Paper short abstract:

This paper explores an Italian oil major's attempt to obtain a large slice of the EU pandemic recovery fund, raised through centrally issued green bonds, for the production of ‘blue’ hydrogen and the stocking of CO2 emissions under the Adriatic sea.

Paper long abstract:

Conservationists and environmentalists have long protested against drilling platforms in the Adriatic (including one called Theodoric after the Gothic emperor) for the exploitation of gas reserves beneath the seabed. The reserves are largely depleted, and this extractive activity has been blamed for subsidence beneath the coastline, exacerbating erosion of the historic and iconic pine forests and dunes of the Po Delta, rich in biodiversity. Protests returned with renewed vigour when the Italian oil major, ENI, began lobbying the government to use part of Italy’s allocation from the EU pandemic recovery fund, raised through centrally issued green bonds, for a highly ambitious programme of blue hydrogen production, using methane from existing reserves, with emissions to be abated by carbon capture and storage. The proposal raises questions about the nature of sustainability: if EU institutions and national governments are to use private capital to achieve a ‘green recovery’, should methane be seen as part of the solution or part of the problem? Is ‘blue’ hydrogen sustainable? Is it morally acceptable to bet on the efficacy of unproven CO2 storage technologies at large scale? How should threats to coastal ecology be taken into account? What weight should be given to local protests? The European Commission’s decision in June 2021 to exclude ‘blue’ carbon dealt a severe blow to ENI’s plans, but the way in which it reached this decision was largely through calculations over CO2 emissions rather than local livelihoods and ecologies. What does this tell us about problems of governance at scale?