FDP blocks the phase-out of combustion engines: Stubbornness in the government

Volker, hear the signals! Does Federal Minister of Transport Volker Wissing even realize how childish the behavior of the FDP is? Like a defiant child, the obstinate party — in the editorial office we've already adopted the term "sandbox squabble" — blocks the whole operation called the federal government and simultaneously holds the EU hostage, which in the tedious trilogue process seemed to have finally agreed on a much-celebrated and clear line for phasing out combustion engines. And then came Wissing, Lindner, and the retro-FDP. And they resolutely refuse to acknowledge that the "technological openness" they always tout has actually existed for decades. The pendulum has swung clearly in favor of battery-electric drives for cars in recent years. Conversations about hydrogen-powered cars among experts have long ceased. Even pioneers like Hyundai and Toyota, who pushed forward with production models, are phasing out these vehicles and transferring their technology to trucks or stationary applications.

Disillusionment quickly set in at the pilot plant in Chile

Besides Porsche, currently no manufacturer is decisively betting on e-fuels, except for a recent declaration of intent by Renault and Geely, who want to explore with the help of Saudi oil magnate Aramco how to scale e-fuels. Porsche experienced its first disillusionment after inaugurating the first pilot plant in Chile, upon realizing how many wind turbines would be needed to supply a relevant number of vehicles with e-fuels. Local authorities opposed installing hundreds of wind turbines in the pampas just so a few remaining fossil hedonists in Europe could speed down the autobahns at unlimited rates. Dear Porsche fans in the FDP and elsewhere, there is an alternative: The Taycan accelerates like the devil, makes no noise, doesn't stink, and runs on renewable electricity. That's what we call "progress." If you're focusing on fast car travel during the increasingly dramatic climate crisis and have no other problems...

Incidentally, if Wissing wants to keep the combustion engine running, there's been a solution for decades: CNG drives with biomethane from residual materials. Almost climate-neutral, technically mature, and with great potential. However, this was politically neglected and criminally overlooked for decades while diesel thrived as a cash cow. Otherwise, millions of CNG cars could be running climate-neutrally on biomethane today. This will unfortunately soon be a thing of the past for cars. 

No time to lose: Climate and China are leaving us behind

There is simply no more time for expensive experiments since governments, even with FDP participation, but especially through the help of the "too-steady-hand" chancellor Merkel and the economic and energy transformation sabotage ministers Gabriel and Altmaier, have dawdled too long. The climate change is progressing much faster than the FDP's mental transformation, China has strategically used the e-transformation to close gaps and technologically surpass the inventors of the car (with the combustion engine). The psychological aspect is also dangerous: The FDP continues Merkel's sedating policies and gives people with its synfuel line the sense that everything can somehow stay the same, you just need a different fuel, which is even climate-neutral, like Miraculix's magic potion.

That's a misconception, populism, or cowardice in the face of the truth. The truth is: To prevent the climate crisis from changing everything, we need to change ourselves. And foremost, our mobility habits. Less car usage, if done cleverly, does not mean less mobility — and certainly not sacrifice, but a gain in time, nerves, quality of life, and clean air. If the FDP insists on blatant clientele policies for drivers, then at least for e-mobilists. And then they should spark enthusiasm for the "new auto-mobility" and not cling to combustion engines with tooth and nail. 

Wissing, Lindner & Co. jeopardize the industrial location of Germany and Europe, which urgently needs a clear signal and whose companies deserve planning security. This risks more jobs than might be secured in the short term by sticking to combustion engine technology. It's also rarely mentioned that the rail industry urgently needs engineers and skilled workers, potentially creating half a million jobs in environmental mobility, including the often-forgotten bicycle industry or mobility services.

Always backward, never forward?

There is no reason anymore for such sham battles. The electric drive clearly outperforms e-fuels in cars, so no one in their right mind would question it. Not to mention the minister's consistent avoidance of the question of where to source all the renewable energy for millions of e-fuel-driven vehicles, and whether we don't need it more urgently elsewhere, rather than inefficiently burning it in SUV tanks as e-fuels.

The considerable and frequently cited "existing stock" of combustion cars by the FDP must significantly decrease by 2035 to achieve climate targets, which the FDP is also legally committed to. Selling new combustion cars in 2035, seriously, on what planet does the FDP live? Has anyone told them that Chinese manufacturers are democratizing the e-car market? And that very affordable electric cars for the masses will soon be available, but from China, not from Europe's heart. This is where the minister should focus and finally say goodbye to the fairy tale of the clean combustion engine. Otherwise, this is nothing but obstinacy in the government. And that's just embarrassing in Europe.

Here's a completely unsolicited and modest suggestion to the party, which is panicking in polls and election woes, reverting to old patterns, and composed of such clever people like the environmental policy founder Genscher, like Lambsdorff, Kinkel, or Baum: How about taking the always-claimed "progress" seriously and consistently advocating for a policy that doesn't cling to the past like motor oil in a 911 pan? And instead, try defining the "technology part" in the traffic light coalition as "useful and purposeful technology." "Technological openness" should not mean being open to any nonsense, but seriously choosing and promoting the "best available technology." Bet this will also work for the next elections. Because eleven percent, especially young voters, chose "progress" and not "restoration," nor a permanent populist journey to the past. This is nothing but obstinacy in the government — without being right in substance.