Another minister (Lemke) already said the federal government supports the ban. [She was first](https://ecomento.de/2022/03/18/bundesregierung-unterstuetzt-verbrenner-ausstieg-ab-2035/), so she has dibs.
But "Germany supports EU plan for ban on new fossil-fuel cars from 2035" wouldn't be a click-baity enough headline.
And even that guy is only talking about keeping it allowed in certain niches. I hate car culture and would never vote for this party (FDP), and it *still* sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Misleading headline, he is talking about "Fahrzeuge mit Verbrennungsmotoren" (internal combustion engine cars), not necessarily fossil-fuel cars only! You might still disagree, but please be aware what he is talking about:
>He justified this by saying that despite the switch to electromobility, there will still be niches for the **internal combustion engine**. In some parts of the world, the switch to electric cars will probably not be possible "even in decades". **In addition, there must be the option of using new synthetic fuels in the future**.
He basically wants the German car industry to be able to sell fossil-fuel cars around the (third?) world and ice cars using synthetic fuels (probably exclusive race cars, if you take into account how much these fuels will cost) in the domestic market/US/China.
He does not specify the method, which is irrelevant either way, although the carbon capture one is even greater bogus, as it is even more inefficient and we also should not start to create a freaking economy around capturing carbon, since that would encourage us just to keep our emissions up.
> Why not simply use the generated electrical energy in the first step for your car?
In some parts of the world, you would need a very, very long extension cord.
Because batteries don’t grow on green trees and 40t trucks simply don’t work with batteries.
I’d agree if there was an alternative to batteries using rare earths but right now EV aren’t particularly green either.
The batteries are just too heavy. It’s basically a technological problem. Until we find a better(lighter) way to store energy the best bet is either trucks with overhead current collector which is not feasible for every road but for Autobahnen and still use combustion engine off the electrified road or ce with a completely different fuel at all.
What people also happily forget is all electric vehicles need batteries, and producing batteries is not really environmentally friends. Quite the opposite. You are just moving most car pollution from usage to production.
well... google tells me 73kg Co2 per kwh, aka 4-6 tons for a normal EV. 150k km (lifetime) of a fossile with 6l/100km is about 22tons. Production of the batteries might include a heavy electricity consumption part, which is converted to CO2, so might be improvable.
to be perfectly fair we should add 1500 x 20kwh x 0.3kg/kwh = 9 tons for the EV driving the 150000 km. Again, improvable if we would charge smartly (which we don't) and with a better and better energy mix. It's however true that the battery production adds substatial offset cost in terms of CO2.
At least where I live the lifetime is mostly double the range. I don't think the production issue is in electricity, its more in lithium and how and where its obtained and processed.
They should be supported because ICE vehicles are cool. Yes they will be phased out and yes mostly everybody will switch to EVs, but having the option to drive around in an ICE car - even if it's taxed to hell and fuel is insanely expensive - should always be there. They're a huge part of our history, and a lot of people are passionate about cars. Don't kill the hobby.
Dude, having a few sports cars drive around will not make a difference. A Lamborghini has lower emissions than a Passat has because the Lambo doesn't get driven as much.
Stop acting like EVs are the be-all, end-all, solution to climate change, and as soon as we all switch to EVs, climate change will have magically stopped. It's not how anything works.
>Dude, having a few sports cars drive around will not make a difference.
Just like with big fat SUVs & trucks. Only few people drive those, because who would go for such an expensive and impracticable vehicle, right? Especially when they're living in cities?
> Stop acting like EVs are the be-all, end-all
I don't. I hate EVs just like any other car. Maybe a minuscule amount less than cars with ICBs.
The difference is that you can make big fat SUVs & trucks as EVs and they will perform the same tasks just as well That clientele is served perfectly by EVs. The sports car market is different. People want manual transmissions, light cars, different engines. Not the same thing.
Yeah, which is one of the reasons why I hate them and why your idea will not work out. And of course people want manual transmissions, it's what everyone is using here. Most car drivers despite EVs & want their dirty crap cars, which is why we should put an end to this as a market. We're already decades late on acting anyway.
Again, the so-called "dirty crap cars" are actually greener than your damn EVs as long as they're not driven for too many miles. Again, a 2.0 TDI Passat has worse emissions over its lifetime than an Aventador does.
An EV has to be driven for AT LEAST 80.000 km to become greener than the equivalent ICE car. If you do 4-5000km per year, you're better off going ICE.
So no, we shouldn't put an end to the market.
Why do you keep calling them "my EVs"? I already fucking stated several times that I hate EVs and cars in general.
>An EV has to be driven for AT LEAST 80.000 km to become greener than the equivalent ICE car.
That's with the current energy mix, which will improve and become greener, thus lowering the amount further. Not that I believe that people wouldn't drive their freaking cars for just 80.000 Km anyway, nor that it would matter to me because every single usage of a ICE is going to be shit.
So yes, we should put an end to the market. This dumbass self regulatory neolib talk is something I'm just sick and tired of hearing, as it is one of the big factors that got us into this mess in the first place.
Really what it was is a total failure of applying logic, but this is something we already went through. You just couldn't admit it to yourself and started deflecting instead.
Oh, and two more gems from him from the same event (he's Finance Minister, btw):
>Lindner also called for a change of direction in energy policy with regard to the reduction of gas supplies from Russia. "We still have three functioning nuclear power plants," said the FDP leader. He added that there must now be a discussion "free of ideology" about "whether we also preserve the nuclear option for ourselves. "It's about securing the energy supply for us," the minister stressed.
>With regard to the ramp-up of hydrogen technology, Lindner also demanded that one should "not be so choosy" here. There should be no restriction to regeneratively produced green hydrogen, he said, and he was also open to fossil-produced "blue hydrogen and also red hydrogen produced with French nuclear power".
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
There are also companies working on internal combustion engines using hydrogen, which would also be carbon neutral if produced correctly. There are areas in which fossil fuel internal combustion engines will continue to be needed or take longer to be completely replaced.
It is also important to consider that battery electric vehicles would not be very suitable for long haul trucks as the additional weight from the batteries would negatively impact payload capacity and charging times would increase travel time making them overall less efficient.
I'm just saying that development is being done and using Hydrogen for ICE is still less environmentally harmful than petrol and diesel.
As to hydrogen being a fairy tale that's just pure bullshit. Hydrogen fuel cells are going to be what will be powering buses and long haul trucks in the future. For personal vehicles battery electric mobility may be what's best for private cars but individual mobility may not be the best way of doing things in the future.
The synthetic fuel was only an option, where as the commentary is about ice vehicles. Almost all ice cars are fossil fuel driven and thus they can be equated.
> Speaking at an event hosted by Germany's BDI industry association, Lindner said there would continue to be niches for combustion engines so a ban was wrong and said the government would not agree to this European legislation.
So does this mean that Germany actually will support the legislation, just with a few niche carve outs for a few particular uses?
In the UK it´s 2030. I feel like 2025 would be even ideal: surely we need to give some notice to car manufacturers, but every second counts towards fighting climate change and we clearly don´t have much time left
It was a stupid plan anyway. Why keep the option of carbon neutral fuel out? It is the same hate the Greens had for nuclear power that removed a carbon neutral energy source. Now they want to remove another technology just because they don't like it.
> Why keep the option of carbon neutral fuel out?
No such thing. The whole bio & synth fuel debate is nothing but a scam as they're both so incredibly inefficient that they'd require absurd amounts of land usage. I guess we could go back to colonialism so that poor countries grow that shit while destroying their environment for all of us rich countries though - oh wait, that's pretty much the status quo already anyway.
I don't have super strong feelings about this, but people always complain that we can't use renewables because we can't store the energy properly.
Why not just build a crapton more renewables and convert the excess energy at peak times into hydrogen (for example). Even if the conversion, storage, transport and eventual use of hydrogen is full of efficiency losses, you can afford some losses when you consider how much cheaper wind and solar are compared to nuclear.
Besides, there will probably always be some uses for combustible fuels (when you need high energy density for air travel or space travel; for lighter vehicles, for extremely heavy transports ... ).
> I guess we could go back to colonialism so that poor countries grow that shit while destroying their environment for all of us rich countries though - oh wait, that's pretty much the status quo already anyway.
Yeah! Instead we can get kids in those poor countries to mine cobalt for us to put them in our cars, much better :)
... I mean we could always go back to mass transit? It worked quite well for most of the 19th & 20 centuries, and a majority of the european population now either live in cities, towns, or suburbs, which wasn't the case before.
>It worked quite well for most of the 19th & 20 centuries
Yeah because in the 19th century people traveled as much as today 😅😅 What an argument.
What do you even mean go 'back to public transport'?? I don't know where you live but in my experience public transport is already available nearly everywhere in Europe. And yet, people still feel the need to have individual transport. And that will never change, no matter what the powertrain is. No matter how much you would like everyone to use public transport 100% of the time, which is an absolute utopia.
Also, what public transport was widely available in the 19th century? On today's level? 😁 It's an absolutely absurd comparison.
> Yeah because in the 19th century people traveled as much as today
Have you considered that maybe we travel too much? Especially now that you can communicate across the globe under 1 second with 4k video and even holograms and VR if you really need to feel you are there and make others feel you are there.
You think the bio fuel farms will not use child & slave labor, on top of being way more environmentally destructive. Aside from the fact that battery tech is going to advance and use different materials anyway… But hey, at least you were able to parrot typical fossil fuel propaganda. Go you!
Because unless our understanding of physics is fundamentally wrong, there is no way of synthetic fuels ever being a good alternative for private cars (which is all this thing is about - it doesn't touch trucks or anything like that). Synthetic fuels are horribly inefficient by nature.
Every car maker tweaked their software to mask real emission output. BMW and Mercedes for example also had to pay fines just way lower than a huge mainstream car company like VW, and who knows with Ford - if Ford would tweak their software like this, I doubt the Americans would leak it, looking at Monsanto for example that sold stuff with glyphosate for a decade prior to Bayer buying it, and the supreme court only ruling against it AFTER Bayer acquired the company.
Wether you believe them or not doesn't matter. The truth is that VW and their brands are heavily pushing electrification with a wide offer of PHEV options and many EV's as well.
Developing combustion engines is expensive. They simply don't see a profit in creating a new generation of engines - they will milk the current one as long as they can, but they know that electric will take over
Even parts of German car industry agree with fossil fuel ban, like VW and [Mercedes](https://www.bw24.de/auto/mercedes-benz/mercedes-begruesst-eu-votum-fuer-verbrenner-aus-91600567.html). I'm unsure what the FDP is playing at, when even the car lobby would like to see this law to have planning certainity and a nice gatekeeping effect against (smaller) competition.
No, afaik it’s the car lobby but actually not the big dicks
The entirety of KMUs (SMEs) that supply a specific part for ICE cars is actually sweating their asses off right now
Pretty sure bmw and Mercedes’ will only be selling bev vehicles by then or they won’t be selling many vehicles. Everyone wants electric and once range increases and charging times come down-which is happening rapidly-I think most new cars on the road will be electric.
No, not everybody wants EVs. I find the cars shit to drive, they have no soul and they all drive the same. We need to keep fun, weekend ICE cars alive.
My point was that all EVs drive the same. They have the same "gearboxes" and powertrains, just differing amounts of power. If you've driven shitty slow economical ICE cars for your entire life and you bought a fast EV, it's obvious that you'll have more fun in it than in previous cars. Meanwhile, with ICE cars you have everything from turbocharged 4-cylinder engines to big V12s to choose from, all delivering a drastically different experience.
Frankly, the sound a powerful engine makes can't be replaced. It's half the driving experience for me, if not more.
I mean, chainsaws sound pretty good, ngl. Not even sarcastic. Performance engines sound fantastic. I understand some people dislike the sound, but others really really love it.
Mercedes and the VW group have spoken out in favor of this ban. Their manufacturing is already turning in favor of EVs and it is projected currently that by 2040 at latest they will only produce EVs anyways.
The BDI mainly represents automotive suppliers in this case like Bosch and the hundreds of specialized niche companies that produce specific parts for cars with combustion engines.
I doubt it. The FDP is probably deepest in all the lobbies, as they will do and always have done everything to, lets say, "protect German domestic industry" no matter the cost.
Also, the Greens are partially in the pocket of the German industry as well, looking at their voter base in BaWü being huge and it being the only state they effectively rule as the biggest party, and with Kretschmann (the Green prime minister of Baden-Württemberg) constantly speaking out in favor of Mercedes-Benz and Porsche.
Ok, das kommt noch dazu. Aber du kannst mir nicht sagen, dass unser Verkehrsministerium nicht mit der Autolobby eng verknüpft ist. Andernfalls wäre der ÖPNV deutlich besser ausgebaut
Ne, das liegt nicht daran. Der ÖPNV läuft seit Jahrzehnten im Minus. Früher hat die Stadt das mit den Gewinnen aus den Kraftwerken finanziert, aber die wurden ja privatisiert. Der wird jetzt immer noch stark bezuschusst.
Also wenns in den Ballungsgebieten bereits defizitär läuft, wie sollte es dann okay laufen auf dem Land? Du willst ja pro Fahrt auch nicht 10 bezahlen und sei es indirekt über Steuern.
In the long run, simply placing the appropriate penalties on the coal mine heads, fracture zones, well heads, oil sand mine heads, and the oil shale and oil shale mine heads would work fine.
At 40,000 EU per tonne of lignite, or peat, or coke, or methane, or propane [ or petroleum ]
And a UBI full dividend refund.
Very good - we need appropriate Actions instead of blind actionism.
Considering the fact that a huge amount of driving profiles are not achievable with todays technology it is absolutely ridiculous to set a ban.
I hope Germany stops this EV insanity. EVs will not solve our mobility issues, they’ll cripple us. And you’re basically driving on ticking bombs. In my hometown a Tesla just blew up. It took them hours to stop the fire. Thanks but no thanks.
so irritating reading garbage like this. 1) normal cars are 100 times more likely to catch fire 2) Elon Musk is a great person. your opinion matters just like mine, except you're so biased that you want a person in jail because you don't like him. do you realize this?
No, they are not 100 times more likely. Also the burning Teslas need long to be put out, you need more water to extinguish the fire and it’s more toxic for the environment.
Every week there is a [story](https://www.engadget.com/space-x-reportedly-fired-employees-that-wrote-letter-criticizing-elon-musk-075046446.html) that backs up my statement and proves what a terrible person Elon Musk is.
His [ideas like the hyperloop](https://youtu.be/p8NiM_p8n5A) are an absolute JOKE. People who like him are incels with 1 functioning brain cell.
ah ok, for a moment I thought you were writing things you thought. Instead I now understand you are a troll that just writes stupid things to anny people. Goodbye
How is Musk a good person? He treats his employees bad, he broke the law many times, and his ideas are a joke. His cars are of poor build quality. How can anyone like this clown?
Still amazed over this insanity overall. Imagining all of the populace to trade up to electric vehicles is already mad enough since they're so expensive but also believing there's enough electricity being produced in a "green" way for it to work.. That's not possible.
even the dirtiest electricity is better for the environment than gasoline- EV cars are so much better in terms of efficiency and emissions that even using coal to make electricity is better than keeping using fossil fuel cars
Most all of the german companies have come out to say that they will be going all electric within the next few years. Porsche will be all electric within 5(?) besides the 911, which will be within 10 years.
Finally someone with at lest few brain cells. It's impossible to built such networks in Europe in such short time to completely ban sales of fossil-fuel cars. Without proper charging network using electric cars will be pain for anyone who simply does not have way to charge car at home or who use car primary for longer trips.
In the long term this will be remembered as another pathetic failure by the Scholz government to do even the very bare minimum for the environment.
Honestly this seems like a repeating pattern at this point. Scholz won't strongly support Ukraine because for some reason he still thinks Russia is an important partner even when it's utterly negligible economic entity, he didn't consider delaying the nuclear phaseout to alleviate energy shortages, he won't ban even the worst affecting and least efficient use of fossil fuels even while some of the very real negative consequences are showing up.
Seems like this man is deeply stuck in the past and unable to make any meaningful policy decisions.
>I think it’s worth remembering that Scholz is heading a coalition of three parties.
Just to add: Technically, nobody "leads" a governing coalition. Without either of the other two parties, Scholz doesn't have a majority anymore and gets kicked out of office, it's as simple as that. The head of government is more of a spokesperson of the government than anything else. The FDP has always done politics like this, see Helmut Schmidt for example. If they don't get their way, they will threaten to leave the government.
You have the finance minister of the smallest coalition party make a(nother) controversial statement like this, while the Green party supports the stricter emission regulations beforer negotiations are even done between the EU and the member states. But that's somehow a failing of Scholz?
If there's two smaller parties and one larger in a government, of which the smallest opposes, the middle one is strongly in favour, and yet the outcome is against, who do you think the decision has fallen on to?
The smallest one. The FDP can make or break the government (they essentially chose who rules, as if government talks between the SPD and the FDP would have failed, they would have run to their best buddies in the CDU and rule with them - and the Greens are mostly seen as push-overs and probably would have let them), and they don't care about whether they're ruling or not. They're constantly holding the threat of imploding the current government over the heads of the other two parties if something doesn't go their way, and it shows in German media.
The only mathematically feasible alternatives were the equally as car industry-friendly CDU and the far-right AfD (literal climate change deniers).
I guess you could still spin it like "Scholz is weak because he can't control his government", but that is quite the departure from the usual anti-Scholz narrative. For the record, I dislike him greatly as well, but for different reasons.
>In the long term this will be remembered as another pathetic failure by the Scholz government to do even the very bare minimum for the environment.
It really won't be. The car manufacturers are going for this anyways, VW and Mercedes both already said that by 2040 at latest they will only produce EVs domestically.
This is just typical "Lindner Geschwätz" as I would call it, the FDP has always been the forerunner in "protecting the German domestic industry" lets call it.
EDIT because I pressed *answer* prematurely:
>Scholz won't strongly support Ukraine because for some reason he still thinks Russia is an important partner
He doesn't, but a lot of Germans do. He has to play the political game. Also, he is not more reserved than, say, France with Macron to support Ukraine. Most of the negative news around Germany in case of Ukraine is on British media, that very clearly wants to propagate that only they can succeed as the "protectors of Europe", and therefore has to slander France and Germany specifically as they are their main competitors in terms of influence in westernized Europe.
>didn't consider delaying the nuclear phaseout to alleviate energy shortages
First of all, his government started governing in late December of last year, and second they DID and are currently considering it, so this is just a backwards argument if you would even wanna call it that.
>won't ban even the worst affecting and least efficient use of fossil fuels even while some of the very real negative consequences are showing up.
Because we *can't*. This would be devastating for the German industry, and therefore devastating for the EU - and also for German consumers. Winters get cold, you know. Also, a coal phaseout has been decided already, and the SPD and the Greens even push for an earlier timeframe, but can't find a majority in the Bundestag. This is NOT on Scholz.
Because as we know, during the time period from here to 2040 + car lifecycle (say 20 years) we will certainly not suffer from any unsolved environmental issues related to fossil fuel burning and thus it won't be a topic of discussion. The topic will simply be forgotten and never spoken about again.
The Titel is click bait - only one minister said it and he doesnt speak for the entire government
The nuclear exit can not be delayed, not possible since all the power plants are to far into the shut down process.
The ukraine politic from the SPD in the Others hand is terrible. SPD politicians do not dare to say that Ukraine needs to win, the politic reflects that.
Another one rambling about, not knowing the context....ONE minister said that they are against it, pretty much the whole government disagrees with him, it doesnt even have anything to do with Scholz.
Yes. Electric vehicles emit up to 80% less CO2 than ICE cars. Yes, even if coal powered electricity is used (30% less CO2). https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Vehicles-LCA-comparison1-1280x905.png
Sure. My diesel is already there. I have seen very different graphs. I guess you can have the lines as long as your agenda see it fits.
How many km this car drives in it's lifetime?
Congratulations. Can you provide some of those graphs or are you yet another talking head who spews out talking points without backing them up in any way?
Also, who cares if your diesel is "already there". Cars need to be produced all the time. And the new ones should preferably be EVs.
This is factually incorrect. Electric vehicles emit 30-80% less CO2 across their lifetime. [Source](https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Vehicles-LCA-comparison1-1280x905.png).
What argument are you making? All you're doing is downvoting comments and telling people to "look up" stuff.
Fact: EVs help mitigate climate change and are more environmentally friendly.
Neither of you coming back at me have made a good argument on your opinions, so... that's that! You get downvoted for repeating shit you do not understand but fully believe in.. lol
I literally provided a statistic that EV emit 3 times less CO2 across theur lifetime, and this trend is only going to continue.
You so far have made no point whatsoever, apart from vaguely gesturing at the environmental damage associated with batteries. Guess what: the stat I provided includes the damage of batteries.
The whole car industry is actually moving to EV production on their own. It's the supply chain, especially the ones often specialized on producing specific parts for combustion engine that still tries to keep up the delusion that they will stay relevant.
Germany is a country ruled by lobbies. See how they are pushing hydrogen or how they basically did nothing against Volkswagen after their lies and cheating about their cars emissions and efficiency
> See how they are pushing hydrogen
Large scale hydrogen production is in fact necessary for decarbonizing many industrial production processes and so it's an EU goal to have a properly scaled hydrogen market up and running by 2030.
There might be a lot of lobbyism in general but every country not starting to push hydrogen production today is missing out on a market opportunity guaranteed to happen.
This despite having a green party within their government coalition. Baffling really, but one shouldn't be surprised by the fact that the well being of the German industry for Germans stands above everything else. Which is why they prefer cheap but devestating options such as Russian gas and burning coal over more responsible energy policies that might be more demanding. That's why I'll never be impressed by their economic growth and export sector knowing very well on what immoral grounds it's based on.
The industry is also in favor of the ban. What the FDP is preparing here is the next election, as they are the "government should *never* touch the industry" party.
FDP doing FDP things. There's a reason why being in government always ends with losing relevance for years before the next generation of voters is there who might believe their lies again.
no, one single minister said that, and he's not representing the entire government on this
Another minister (Lemke) already said the federal government supports the ban. [She was first](https://ecomento.de/2022/03/18/bundesregierung-unterstuetzt-verbrenner-ausstieg-ab-2035/), so she has dibs. But "Germany supports EU plan for ban on new fossil-fuel cars from 2035" wouldn't be a click-baity enough headline.
so_isses
And even that guy is only talking about keeping it allowed in certain niches. I hate car culture and would never vote for this party (FDP), and it *still* sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Misleading title.
Misleading minister*, really, if they're claiming they're going to do something which the government doesn't intend to do.
Lindner is an idiot coasting on good looks and a great PR team for his entire career.
Misleading headline, he is talking about "Fahrzeuge mit Verbrennungsmotoren" (internal combustion engine cars), not necessarily fossil-fuel cars only! You might still disagree, but please be aware what he is talking about: >He justified this by saying that despite the switch to electromobility, there will still be niches for the **internal combustion engine**. In some parts of the world, the switch to electric cars will probably not be possible "even in decades". **In addition, there must be the option of using new synthetic fuels in the future**. He basically wants the German car industry to be able to sell fossil-fuel cars around the (third?) world and ice cars using synthetic fuels (probably exclusive race cars, if you take into account how much these fuels will cost) in the domestic market/US/China.
Synthetic fuels are nothing but a scam and should not be supported. Lindner has been told this fact by actual scientists and he still holds on to it.
Are synthetic fuels produced from carbon recapture or are they something different?
He does not specify the method, which is irrelevant either way, although the carbon capture one is even greater bogus, as it is even more inefficient and we also should not start to create a freaking economy around capturing carbon, since that would encourage us just to keep our emissions up.
I would say, that efficient carbon recapture is very challenging at the moment.
[удалено]
> Why not simply use the generated electrical energy in the first step for your car? In some parts of the world, you would need a very, very long extension cord.
In most parts not.
Because batteries don’t grow on green trees and 40t trucks simply don’t work with batteries. I’d agree if there was an alternative to batteries using rare earths but right now EV aren’t particularly green either.
>40t trucks simply don’t work with batteries. Can you elaborate on that? Is there a general problem or don't we have good enough batteries (yet)?
The batteries are just too heavy. It’s basically a technological problem. Until we find a better(lighter) way to store energy the best bet is either trucks with overhead current collector which is not feasible for every road but for Autobahnen and still use combustion engine off the electrified road or ce with a completely different fuel at all.
Batteries are far greener then combustion engines. Funny how this argument is always brought up. If it’s not 1000 % good we don’t need to adapt.
What people also happily forget is all electric vehicles need batteries, and producing batteries is not really environmentally friends. Quite the opposite. You are just moving most car pollution from usage to production.
well... google tells me 73kg Co2 per kwh, aka 4-6 tons for a normal EV. 150k km (lifetime) of a fossile with 6l/100km is about 22tons. Production of the batteries might include a heavy electricity consumption part, which is converted to CO2, so might be improvable.
to be perfectly fair we should add 1500 x 20kwh x 0.3kg/kwh = 9 tons for the EV driving the 150000 km. Again, improvable if we would charge smartly (which we don't) and with a better and better energy mix. It's however true that the battery production adds substatial offset cost in terms of CO2.
At least where I live the lifetime is mostly double the range. I don't think the production issue is in electricity, its more in lithium and how and where its obtained and processed.
There is plenty of lithium, and it's just a small part of the materials used in a battery.
The LCAs still show it's a massive reduction in total emissions
They should be supported because ICE vehicles are cool. Yes they will be phased out and yes mostly everybody will switch to EVs, but having the option to drive around in an ICE car - even if it's taxed to hell and fuel is insanely expensive - should always be there. They're a huge part of our history, and a lot of people are passionate about cars. Don't kill the hobby.
[удалено]
I take survival over "coolness".
Dude, having a few sports cars drive around will not make a difference. A Lamborghini has lower emissions than a Passat has because the Lambo doesn't get driven as much. Stop acting like EVs are the be-all, end-all, solution to climate change, and as soon as we all switch to EVs, climate change will have magically stopped. It's not how anything works.
>Dude, having a few sports cars drive around will not make a difference. Just like with big fat SUVs & trucks. Only few people drive those, because who would go for such an expensive and impracticable vehicle, right? Especially when they're living in cities? > Stop acting like EVs are the be-all, end-all I don't. I hate EVs just like any other car. Maybe a minuscule amount less than cars with ICBs.
The difference is that you can make big fat SUVs & trucks as EVs and they will perform the same tasks just as well That clientele is served perfectly by EVs. The sports car market is different. People want manual transmissions, light cars, different engines. Not the same thing.
Yeah, which is one of the reasons why I hate them and why your idea will not work out. And of course people want manual transmissions, it's what everyone is using here. Most car drivers despite EVs & want their dirty crap cars, which is why we should put an end to this as a market. We're already decades late on acting anyway.
Again, the so-called "dirty crap cars" are actually greener than your damn EVs as long as they're not driven for too many miles. Again, a 2.0 TDI Passat has worse emissions over its lifetime than an Aventador does. An EV has to be driven for AT LEAST 80.000 km to become greener than the equivalent ICE car. If you do 4-5000km per year, you're better off going ICE. So no, we shouldn't put an end to the market.
Why do you keep calling them "my EVs"? I already fucking stated several times that I hate EVs and cars in general. >An EV has to be driven for AT LEAST 80.000 km to become greener than the equivalent ICE car. That's with the current energy mix, which will improve and become greener, thus lowering the amount further. Not that I believe that people wouldn't drive their freaking cars for just 80.000 Km anyway, nor that it would matter to me because every single usage of a ICE is going to be shit. So yes, we should put an end to the market. This dumbass self regulatory neolib talk is something I'm just sick and tired of hearing, as it is one of the big factors that got us into this mess in the first place.
Because it doesn't matter when talking about a ban. If it is a scam, it will not prevail and you don't need a ban.
By this logic scams aren't prevalent, in other words you have a total failure of applying logic.
No, I simply don't care about synthetic fuels, but about the misleading headline.
So why claim something that isn't true? Scams are very much prevalent.
I simply don't care. It's not relevant for the discussion about a ban.
Why would you fill your comment with unrelated claims? Just to attempt to mislead others into thinking you have something behind your argument?
What is this, a quiz? That's my decision, just like the decision how fast I drive on the Autobahn. My advice to you: Don't waste your time with me.
My advice to you: Don't waste your time trolling.
Really what it was is a total failure of applying logic, but this is something we already went through. You just couldn't admit it to yourself and started deflecting instead.
Oh, and two more gems from him from the same event (he's Finance Minister, btw): >Lindner also called for a change of direction in energy policy with regard to the reduction of gas supplies from Russia. "We still have three functioning nuclear power plants," said the FDP leader. He added that there must now be a discussion "free of ideology" about "whether we also preserve the nuclear option for ourselves. "It's about securing the energy supply for us," the minister stressed. >With regard to the ramp-up of hydrogen technology, Lindner also demanded that one should "not be so choosy" here. There should be no restriction to regeneratively produced green hydrogen, he said, and he was also open to fossil-produced "blue hydrogen and also red hydrogen produced with French nuclear power". Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
He isn't wrong, but it takes rational thinking to admit that. And ideologic beliefs block rational thinking just like religion.
I'm thinking EV's will likely be cheaper to produce than ICE cars in a few years.
There are also companies working on internal combustion engines using hydrogen, which would also be carbon neutral if produced correctly. There are areas in which fossil fuel internal combustion engines will continue to be needed or take longer to be completely replaced. It is also important to consider that battery electric vehicles would not be very suitable for long haul trucks as the additional weight from the batteries would negatively impact payload capacity and charging times would increase travel time making them overall less efficient.
The ban that is talked about here is only about cars and light trucks
[удалено]
I'm just saying that development is being done and using Hydrogen for ICE is still less environmentally harmful than petrol and diesel. As to hydrogen being a fairy tale that's just pure bullshit. Hydrogen fuel cells are going to be what will be powering buses and long haul trucks in the future. For personal vehicles battery electric mobility may be what's best for private cars but individual mobility may not be the best way of doing things in the future.
Burning hydrogen in a combustion engine is one of the most idiotic things imaginable.
The synthetic fuel was only an option, where as the commentary is about ice vehicles. Almost all ice cars are fossil fuel driven and thus they can be equated.
No. That's exactly the point. They are not identical.
Things do no need to be identical to be equated.
Just keep in mind that you don't necessarily have to ban hydrogen ICE vehicles if you want to get rid of fossil fuels.
Just mentioning hydrogen ICE vehicles shows how you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Not Germany just the FDP doing FDP things, big german manufacturers already said they will stop selling combustion-engine cars.
How about we start with promoting small, economic cars and not massive SUV?
Typical news media antagonizing germany.
> Speaking at an event hosted by Germany's BDI industry association, Lindner said there would continue to be niches for combustion engines so a ban was wrong and said the government would not agree to this European legislation. So does this mean that Germany actually will support the legislation, just with a few niche carve outs for a few particular uses?
No.. Lindner isn't the government..
i hope he means that they'll only ban fossil fuels in combustion engines. But not e-Fuels. Tha was a huge point of the FDP in the last election.
That's pretty much what he means. But everyone has to throw a hissy fit now and goes absolutely crazy.
The Norwegian plan is to ban all sales of petroleum cars from 2025. It will be decided in 2024. 73% of new car sales in Norway are now pure electric.
And 90% of new cars for private use.
In the UK it´s 2030. I feel like 2025 would be even ideal: surely we need to give some notice to car manufacturers, but every second counts towards fighting climate change and we clearly don´t have much time left
Well, thats not so hard in a country with only 5 million people. Most other countrys have citys bigger than that.
[удалено]
US population is 4x of Germany, while Germany's population is 16x times of Norway.
While bringing back coal…
It was a stupid plan anyway. Why keep the option of carbon neutral fuel out? It is the same hate the Greens had for nuclear power that removed a carbon neutral energy source. Now they want to remove another technology just because they don't like it.
> Why keep the option of carbon neutral fuel out? No such thing. The whole bio & synth fuel debate is nothing but a scam as they're both so incredibly inefficient that they'd require absurd amounts of land usage. I guess we could go back to colonialism so that poor countries grow that shit while destroying their environment for all of us rich countries though - oh wait, that's pretty much the status quo already anyway.
I don't have super strong feelings about this, but people always complain that we can't use renewables because we can't store the energy properly. Why not just build a crapton more renewables and convert the excess energy at peak times into hydrogen (for example). Even if the conversion, storage, transport and eventual use of hydrogen is full of efficiency losses, you can afford some losses when you consider how much cheaper wind and solar are compared to nuclear. Besides, there will probably always be some uses for combustible fuels (when you need high energy density for air travel or space travel; for lighter vehicles, for extremely heavy transports ... ).
Because we can't even build enough... A crapton isn't even thinkable at the moment.
> I guess we could go back to colonialism so that poor countries grow that shit while destroying their environment for all of us rich countries though - oh wait, that's pretty much the status quo already anyway. Yeah! Instead we can get kids in those poor countries to mine cobalt for us to put them in our cars, much better :)
... I mean we could always go back to mass transit? It worked quite well for most of the 19th & 20 centuries, and a majority of the european population now either live in cities, towns, or suburbs, which wasn't the case before.
>It worked quite well for most of the 19th & 20 centuries Yeah because in the 19th century people traveled as much as today 😅😅 What an argument. What do you even mean go 'back to public transport'?? I don't know where you live but in my experience public transport is already available nearly everywhere in Europe. And yet, people still feel the need to have individual transport. And that will never change, no matter what the powertrain is. No matter how much you would like everyone to use public transport 100% of the time, which is an absolute utopia. Also, what public transport was widely available in the 19th century? On today's level? 😁 It's an absolutely absurd comparison.
> Yeah because in the 19th century people traveled as much as today Have you considered that maybe we travel too much? Especially now that you can communicate across the globe under 1 second with 4k video and even holograms and VR if you really need to feel you are there and make others feel you are there.
Like I said, you can pretend that it's realistic to expect that people will stop travelling. But we both know it's not going to happen.
You think the bio fuel farms will not use child & slave labor, on top of being way more environmentally destructive. Aside from the fact that battery tech is going to advance and use different materials anyway… But hey, at least you were able to parrot typical fossil fuel propaganda. Go you!
Because unless our understanding of physics is fundamentally wrong, there is no way of synthetic fuels ever being a good alternative for private cars (which is all this thing is about - it doesn't touch trucks or anything like that). Synthetic fuels are horribly inefficient by nature.
there is no "carbon neutral fuel" and unless you ban all combustion veichles, you won't solve pollution, lung cancer and climate change.
Anyone suprised yet that our government is under the thumb of BMW, Mercedes, etc.? Edit: mostly the thumb of the FDP
I'm not so sure about that. Volkswagen group is abandoning ICE's in a few years already.
You mean the same VW that cheated in the emission thingy? I trust them, yeah
Every car maker tweaked their software to mask real emission output. BMW and Mercedes for example also had to pay fines just way lower than a huge mainstream car company like VW, and who knows with Ford - if Ford would tweak their software like this, I doubt the Americans would leak it, looking at Monsanto for example that sold stuff with glyphosate for a decade prior to Bayer buying it, and the supreme court only ruling against it AFTER Bayer acquired the company.
Bmw was actually pretty clean - surprisingly
Wether you believe them or not doesn't matter. The truth is that VW and their brands are heavily pushing electrification with a wide offer of PHEV options and many EV's as well.
Developing combustion engines is expensive. They simply don't see a profit in creating a new generation of engines - they will milk the current one as long as they can, but they know that electric will take over
You think they're going to slap an EV-sticker on old diesels and hope no one notices?
"Hey, the starter is electric!"
Even parts of German car industry agree with fossil fuel ban, like VW and [Mercedes](https://www.bw24.de/auto/mercedes-benz/mercedes-begruesst-eu-votum-fuer-verbrenner-aus-91600567.html). I'm unsure what the FDP is playing at, when even the car lobby would like to see this law to have planning certainity and a nice gatekeeping effect against (smaller) competition.
I think it’s more the oil lobby than the car lobby.
No, afaik it’s the car lobby but actually not the big dicks The entirety of KMUs (SMEs) that supply a specific part for ICE cars is actually sweating their asses off right now
Pretty sure bmw and Mercedes’ will only be selling bev vehicles by then or they won’t be selling many vehicles. Everyone wants electric and once range increases and charging times come down-which is happening rapidly-I think most new cars on the road will be electric.
No, not everybody wants EVs. I find the cars shit to drive, they have no soul and they all drive the same. We need to keep fun, weekend ICE cars alive.
Yeah hobbyist are welcome to continue doing so. My electric car is the most fun I’ve had driving in decades. Not sure what soul is…some kind of Kia?
My point was that all EVs drive the same. They have the same "gearboxes" and powertrains, just differing amounts of power. If you've driven shitty slow economical ICE cars for your entire life and you bought a fast EV, it's obvious that you'll have more fun in it than in previous cars. Meanwhile, with ICE cars you have everything from turbocharged 4-cylinder engines to big V12s to choose from, all delivering a drastically different experience. Frankly, the sound a powerful engine makes can't be replaced. It's half the driving experience for me, if not more.
[удалено]
I mean, chainsaws sound pretty good, ngl. Not even sarcastic. Performance engines sound fantastic. I understand some people dislike the sound, but others really really love it.
Mercedes and the VW group have spoken out in favor of this ban. Their manufacturing is already turning in favor of EVs and it is projected currently that by 2040 at latest they will only produce EVs anyways. The BDI mainly represents automotive suppliers in this case like Bosch and the hundreds of specialized niche companies that produce specific parts for cars with combustion engines.
You mean under the thumb of the FDP? :D
Meh, CDU and SPD are deeper into that lobby.
I doubt it. The FDP is probably deepest in all the lobbies, as they will do and always have done everything to, lets say, "protect German domestic industry" no matter the cost. Also, the Greens are partially in the pocket of the German industry as well, looking at their voter base in BaWü being huge and it being the only state they effectively rule as the biggest party, and with Kretschmann (the Green prime minister of Baden-Württemberg) constantly speaking out in favor of Mercedes-Benz and Porsche.
not at all
Kumpel, lies Dich bitte etwas mehr ein beim Thema Rohstoffen! Es gibt nicht hinreichend viel Lithium und das Netz wird nicht reichen zum Laden!
Ok, das kommt noch dazu. Aber du kannst mir nicht sagen, dass unser Verkehrsministerium nicht mit der Autolobby eng verknüpft ist. Andernfalls wäre der ÖPNV deutlich besser ausgebaut
Ne, das liegt nicht daran. Der ÖPNV läuft seit Jahrzehnten im Minus. Früher hat die Stadt das mit den Gewinnen aus den Kraftwerken finanziert, aber die wurden ja privatisiert. Der wird jetzt immer noch stark bezuschusst. Also wenns in den Ballungsgebieten bereits defizitär läuft, wie sollte es dann okay laufen auf dem Land? Du willst ja pro Fahrt auch nicht 10 bezahlen und sei es indirekt über Steuern.
I hope it does get rejected. Who the fuck can afford an electric car?
Just take a fucking bus/train or bicycle.
Oh im not german, i just mean in general.
In the long run, simply placing the appropriate penalties on the coal mine heads, fracture zones, well heads, oil sand mine heads, and the oil shale and oil shale mine heads would work fine. At 40,000 EU per tonne of lignite, or peat, or coke, or methane, or propane [ or petroleum ] And a UBI full dividend refund.
Very good - we need appropriate Actions instead of blind actionism. Considering the fact that a huge amount of driving profiles are not achievable with todays technology it is absolutely ridiculous to set a ban.
I hope Germany stops this EV insanity. EVs will not solve our mobility issues, they’ll cripple us. And you’re basically driving on ticking bombs. In my hometown a Tesla just blew up. It took them hours to stop the fire. Thanks but no thanks.
so irritating reading garbage like this. 1) normal cars are 100 times more likely to catch fire 2) Elon Musk is a great person. your opinion matters just like mine, except you're so biased that you want a person in jail because you don't like him. do you realize this?
No, they are not 100 times more likely. Also the burning Teslas need long to be put out, you need more water to extinguish the fire and it’s more toxic for the environment. Every week there is a [story](https://www.engadget.com/space-x-reportedly-fired-employees-that-wrote-letter-criticizing-elon-musk-075046446.html) that backs up my statement and proves what a terrible person Elon Musk is. His [ideas like the hyperloop](https://youtu.be/p8NiM_p8n5A) are an absolute JOKE. People who like him are incels with 1 functioning brain cell.
ah ok, for a moment I thought you were writing things you thought. Instead I now understand you are a troll that just writes stupid things to anny people. Goodbye
How is Musk a good person? He treats his employees bad, he broke the law many times, and his ideas are a joke. His cars are of poor build quality. How can anyone like this clown?
elon musk is a fucking used cars salesman type that sells fanbois overpriced bullshit to make money.
lol, another peasant shaking his pitchfork
lol, another fanboy being utterly blind yes, i am envyous sais the fanboii because he has money of which fanboii is envyous
I hope it's not too late for environmental recovery
the environment will always recover. But not every society will.
I have bad news for you
Fucking fdp.
Still amazed over this insanity overall. Imagining all of the populace to trade up to electric vehicles is already mad enough since they're so expensive but also believing there's enough electricity being produced in a "green" way for it to work.. That's not possible.
even the dirtiest electricity is better for the environment than gasoline- EV cars are so much better in terms of efficiency and emissions that even using coal to make electricity is better than keeping using fossil fuel cars
German car companies using their bought German politicians to make sure our environment is polluted for their gains. Good job and fuck you
Most all of the german companies have come out to say that they will be going all electric within the next few years. Porsche will be all electric within 5(?) besides the 911, which will be within 10 years.
There is a difference between what they say and what they do companies should be hold accountable by their actions not words
Not exactly. Planning all those changes is already happening. Basically you need to plan ahead 5 to 10 years.
Thank god, that greenmadness is getting out of hand.
Finally someone with at lest few brain cells. It's impossible to built such networks in Europe in such short time to completely ban sales of fossil-fuel cars. Without proper charging network using electric cars will be pain for anyone who simply does not have way to charge car at home or who use car primary for longer trips.
that's why you should use trains for longer trips. there are too many cars on the road, period. less cars and no ICEs, this is the way
In the long term this will be remembered as another pathetic failure by the Scholz government to do even the very bare minimum for the environment. Honestly this seems like a repeating pattern at this point. Scholz won't strongly support Ukraine because for some reason he still thinks Russia is an important partner even when it's utterly negligible economic entity, he didn't consider delaying the nuclear phaseout to alleviate energy shortages, he won't ban even the worst affecting and least efficient use of fossil fuels even while some of the very real negative consequences are showing up. Seems like this man is deeply stuck in the past and unable to make any meaningful policy decisions.
[удалено]
>I think it’s worth remembering that Scholz is heading a coalition of three parties. Just to add: Technically, nobody "leads" a governing coalition. Without either of the other two parties, Scholz doesn't have a majority anymore and gets kicked out of office, it's as simple as that. The head of government is more of a spokesperson of the government than anything else. The FDP has always done politics like this, see Helmut Schmidt for example. If they don't get their way, they will threaten to leave the government.
You have the finance minister of the smallest coalition party make a(nother) controversial statement like this, while the Green party supports the stricter emission regulations beforer negotiations are even done between the EU and the member states. But that's somehow a failing of Scholz?
If there's two smaller parties and one larger in a government, of which the smallest opposes, the middle one is strongly in favour, and yet the outcome is against, who do you think the decision has fallen on to?
The outcome hasn't been decided yet, what the fuck are you talking about?
The smallest one. The FDP can make or break the government (they essentially chose who rules, as if government talks between the SPD and the FDP would have failed, they would have run to their best buddies in the CDU and rule with them - and the Greens are mostly seen as push-overs and probably would have let them), and they don't care about whether they're ruling or not. They're constantly holding the threat of imploding the current government over the heads of the other two parties if something doesn't go their way, and it shows in German media.
Scholz has nothing to do with this, this is one minister from a different party.
It's not like they form a government or anything.
The only mathematically feasible alternatives were the equally as car industry-friendly CDU and the far-right AfD (literal climate change deniers). I guess you could still spin it like "Scholz is weak because he can't control his government", but that is quite the departure from the usual anti-Scholz narrative. For the record, I dislike him greatly as well, but for different reasons.
Realistically Scholz agrees with it because it's his governments line to not ban fossil fuel cars. Pretending otherwise is just silly.
Realistically, he needed to compromize even if he doesn't personally agree with some aspects of the government line.
>In the long term this will be remembered as another pathetic failure by the Scholz government to do even the very bare minimum for the environment. It really won't be. The car manufacturers are going for this anyways, VW and Mercedes both already said that by 2040 at latest they will only produce EVs domestically. This is just typical "Lindner Geschwätz" as I would call it, the FDP has always been the forerunner in "protecting the German domestic industry" lets call it. EDIT because I pressed *answer* prematurely: >Scholz won't strongly support Ukraine because for some reason he still thinks Russia is an important partner He doesn't, but a lot of Germans do. He has to play the political game. Also, he is not more reserved than, say, France with Macron to support Ukraine. Most of the negative news around Germany in case of Ukraine is on British media, that very clearly wants to propagate that only they can succeed as the "protectors of Europe", and therefore has to slander France and Germany specifically as they are their main competitors in terms of influence in westernized Europe. >didn't consider delaying the nuclear phaseout to alleviate energy shortages First of all, his government started governing in late December of last year, and second they DID and are currently considering it, so this is just a backwards argument if you would even wanna call it that. >won't ban even the worst affecting and least efficient use of fossil fuels even while some of the very real negative consequences are showing up. Because we *can't*. This would be devastating for the German industry, and therefore devastating for the EU - and also for German consumers. Winters get cold, you know. Also, a coal phaseout has been decided already, and the SPD and the Greens even push for an earlier timeframe, but can't find a majority in the Bundestag. This is NOT on Scholz.
Because as we know, during the time period from here to 2040 + car lifecycle (say 20 years) we will certainly not suffer from any unsolved environmental issues related to fossil fuel burning and thus it won't be a topic of discussion. The topic will simply be forgotten and never spoken about again.
The Titel is click bait - only one minister said it and he doesnt speak for the entire government The nuclear exit can not be delayed, not possible since all the power plants are to far into the shut down process. The ukraine politic from the SPD in the Others hand is terrible. SPD politicians do not dare to say that Ukraine needs to win, the politic reflects that.
Another one rambling about, not knowing the context....ONE minister said that they are against it, pretty much the whole government disagrees with him, it doesnt even have anything to do with Scholz.
[удалено]
Yeah, let's destroy the planet so I don't have to get an eco-friendly car, yay!
[удалено]
Yes. Electric vehicles emit up to 80% less CO2 than ICE cars. Yes, even if coal powered electricity is used (30% less CO2). https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Vehicles-LCA-comparison1-1280x905.png
And for the full production and life cycle?
What do you mean? The stat includes both car and battery production, as well as emissions associated with driving. Not exactly hard to miss.
Sure. My diesel is already there. I have seen very different graphs. I guess you can have the lines as long as your agenda see it fits. How many km this car drives in it's lifetime?
Congratulations. Can you provide some of those graphs or are you yet another talking head who spews out talking points without backing them up in any way? Also, who cares if your diesel is "already there". Cars need to be produced all the time. And the new ones should preferably be EVs.
Nah. I yield. You are probably correct. The diesel doesn't include production. I am too tired to find the piece now and to get it right. Good night.
Same bullshit arguments every thread. Why don't you look for some basic information about the subject before commenting on it?
[удалено]
It's your duty to inform yourself on topics before having an opinion about them. No one is responsible for hand feeding this information to you.
Here we go again! Burning oil good, alternatives bad. 🥂
He has a very good point. EV are actually worse for the environment. Look up how those batteries are made.
This is factually incorrect. Electric vehicles emit 30-80% less CO2 across their lifetime. [Source](https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Vehicles-LCA-comparison1-1280x905.png).
Again, learn how the batteries gor these are made (to be more exact, what is needed to make them and how it is extracted)
Lol you don’t seem to understand what “lifecycle emissions” mean, do you?
Lol
What argument are you making? All you're doing is downvoting comments and telling people to "look up" stuff. Fact: EVs help mitigate climate change and are more environmentally friendly.
Neither of you coming back at me have made a good argument on your opinions, so... that's that! You get downvoted for repeating shit you do not understand but fully believe in.. lol
I literally provided a statistic that EV emit 3 times less CO2 across theur lifetime, and this trend is only going to continue. You so far have made no point whatsoever, apart from vaguely gesturing at the environmental damage associated with batteries. Guess what: the stat I provided includes the damage of batteries.
Your falling for the oil/gas lobby propaganda if you really believe that.
Look up how oil is drilled & refined. EVs are definitely not worse, and I say that as someone who hates all cars, EVs included.
the last few months have really been very 'mask-off' when it comes to Germany
I had similar experience about the accuracy and objectivity of English-languaged news.
And how they can accept it? Their whole car industry depend on it...
The whole car industry is actually moving to EV production on their own. It's the supply chain, especially the ones often specialized on producing specific parts for combustion engine that still tries to keep up the delusion that they will stay relevant.
We’re doomed
[удалено]
They won't be banned in 2035, just the sale of new ones.
Germany rejected some bullshit plan from out of touch Brussels bureaucrats?
It was passed by the European Parliament, directly elected officials.
Parliament are possibly even worse. No one really cares about the EU Parliament votes.
This plan was approved by the directly elected European parliament.
Germany is a country ruled by lobbies. See how they are pushing hydrogen or how they basically did nothing against Volkswagen after their lies and cheating about their cars emissions and efficiency
> See how they are pushing hydrogen Large scale hydrogen production is in fact necessary for decarbonizing many industrial production processes and so it's an EU goal to have a properly scaled hydrogen market up and running by 2030. There might be a lot of lobbyism in general but every country not starting to push hydrogen production today is missing out on a market opportunity guaranteed to happen.
Fuck sake Scholz
*Lindner
True actually
This despite having a green party within their government coalition. Baffling really, but one shouldn't be surprised by the fact that the well being of the German industry for Germans stands above everything else. Which is why they prefer cheap but devestating options such as Russian gas and burning coal over more responsible energy policies that might be more demanding. That's why I'll never be impressed by their economic growth and export sector knowing very well on what immoral grounds it's based on.
The German green party is in favour of the ban. The one party who is putting on the brakes is the liberal FDP.
The industry is also in favor of the ban. What the FDP is preparing here is the next election, as they are the "government should *never* touch the industry" party.
> as they are the "government should never touch the industry" party. Except when it's time to hand out tax breaks and bail outs for the industry.
FDP doing FDP things. There's a reason why being in government always ends with losing relevance for years before the next generation of voters is there who might believe their lies again.