264plished is clearly a gamble with the country’s economy.

As described above, the Hybrit initiative has already received considerable public support. Not only billions of cheap loans, EU funds, and funds from the Swedish Energy Agency, but Hybrit also requests access to the vast amounts of green electricity mentioned above. All these benefits raise important questions concerning effects on competition. Can competition be fair and on equal terms when one actor receives so many billions of state support?

So far, European Union’s novel approach to sustainability, with its €1000 billion that are largely borrowed, targeted hydrogen gas money, taxonomies, and emerging carbon dioxide tariffs, has not been discussed regarding its effects on the market economy and the notion of free enterprise.

The presence of large public funds in the form of cheap credits, conditioned loans, and research funding also results in an indirect yet significant steering of the economy. In Sweden, steel manufacturer SSAB is increasingly controlled by the state and other state-owned companies. The other two firms involved in Hybrit (Vattenfall and LKAB) are completely owned by the state already. This is not a coincidence. About 75% of the private and entrepreneurial venture H2GS is funded through green project credits, a form of unconditioned loan that can be written off. Out of 25 billion SEK that will be raised, 17.5 billion will be such green project credits. Is it therefore meaningful to speak of H2GS as a private initiative at all?

The past century of worldwide economic development strongly suggests that high levels of state involvement in the economy are not compatible with development or freedom. Large interventions have large effects on free enterprise and the dynamics of a market economy. The shift that has taken place is alarming and deserves to be discussed more seriously.

5.6

Repeating the Mistakes of Biogas and Ethanol

The biogas and ethanol cases covered in this chapter provided insights into how public funds distort the incentives of firms. The cases both illustrate how billions were wasted by publicly owned firms in a process through which their own resources could be matched with public funds, effectively making it rational to destroy capital. On numerous occasions it was clear how these firms were realizing the futility of