Electric mobility is struggling to gain acceptance – where do we stand in the mobility transition, and how open is Europe to different technologies when dealing with this issue?
Dr Monika Griefahn is an expert on the implementation of e-mobility. She is a former Minister for the Environment of Lower Saxony, a Member of the Bundestag and a Member of the European Parliament for the Social Democrats, as well as a co-founder of Greenpeace Germany.
Thomas Fritsch (TF): Dr Griefahn, for parts of the automotive industry and its suppliers, battery-electric mobility cannot be the final word, particularly as registration figures for so-called BEVs are not currently rising to the extent desired by policymakers. Where do we stand in the transition to new propulsion technologies in Europe?
Monika Griefahn (MG): The share of renewable energy in transport is stagnating at a low level. This means the transport sector remains the problem child of all climate protection efforts. With renewables accounting for a mere 7.5 per cent of the total fuel supply in road and rail transport, the European transport sector is failing to meet even the binding 10 per cent quota set out in the first European Renewable Energy Directive – including key driving forces such as France, Germany and Spain. It is important to adopt ambitious targets. However, implementation lies in the hands of industry. If the path towards these ambitious targets is artificially prolonged or even made more difficult, these targets will simply not be achieved. Even though our understanding of climate policy in Europe continues to grow, we are, to be honest, still at the very beginning of the energy transition – not only in transport, but across all sectors.
“It would be a mistake to focus solely on exhaust emissions.”
TF: Are the EU’s climate targets to phase out internal combustion engines by 2035 still realistic?
MG: No. This is underlined by almost daily reports of the sluggish uptake of electric mobility. Some manufacturers have already stated that their product range is clearly geared towards customer preferences – and customers continue to buy internal combustion engines. Even in China, our biggest competitor, internal combustion engine technology will continue to play a role for decades to come, particularly in regions where full electrification is difficult to achieve.
TF: Rather than focusing solely on electric mobility, sceptics like to invoke the much-overused term ‘technology neutrality’. Which technologies do you currently see still in the running, and what prospects do so-called eFuels have?
MG: All technologies have their raison d’être as well as their benefits, provided they can be operated in a climate-neutral manner in the long term. It is equally important to emphasise that all technologies have advantages and disadvantages. The aim is to bring about a sensible, practicable and affordable transformation of the transport system. Electric mobility, hydrogen and also eFuels will, in the long term, establish themselves in various applications across our transport sector. The key thing is that we consider climate protection across the entire value chain and do not focus solely on exhaust emissions. Genuine, effective climate protection does not ignore greenhouse gas emissions arising from the production or transport of vehicles, batteries or fuels. If we adopt this way of thinking, all technologies will have a chance.
“We must not lose sight of the current vehicle fleet.”
TF: What specific advantages does the use of eFuels offer, and where do you see the most interesting applications in the mobility of the future?
MG: In combination with electromobility, eFuels act as an additional catalyst for reducing CO2 emissions in the transport sector and thus for achieving real and pragmatic climate protection. CO2-neutral fuels not only enable the climate-neutral operation of the global fleet of cars, lorries, aeroplanes and ships, but can also be used as a substitute for crude oil in the chemical industry. At the same time, eFuels are the solution for sectors where electrification is difficult to achieve – these include, amongst others, heavy goods transport, the off-road and maritime sectors, and aviation. The key here is to capitalise on economies of scale and enable broad fields of application to drive rapid price reductions. An efficient and rapid transport transition can only be achieved through a combination of eFuels and electrified powertrains. De facto technology bans cannot be the answer.
TF: Do eFuels have a realistic chance, and what would need to change in technological, political and societal terms for this to happen?
MG: There is no alternative to the use of eFuels – particularly in aviation and shipping. Whether, and to what extent, eFuels will also play a role in road transport is a matter for policymakers. And this should not be delayed for years again in Brussels, because the enormous global fleet of vehicles, ships, aircraft and off-road applications has no alternative but to continue relying on fossil fuels.
So far, the political framework has clearly stood in the way of the market ramp-up for eFuels. A lack of planning and investment certainty, as well as overly restrictive and complicated requirements for the production of green hydrogen or the import of renewable fuels into the European Union, are paralysing the industry. It is often claimed that eFuels are produced only in very small quantities and are too expensive. In doing so, critics are simply ignoring the fact that scaling up is not economically viable under the current framework conditions. If we also want to encourage the major oil companies to invest their money in climate protection, this sector must be made significantly more attractive.
“Europe is too hard on itself”
TF: As a flagship continent, Europe is currently seeking its role in a changing geopolitical landscape. What impetus could Europe provide that would not only approach climate protection through strict regulation, but also lead the way with enthusiasm and encourage participation?
MG: I am convinced that Europe has already assumed its role as a global pioneer in climate policy. That is a good thing and should be welcomed. However, with our restrictive approach, we are curtailing the leading role of our companies and risk falling behind in many areas. For some time now, we have been focusing too much on ourselves and forgetting that net-zero by 2050 is a global project. Europe must open up again, enter into binding international partnerships, harness synergies and provide the impetus needed in new markets through targeted funding and open regulations. It is hardly possible to implement framework conditions in 2030 that we will only achieve by 2040. Our economic area must become attractive again – for German, European and international companies.
TF: Thank you very much for the interview, Dr Griefahn, and we wish you every success in your work.
About Dr Monika Griefahn:
Dr Monika Griefahn
Chair of the Board
Dr Monika Griefahn is Chair of the Board of the eFuel Alliance and a founding member of Greenpeace Germany. From 1984 to 1990, Monika Griefahn was the first woman to serve on Greenpeace’s international executive board. From 1990 to 1998, she was Minister for the Environment in Lower Saxony. Then as now, she is committed to a new energy policy: promoting renewable energy and phasing out nuclear power. From 2012 to 2018, Monika Griefahn also served as Director of Environment and Society at the cruise line AIDA Cruises. She played a key role in the company’s strategic shift towards the use of liquefied natural gas as a marine fuel. Monika Griefahn is involved in a wide range of voluntary work and was awarded the Federal Cross of Merit in 2018.