Biodiesel more harmful than fossil fuel
Mannheim is banning cars from the city centre, but only on a trial basis for the time being. More space is to be created for pedestrians and cyclists and the city is to be freed from noise and exhaust fumes.
1.2 million hectares of arable land are reserved worldwide just for rapeseed and grain, which are processed into biodiesel. In Germany alone, 500,000 hectares are reserved just for biodiesel. Back in 2016, the NGO Transport and Environment (T&E) commissioned three renowned research institutes to investigate which fuel strategy would be the most environmentally friendly. Even then, they came to the conclusion that the conversion of arable land from food producer to fuel supplier causes more emissions than the entire life cycle of fossil diesel. Now Ifeu has again calculated that fossil fuels are more environmentally friendly.
Proponents argue that it would take too long for all cars to run on electric power alone. The federal government's declared goal of putting 15 million electric cars on the road by 2030 would still leave about 30 million that run on fossil fuels. Germany had given a positive answer to the ethical question of whether food can be processed for driving while there are people who need food to survive. Yet, as the studies show, nothing is gained by doing so. On the contrary: if the land were used differently, it would really benefit the climate. If the land were left to nature or actively renaturalised, German emissions would be around 16.5 million tonnes lower per year thanks to the plant life that develops there. This is because vegetation binds a large part of the emissions. It would be even better for the climate if the areas were cultivated with solar plants or windmills: It takes 97 per cent less land to produce energy for an electric car than it does to produce the same amount of power from plants. Given the disadvantages of biodiesel, it seems only a matter of time before the dirty fuel disappears altogether.