Questions & Answers on Wissing's Traffic Ban Warning: First Botched, Then Threatened

The transport sector is far from meeting legal requirements for CO2 reduction. This could have radical consequences for many citizens - or maybe not? Comprehensive driving bans on weekends: With this scenario, Federal Transport Minister Volker Wissing has alarmed millions of drivers. According to the FDP politician, only such drastic measures would help achieve climate goals in the transport sector and significantly reduce greenhouse gases - if there is no imminent reform of the law. However, negotiations on this reform are not progressing in the traffic light coalition. That's why Wissing has lost his temper. The goal: to apply pressure.

"I told the citizens the truth," he said on Deutschlandfunk. The dispute draws attention to the major climate protection problems in transport.

What does the current climate protection law stipulate?

The law sets binding climate protection targets for Germany. It stipulates that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 65 percent by 2030 compared to 1990. Permissible annual emission amounts have been set for individual sectors such as industry, energy, transport, and buildings. The core point so far is the following mechanism: If sectors fail to meet the requirements, the responsible ministries of the federal government must take corrective action with immediate programs.

Last year, the transport and buildings sectors failed to meet the permissible annual emission amounts. Next Monday, an expert council on climate issues will present its assessment of the data. Within three months, the responsible ministry must then present an immediate program for the respective sector - that is, by July 15.

What reform is planned?

The coalition plans to reform the law, which would render an immediate program in transport obsolete. The FDP, in particular, supports the reform. The reasoning: What matters most is whether climate targets are met overall. FDP deputy parliamentary group leader Carina Konrad spoke of previously "unrealistic rigid sector targets" that threatened to shackle the country.

In June, the cabinet initiated the reform. Accordingly, compliance with climate targets will no longer be reviewed retrospectively by sector but will be forward-looking, multi-year, and cross-sectoral. The government as a whole will decide in which sector and how the permissible overall CO2 amount should be achieved by 2030 - however, only if the target is missed for two consecutive years.

Environmental organizations warn against a weakening of the law. According to reports, the responsibilities of ministries are contentious in the coalition negotiations in the event that CO2 target requirements are missed.

What is Wissing threatening?

Because negotiations in the coalition factions are not progressing, Wissing has now sounded the alarm. To achieve the sector targets for transport in 2024 alone, around 22 million tons of so-called CO2 equivalents would have to be additionally saved ad hoc - provided the amended climate protection law does not come into force by July 15, according to a letter from the minister to the coalition faction leaders.

This would correspond, for example, to 15 percent of car mileage and over 10 percent of truck mileage. Such a reduction in traffic performance would only be possible "through restrictive and hardly communicable measures to the public, such as comprehensive and indefinite driving bans on Saturdays and Sundays," said Wissing. Not only would citizens suffer, but supply chains could also be sustainably disrupted, as a short-term shift of transport from road to rail is unrealistic. Moreover, driving bans would significantly reduce acceptance for climate protection. Other measures such as speed limits would not achieve the targets.

What would driving bans look like?

Although the ministry derived an estimate of CO2 savings from driving bans, it remained unclear what exactly would be required. Would this affect only highways or other roads as well? How could this be enforced? It was described as a "worst-case scenario" that one wants to avoid, said a spokesperson. Therefore, they did not want to go into details. The term evoked memories of the oil crisis in the 1970s with four car-free Sundays on all highways.

What other CO2 reduction measures are possible?

"Of course, we don't need driving bans," said Dirk Messner, President of the Federal Environment Agency. This frightens people without reason. Jürgen Resch, Managing Director of the German Environmental Aid, said weekend driving bans are not necessary to bring transport onto a climate-friendly course.

Greenpeace expert Benjamin Stephan criticized: "It is pathetic that Volker Wissing wants to scare drivers, craftsmen, and families with the consequences of his years of inaction on climate protection."

Many environmental organizations, as well as Messner, have long supported a general speed limit on highways to reduce CO2 - something the FDP categorically opposes. Resch said that a speed limit of 100 on highways, 80 on rural roads, and 30 in urban areas alone would save more than 11 million tons, more than half of the necessary amount.

Michael Müller-Görnert, transport policy spokesperson for the VCD, said: "Speed limits are the greatest and quickest measure to implement for CO2 reduction, which would also have high public support."

Closing the remaining gap would be more difficult. “To save such a large amount immediately, only a drastic reduction in the driving performance of cars and trucks remains. However, this also requires the corresponding alternatives and capacities for passenger and freight transport by rail as well as in municipal public transport.”

Resch also mentioned an end to the tax deductibility of company cars with high CO2 emissions and a drastic reduction in the usage fee for the rail network - to make shifting freight transport to rail more attractive. Messner identified electromobility as a central lever. Thus, a reform of vehicle taxation is necessary to make the purchase of particularly climate-damaging cars more expensive.