E-fuel compromise: Wissing praises himself and faces a storm of criticism

While Federal Transport Minister Volker Wissing (FDP) celebrates the creation of a new category exclusively for new cars that can only be refueled with E-Fuels, there is massive criticism from economic experts, environmentalists, and politicians regarding the decision. "It was possible in very detailed and constructive negotiations, as part of the regulation on fleet limits, to ensure the element of technology neutrality," praised the minister.

"This paves the way for combustion engine vehicles that exclusively refuel with CO2-neutral fuels to be newly registered even after 2035. In a first step, a vehicle category e-fuels-only will be created and then integrated into the fleet limit regulation. We want the process to be completed by autumn 2024," Wissing continued.

This, in his view, also fulfills an important point from the coalition agreement. However, the coalition agreement only mentions vehicles outside the limit regulations that can exclusively be refueled with E-Fuels, such as special vehicles in firefighting or construction. This was also mentioned by his cabinet colleague, Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens), who said E-Fuels would play an important role in areas that cannot easily switch to efficient electric motors. She welcomed the end of the "stalemate" that would otherwise have "severely damaged trust in European procedures as well as Germany's reliability in European policy." The auto industry now has clarity for the shift to e-mobility, Lemke believes.

From the manufacturers' side, VW Group and Porsche CEO Oliver Blume once again made it clear that while he appreciates the openness to E-Fuels, he considers them an option for "niche applications". The mechanical engineering association VDMA also spoke of applications in special vehicles like excavators or tractors.

Inefficient and expensive: The market has decided

Criticism, however, comes from the scientific community. Economist Veronika Grimm told the Handelsblatt that the decision could make it "very difficult for politicians to pursue consistent climate policy," because manufacturers and consumers might now continue to rely on combustion vehicles for longer. Synfuels, she noted, are more needed for industry, heavy-duty transport, or the energy sector. She is supported by energy expert Claudia Kemfert from the German Institute for Economic Research. She succinctly stated on Twitter:

"EFuels are inefficient and expensive. Five to seven times more electricity than an electric car. One liter costs more than five euros. The market has decided, automakers need planning security. EFuels are needed for shipping and air traffic. EFuels election campaign nonsense."

Energy expert Volker Quaschning from HTW Berlin also spoke of a "quirky discussion about eFuels," which he said are inefficient and expensive, block innovations, and endanger the competitiveness of the German automotive industry. The FDP's move is "nonsense," he said.

Greenpeace criticizes "rotten compromise"

Climate activists are downright outraged. Greenpeace transport expert Benjamin Stephan called the agreement a "rotten compromise" that undermines climate protection in transportation and harms Europe. The urgently needed shift to e-mobility is being diluted by the FDP's "reckless blackmail." He warned that the combustion engine phase-out is now being provided with a "backdoor called E-Fuels."

"E-Fuels are an expensive and massively inefficient distraction maneuver," said Julia Poliscanova of the environmental umbrella organization T&E.

The facts about E-Fuels were recently summarized by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in a dossier:

"E-Fuels are not yet commercially available today. Currently, there are only very few demonstration plants worldwide. By 2035, about 60 new E-Fuel projects are announced, of which only about 1 percent are secured with a final investment decision. All these projects worldwide together only cover about 10% of Germany's essential E-Fuel needs (aviation, shipping, and chemical). Policies, with mandatory quotas for E-Fuels in aviation and shipping, have a lever to accelerate the E-Fuel market ramp-up," the PIK scientists said.

In this sense, EU parliamentarian Michael Bloss (Greens) also told RND that "we will examine very carefully, legally and politically, what the Commission puts on the table." The agreement stands alongside the previous ones. The Commission, he criticized, had bowed to Germany, and Karima Delli of the French Greens called it a "disaster," echoed by German SPD MP Rene Rapasi.

What does this mean?

This is a prime example of a Pyrrhic victory: aside from the well-organized E-Fuel lobby, the minister receives hardly any approval for his "sad triumph," as colleagues from the Süddeutsche Zeitung called it. And possibly from large parts of the population, so a few "populism points" can probably be claimed by the FDP. At least a Forsa survey indicates that two-thirds of respondents oppose the combustion engine phase-out in 2035. And support for e-mobility is rapidly declining. The next car: for one-third preferably a petrol engine! Unbelievable but true - the result of a permanent "bad-mouthing" of e-mobility by the politics of the so-called progressive party FDP, which in this issue behaves worse than the CDU/CSU did during their most delaying Groko times.

Wanting to call it conservative in a good sense is understated; it is rather "restorative" and seeks a return to the "good old combustion engine days" almost reminiscent of the "Biedermeier period" after the "Roll Back" at the Vienna Congress of 1815. So much for being "technology-open": the FDP seems to interpret this only as being "open towards the past". Instead of making Germans enthusiastic about truly new technology, it spoils their mood, ruthlessly repeats complaints about the allegedly (and unfortunately truly) poor charging infrastructure in cities, instead of designing a positive vision of new mobility and really "taking people along," as politicians always emphasize in their Sunday speeches - and that into the future, not the past. This party of progressiveness is a mere mislabeling.

It is also emphasized that they want to protect the automotive industry. But this protection fails textbook-like: clinging too long to an outdated and hopelessly inferior technology in terms of efficiency, which already went terribly wrong with diesel, the industry has indeed learned its lessons - and besides niche player Porsche and partly the M-Power faction at BMW, as well as a strangely late alliance of Renault-Geely-Aramco, no manufacturer seriously bets on E-Fuels or the combustion engine. Especially since the other issues of emissions and noise, which remain with E-Fuels, were vastly under-discussed in the unfortunate, completely unnecessary debate.

Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers show us how it's done, with affordable electric cars: The MG4 and MG5 are selling like hotcakes, BYD will soon follow up the expensive Atto with the Dolphin, a 15,000-euro electric car here, and the Dacia Spring is also essentially a Chinese car. And if Tesla gets the Model 2 off the ground, Europeans will be caught in a pincer movement.

So, one can closely observe how the Kaiser-Wilhelm-like "betting on the (wrong) horse" shifts the balance of power massively within ten years - endangering exactly what FDP and Union politicians here claim to protect: jobs. In the end, the damage hits the economy and industry, which could have used a clear signal, instead of a bizarrely constructed back-room compromise of a separate E-Fuel class of cars, the final decision of which is not even certain yet. Additionally, the FDP has ruthlessly damaged and jostled the democratic processes of the EU, as if driving bumper cars at a fair.

The FDP and its minister have fought for mere symbolism and have jumped behind an (electric) train that has long since departed. You can't catch up with a draisine now, whether with or without E-Fuels. Welcome to the Liberals' "Neo-Biedermeier".