I had to watch the recording of the show Markus Lanz several times because I had doubts that I had understood the Green leader Robert Habeck correctly. But he said it really analogously: He is against purchase premiums for combustion engines, but then he contradicts himself: Purchase premiums could be granted if the cars were exchanged for e-mobiles as soon as they could be delivered.
So the customer should now order their electric vehicle or hydrogen car, receive the premium immediately and in the meantime get a combustion engine leased from the car manufacturer, which should be taken back if the emission-free car can be delivered. For Habeck, apparently the perfect solution "to bring about structural change". This is a bridge: "The cars are sold, then taken back and then go to another leasing model" for recycling to the manufacturer.
Even on a superficial look, the madness becomes clear: two cars would have to be produced and delivered, one of which should then disappear from the scene. But where to? Should the incinerator be brought to the people in another way or even be sold as new as a third world? "With proposals like this," says Habeck literally, "we can get the automotive industry into the next decade."
Habeck admits that the switch to battery-powered cars is likely to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, as Lanz throws in. "Sticking to cars that are not in demand right now," offers the chance to transform the auto industry sustainably. Habeck does not seem to understand Lanz, the moderator, who is best known for answering his questions himself and who speaks of the "air industry", referring to the entire aviation industry, but refrains from asking critical questions about why two cars should be produced to take advantage of a car purchase bonus.
When it comes to the "air industry", the Green points to Air France, which has committed itself against state aid to produce 2030 percent fewer exhaust gases by 50. It is worth the discussion below https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFX1NDzmb4Q to pursue.