@ariadne Hmm, his article starts with a valid description of the issue but ends in the wrong conclusion it seems.

The lie of the "New Green Growth" includes telling people that they don't need to change anything in their mobility behavior as the industry will switch from engines powered by petrol to engines running on electricity. Naturally, anyone can tell that this is utter nonsense since an electric car needs resources just as a petrol-based car (some studies even say that the CO² usage in building petrol-based cars is much lower than E-cars). He further explains that the drivers' wasteful usage of cars in general also causes a problem since most people switch car relatively frequently (he calls it “fast fashion” sales).

He's right about this.

But he then suggests to use the already existing cars by going E-Fuel (thus preserving resources otherwise used for building E-Cars), like Porsche is trying to enact in Germany through the FDP. That of course is also utter nonsense since E-Fuels are too wasteful and inefficient. But he's falling for the sales pitch of rich automobile manufacturers like Porsche since their clients don't care much if their fuel costs 2, 5, 10, or 20 $ per liter.

As such, he makes a very capitalistic, simple error in his thought process. He still believes that some universal right for everyone to own a car should be upheld.

Or in other words, mobility change shouldn't be about switching the fuel and thus "what comes out of the exhaust pipe", but to switch from private cars for transportation to communal transportation + non-car transportation like bikes, walking, etc. where feasible, aka have much less cars.