You don’t have to be a clairvoyant to expect Climate policy will play a central role in the coalition negotiations for the new federal government. What can we motorists expect? The signaling effect emanating from transport policy could have a disadvantage. It far exceeds the potential for CO2 savings.
Many topics polarize: the promotion of e-cars, motorway and road construction, CO2 price for fuel, speed limits in town and country – all controversial topics. A concise example: Speed 130 signs for all motorway routes without a speed limit would be cheap, quickly printed and set up. But are they saving the climate? No. Tempo 130 would have symbolic power, but the The effect would be manageable.
Regarding the numbers: Road traffic causes 26 percent of the CO2Emissions, 62 percent of which blow cars and motorcycles out, so 16 percent of the greenhouse gas. But according to a recent survey, only two to four percent of motorway drivers drive faster than 160. Fast drivers are a marginal phenomenon, fall CO2– in terms of weight, hardly any. Do we now urgently need Tempo 130? I think: no. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t want to say this ideologically, I’m not categorically against it. There is just a lot to suggest that Tempo 130 is not enough, that seems clear to me. The battle for the climate is won elsewhere: industry should rely on hydrogen, get out of coal, and more wind farms are needed. Especially here is stirring regional resistance everywhere.
With more charging stations, there will also be more e-cars
My belief is: If the traffic turnaround goes right, then it will be fine! Dear new coalitionists: Do not overdo the curtailment of traffic, but get through the decisive industrial issues that really affect the climate! And please don’t fight the battle for the climate on the autobahn.