welt.de
Germany Rejects 2035 Combustion Engine Ban: YouGov Poll
A YouGov poll reveals that 44% of Germans oppose the EU's 2035 ban on new combustion engine cars, with only 24% supporting it, highlighting significant public resistance to the climate policy.
- Which groups in Germany support or oppose the ban, and what are their stated reasons?
- Support for the ban is mainly among Green and Left party voters, while the strongest opposition comes from AfD voters. Reasons cited for opposition are not provided in the text. The economic implications of the ban and the perceived impact on cost of living appear to drive much of the opposition.
- What are the broader implications of this public resistance for both German and EU climate policies?
- The strong opposition in Germany, a major EU economy, could significantly hinder the EU's efforts to meet its climate goals. The political pressure to reconsider or delay the ban poses a substantial challenge to climate policies and demonstrates a considerable disconnect between climate goals and public opinion.
- What is the public's reaction in Germany to the EU's planned ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035?
- A YouGov poll of 2,057 eligible voters (September 12-15, 2025) shows 44% want the government to oppose the ban, 19% want a delay, and only 24% support the ban's implementation. This reveals widespread public disapproval.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a balanced view of public opinion regarding the 2035 combustion engine ban, highlighting both support and opposition. However, the sequencing might subtly emphasize opposition by starting with the strong rejection from 44% of respondents. The inclusion of the quote from Olaf Lies (SPD) adds a layer of political complexity but could be seen as highlighting opposition from within the governing party.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and factual, presenting survey results without overt emotional connotations. Terms like "breiten Ablehnung" (broad rejection) could be slightly stronger than necessary, but the overall tone remains objective. Alternatives could include "substantial opposition" or "significant disapproval.
Bias by Omission
While the article mentions the EU's aim to reduce CO2 emissions, it omits detailed discussion of the potential economic consequences of the ban, such as job losses in the automotive industry or the potential for technological advancements in alternative energy sources. The reasons behind the 2022 decision are also not thoroughly explained. The article could benefit from a more comprehensive exploration of the economic and technological factors involved. This omission might limit readers' ability to form a completely informed opinion.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the debate by focusing primarily on the binary choice of supporting or opposing the ban. Nuances such as the potential for compromise or alternative timelines are not fully explored. The discussion of making climate protection more expensive versus cheaper also presents a false dichotomy; it ignores the potential for long-term economic benefits from transitioning to cleaner energy.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the EU plan to ban new combustion engine cars by 2035, a key policy to reduce CO2 emissions and mitigate climate change. While the public opinion is divided, the policy itself directly contributes to climate action goals. The article also mentions the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global warming, which is directly related to climate action.