In the global race to decarbonise, hydrogen has emerged as a symbol of hope. Governments and corporations across Europe are investing billions in the promise of “green hydrogen” — fuel produced using renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. Yet the push for clean energy is increasingly raising uncomfortable questions about where the environmental and social costs are actually being paid.
A striking example is the Hyphen Hydrogen Energy project in Namibia, a massive proposed hydrogen and ammonia production complex backed by international investors and led by the German renewable energy company Enertrag. Touted as one of the world’s largest green hydrogen initiatives, the project aims to help power Europe’s energy transition. But critics say it illustrates a deeper truth: green isn’t always green.
Behind the rhetoric of climate action lies a complicated story of ecological risk, colonial history, and potential double standards between industrialised nations and the Global South.
A mega-project in a pristine wilderness
The Hyphen project is planned for Namibia’s remote south-western coast, inside the vast and largely untouched Tsau ǁKhaeb National Park. The park, formerly known as the Sperrgebiet (“forbidden area”), remained closed to the public for decades because of diamond mining concessions. As a result, it is now one of the least disturbed ecosystems in southern Africa.
This isolation has allowed remarkable biodiversity to flourish in an otherwise harsh desert landscape. The park contains more than 700 plant species, including hundreds found nowhere else, and supports wildlife such as gemsbok, brown hyenas, and rare bird species. Scientists describe it as an arid biodiversity hotspot, an unusually rich ecological zone despite the extreme climate.
Yet this fragile environment is now being considered for one of the largest industrial developments ever attempted in Namibia.
The proposed hydrogen complex would require enormous infrastructure: thousands of wind turbines and solar panels, a desalination plant to produce fresh water from the Atlantic, electrolysis facilities to produce hydrogen, pipelines, processing plants to convert hydrogen into ammonia, and a new deep-water export port.
The scale is staggering. Early phases alone envision around 5 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity, roughly equivalent to several large power stations, to produce hundreds of thousands of tonnes of hydrogen-derived ammonia annually for export to global markets.
Supporters argue that Namibia’s vast deserts and powerful winds make it an ideal location for such a project. Critics counter that the location — inside a protected national park — reveals the environmental contradictions of the global hydrogen boom.
A project built for Europe
Green hydrogen is central to Europe’s long-term climate strategy. Industries such as steelmaking, shipping, and fertiliser production require energy sources that electricity alone cannot easily replace. Hydrogen, produced from renewable energy, is seen as the solution.
But Europe faces a major problem: geography. Many European countries simply do not have enough land or renewable energy potential to produce hydrogen at the scale they need. As a result, the European Union has begun forming partnerships with countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America to produce hydrogen abroad and ship it back as ammonia or other derivatives.
Namibia has become one of the flagship partners in this strategy. During international climate negotiations, European leaders hailed cooperation with Namibia as a “win-win” partnership: Europe would gain clean energy imports, while Namibia would receive investment and jobs.
But the structure of these deals has led critics to argue that the environmental burden of Europe’s energy transition is being outsourced to poorer countries.
Environmental concerns in the desert
Environmentalists worry that industrialising such a pristine landscape could have irreversible consequences.
Scientists warn that wind turbines and infrastructure could disrupt habitats and threaten species unique to the region. Some critics also highlight the risk to coastal ecosystems, including seabirds and marine life such as endangered African penguins.
Construction itself could fundamentally alter the landscape. Blasting rock to build ports or industrial facilities could drive away dolphins and other marine species, according to local observers familiar with the area’s wildlife.
The project would also require vast quantities of water — a scarce resource in Namibia’s arid climate. Although desalination plants can produce freshwater from seawater, they generate brine and chemical waste that can damage marine ecosystems if poorly managed.
For critics, the fundamental question is simple: if the purpose of green hydrogen is to protect the planet, how much environmental damage is acceptable in its name?
Indigenous land and colonial shadows
The controversy surrounding the project is not limited to environmental issues. It is also deeply entangled with Namibia’s colonial history.
The proposed concession area lies on ancestral land of the Nama people, an Indigenous community whose ancestors suffered devastating losses during German colonial rule in the early twentieth century. Descendants of those communities say they were not properly consulted about the development.
The Nama Traditional Leaders Association has argued that supporting such a project risks perpetuating historical injustices — particularly because the same land was once declared a restricted zone by German colonial authorities.
In recent years, the Nama community and human-rights groups have brought complaints to international institutions, arguing that Indigenous rights must be respected and that communities should have the right to grant or withhold consent before projects proceed.
For many observers, the optics are troubling: a German-backed project extracting resources from land once seized during colonial rule, largely to supply energy to Europe.
Economic promises and local skepticism
Supporters of the project argue that the benefits could be transformative for Namibia.
Government officials say the project could create up to 15,000 jobs during construction and thousands more permanent positions, while positioning the country as a global hub for green hydrogen production.
Yet local communities remain cautious. Investigations have found that many residents of nearby towns feel poorly informed about the project and worry about impacts on tourism, fishing, and traditional livelihoods.
Another concern is the distribution of economic benefits. Namibia’s economy is relatively small, and mega-projects driven by foreign investors can sometimes leave limited long-term gains for local populations.
Critics point out that hydrogen exports would primarily serve industrial demand in Europe, raising questions about whether Namibia is effectively becoming an energy colony for richer nations pursuing climate targets.
Signs of trouble
The controversy surrounding the project has already had tangible consequences.
In 2025, the German energy utility RWE withdrew from a planned agreement to purchase ammonia produced by the project. Although the company cited market conditions, Indigenous groups had previously urged it to reconsider because of concerns about land rights and environmental impacts.
The withdrawal highlighted the financial uncertainty surrounding the global hydrogen industry. Green hydrogen remains expensive compared to fossil fuels, and many large projects worldwide are struggling to secure investment and buyers.
Still, the Hyphen project remains a cornerstone of Namibia’s hydrogen ambitions.
Would Germany accept this at home?
The debate ultimately raises a question about environmental double standards.
Protected landscapes are common in Europe, and strict regulations often limit industrial development within them. It is difficult to imagine a project of similar scale being approved inside one of Germany’s most cherished natural areas, such as Saxon Switzerland National Park or Berchtesgaden National Park.
Yet in Namibia, a national park is precisely where the project is planned.
Supporters might argue that circumstances differ. Namibia has vast open spaces and a pressing need for economic development, while Europe has fewer options for renewable energy expansion.
But critics say the comparison exposes a deeper imbalance. When environmental protection conflicts with economic interests, industrialised nations tend to protect their own landscapes — while encouraging large-scale projects abroad.
In other words, Europe’s green transition may depend not just on renewable energy, but on geography: the ability to place environmentally disruptive infrastructure somewhere else.
The paradox of the Green Transition
None of this means green hydrogen itself is inherently bad. Decarbonising heavy industry is essential to limiting global warming, and hydrogen could play an important role in achieving that goal.
The challenge lies in ensuring that the transition to clean energy does not replicate the same patterns of exploitation that characterised the fossil-fuel era.
Large renewable projects can still have environmental impacts. They can displace communities, damage ecosystems, and concentrate profits far from where the projects are built.
As the Hyphen project demonstrates, the shift to green energy is not simply a technological transformation. It is also a political and ethical one.
A test for climate justice
Ultimately, the debate over Namibia’s hydrogen project is about more than one facility in a remote desert. It is about how the world chooses to pursue climate solutions.
If the energy transition is truly global, then its benefits and burdens must be shared fairly. That means respecting Indigenous rights, protecting biodiversity, and ensuring that host communities gain real economic advantages.
Otherwise, the risk is clear: the green transition could reproduce the same inequalities that defined the fossil-fuel age — only with different technologies and a greener label.
In Namibia’s desert wilderness, that question is already being asked.
Is this the dawn of a sustainable energy future — or just another chapter in a long history of extracting resources from Africa to power Europe?
The answer may determine whether the promise of green hydrogen represents genuine climate progress, or merely a new form of old-fashioned industrial expansion dressed in green.
Leave a Reply