.
But this is the kind of pragmatic common sense thing that gets no one excited.