The defenders of the ban on combustion engines have no cause for concern. All relevant organisations are firmly in their hands, including the ITF – the only body that deals with all modes of transport at a global level.
„The fact that the EU has sealed the end of the combustion engine and thus paved the way for the triumph of Chinese battery cars in Europe is an example of the overreach and incompetence of the current EU institutions.“ *1
At least Sahra Wagenknecht is right about that. In fact, it is even worse. EU institutions have now also infected global organisations with this overreach and incompetence, giving lobbies more influence than ever before. One example of this is the International Transport Forum’s „top recommendations“ for policymakers:*2
It postulates: „Moving away from conventional diesel trucks is essential to decarbonise the road freight sector and reduce air pollution.“
It is claimed that: „A comparison of the global average GHG emissions performance of different technologies showed that the carbon intensity of new electric trucks over their lifetime is 40% lower than for conventional diesel trucks (ITF, 2021; Basma et al., 2023).“
The first source is missing in this paper. From the title, it appears to be this paper from the ICCT (International Council on Clean Transportation): „A comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of European heavy-duty vehicles and fuels“*3
However, a closer look quickly reveals that this is one of the usual greenwashing order papers. The use of the mean value approach (instead of the marginal approach) is intended to conceal the fact that additional electricity demand is primarily covered by fossil-fuelled power plants.*4
The audacity of the authors is astounding
They don’t even try to hide the manipulations that are necessary to certify that electric trucks have a better carbon footprint: „We estimate some values, such as the ILUC emissions arising from biofuel production, using a consequential LCA approach.“ (ILUC = indirect land-use change)
The „consistent LCA approach“ is a marginal approach. This must be applied to all additional requirements. Here, however, it is only applied to biofuels and explicitly not to electricity for electric trucks: „In this study, we assume the GHG intensity of grid electricity to be the average grid GHG emissions of the EU grid mix.“
The reason is simple: the emissions of marginal electricity are around twice as high as those of average electricity, which would significantly worsen the carbon footprint of electric trucks. This result is not politically desirable.
The authors have adapted their methodology in order to achieve the specified goal. The scientific appearance remains intact, but the result is propaganda.
It is clear from another paragraph that this systematic error is not due to a lack of expertise. The authors know exactly what marginal flow is: „Increased electrical demand due to increased electric vehicle usage differs from only having increased marginal electricity demand during peak load times; electric vehicles are also charged at times outside peak load hours.“
That is true. Determining the composition of the marginal flow is therefore a challenging task. However, the mean value approach implies that power plant emissions are load-independent. This is clearly wrong, and of course these authors know that. They are simply lying.
What kind of organization is the International Transport Forum (translated into English)?
„The ITF was established in 2006 as the successor organization to the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT), which was founded in 1953. By transforming the ECMT from a primarily European institution into a ‚global forum‘, creating opportunities for participation for various stakeholders and opening it up to the interested public, the ITF has developed into a communication platform for all aspects of transport, logistics and mobility.“*5
From the outset, this body was not a place for democratic discussion and opinion-forming that was as independent as possible from particular interests; on the contrary: „The creation of opportunities for participation for different stakeholders“*6 paved the way for campaign organizations. The ITF ultimately developed into a valuable tool for e-mobility lobbyists – including the ICCT, which published the paper cited above and is part of a network of campaigning organizations:
The ICCT places itself in this network of relationships on its own homepage:*7
Experts who do not want to serve the interests of campaign groups say openly that it is grotesque nonsense to have trucks carry their drive energy in heavy, low-density storage units:
- The payload per vehicle decreases
- E-trucks require economically unjustifiable charging breaks
- Charging stations require much higher power than electric cars. The costs of expanding the grid are imposed on society as externalized costs.
- Diesel trucks are much more efficient than cars. If electric cars do not have a better carbon footprint when applying the objectively required marginal approach,*8 then electric trucks certainly do not. This means that every euro or dollar invested in e-trucks is money lost for climate protection.
Of course, the authors of the ITF, all proven experts, know this too. That is why they cannot be primarily concerned with reducing emissions from trucks – just as they are not concerned with reducing emissions from cars. In fact, nobody seriously wants to electrify the entire combustion engine fleet. They want to use the transformation to massively reduce private car traffic. This goal is also likely to be a priority for trucks:
The transportation of goods by truck should become so complicated and expensive that it is avoided wherever possible.
The ITF was not always so clearly in favor of e-mobility:
- In 2010, it still clearly stated their disadvantages: „However, the batteries that power these engines are charged with electricity from the grid, which can also be generated by burning fossil fuels.“
- Another publication from the same year stated: „Electromobility may be part of the solution for decarbonizing transport, but it is not a panacea.“
- One was even somewhat disappointed by e-cars: „CO2 reductions always remain low.“
The shift towards e-mobility took place in 2018 with this document: Policy Priorities for Decarbonizing Urban Passenger Transport. The goal of „developing coherent electric mobility strategies for urban areas“ was no longer discussed from this point onwards.
The coordinated machinations of all the think tanks and NGOs have ultimately led to laws that have caused many social groups to suffer – including consumers and producers. Both groups are naïve and completely helpless in the face of the highly professional lobbying within the ITF. As they do not see through the game, they do not know what is happening to them. They don’t even suspect that they need to fight back immediately and urgently – and they certainly don’t know what they could even do.
The result:
Low-qualified politicians in decision-making positions are bombarded with e-mobility propaganda from all sides. Due to a lack of economic and scientific education, they are unable to recognize it as such. They are the unwilling objects of manipulation by lobby groups and basically just nod off well-prepared draft legislation.
This is how the fleet limits and the ban on combustion engines came about.
—Endnotes
*1 https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Wagenknecht-will-Verbrenner-Aus-rueckgaengig-machen-article24854195.html
*2 https://www.itf-oecd.org/low-emission-trucks
*3 https://theicct.org/publication/lca-ghg-emissions-hdv-fuels-europe-feb23/
*4 Globally, over 60 % was generated in fossil fuel power plants in 2022; almost 40 % through the combustion of coal and oil. See also: https://www.tech-for-future.de/energie-welt/#easy-footnote-6-3366
*5 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Transport_Forum#Kritik
*6 Quotes from „Renewed Mandate of the International Transport Forum“ (Emphasis by me): „The ITF realises its objectives through: … Co-operation with global actors of the corporate world and other international stakeholders in the transport sector or related sectors in the identification of emerging transport policy issues and innovation challenges, as well as other relevant transport policy analysis. … More generally, acting as a platform for the discussion and pre-negotiation of strategic and non-technical issues among member countries and with the relevant stakeholders, providing opportunities for networking and collaboration.“
Organizations of all kinds can be granted guest status in accordance with Article 4.2 of the General Rules of the ITC. This clears the way for influence by whomever.
*8: Translated into English: „Surprisingly, electric cars in Germany are no more climate-friendly than diesel or petrol cars. E-cars even emit more CO2 if you take the realistic marginal electricity approach. … Even after the coal phase-out, they are no better for the climate than a diesel.“ Quelle: https://www.tech-for-future.de/elektroautos/
Header image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harikalar_Diyari_Wolf_grandma_06044_nevit.jpg?uselang=de
Der Schwindel um die rollfähigen Akkupacks 