38

This is a notable claim by Friedrich Merz, head of the CDU party and a member of the German parliament:

„Ich bereue nicht, dass ich zur Hochzeit von Christian Lindner geflogen bin. Um es mal auf den Punkt zu bringen: Mit meinem Kleinflugzeug verbrauche ich weniger Sprit als jeder #Dienstwagen eines Mitglieds der #Bundesregierung. Und deswegen fliege ich.“

(Link to Tweet)

Translation (via deepl.com):

"I have no regrets about flying to Christian Lindner's wedding. To put it in a nutshell: With my small plane I use less fuel than any #servicecar of a member of the #federalgovernment. And that's why I fly."

I'm very skeptical about this claim with regard to fuel usage. Aviation fuels cannot easily compared to fuel used for cars. Thus, it is hard to say what "uses more fuel" actually means. A literal reading would probably compare those fuels by volume in litres. Whilst I'd appreciate debunking or verifying the claim on that basis, I'd also be interested in how the carbon footprint stacks up (car vs plane) to be able to judge if — even if the literal claim would be true — it might be misleading.

Another thing to consider: How many electric cars are available for members of parliament. If an electric car had been available, this would debunk the literal claim immediately, but again, a comparison based on the carbon footprint (what kind of energy mix was available that day to [re-]charge the car) would be interesting.

Also relevant for discussion: The route via plane might be shorter than via car (although not necessarily). Answers should focus an the general claim (car vs. plane) but also consider the special circumstances of this route. I have not been able to find the actual flight data recording of the route.

The aircraft in question seems to be an DA62 (Source, in German).

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
Polygnome
  • 2,033
  • 1
  • 19
  • 18
  • 1
    This gives some info on the claim and suggests it is not true. https://www.flyingmag.com/the-most-fuel-efficient-aircraft-in-several-categories/ – Joe W Jul 25 '22 at 12:33
  • 7
    Its going to depend hugely on the route. For example, I fly light GA aircraft. From where I live if I try to drive from Herts to Kent its a long 2+hr slog round the London Orbital Motorway (M25). I can fly it in 25 minutes. Time=emissions. – Jamiec Jul 25 '22 at 13:28
  • 2
    Considering that the 'efficient' planes in JoeW's link are returning 15-30 mpg, and an efficient modern car can get double that, it looks like one of those spurious "on good day" claims. – Weather Vane Jul 25 '22 at 13:41
  • 2
    It seems from the translation that the comparison is with an official goverment car, not their own little VW Up! or similar. – Weather Vane Jul 25 '22 at 13:57
  • 5
    There's also the issue that an airplane is significantly more limited to the number of locations it can start and end a trip on than a car, so unless both your starting point and destination are within five minutes' walking distance of an airfield, you're still worse off. – Shadur Jul 25 '22 at 13:57
  • @Jamiec The route was Berlin (presumably) to Sylt (confirmed). – Polygnome Jul 25 '22 at 14:25
  • @Shadur: [unless...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6lxxMymik4) – Fizz Jul 25 '22 at 20:41
  • 1
    The quote is talking about official cars of members of the government, not about parliament members. So the number of electric cars available to parliament members is irrelevant. – laolux Jul 25 '22 at 20:51
  • 1
    Not a direct answer but leadded fuels are still used in some GA engines. No cars use leadded fuels. So emissions are "worse" – Criggie Jul 25 '22 at 21:43
  • 2
    @Criggie, except that his DA62 is diesel (which uses cleaner Jet-A fuel than what car diesels use), no lead there. – Zeus Jul 26 '22 at 02:26
  • Note that "cars available to members of parliament" is not immediately relevant, because this flight was for private purposes and not on official duty use. – gerrit Jul 26 '22 at 07:12
  • 2
    @Jamiec "Time=emissions", so, the faster I drive, the lower my emissions are? – Abigail Jul 26 '22 at 10:24
  • @Abigail no, the more time you drive, the more your emissions. However it was a rather flippant comment which does not capture the nuance of speed vs emissions I agree. – Jamiec Jul 26 '22 at 10:35
  • 1
    Electricity is not an energy source. Germany is burning coal at the moment, so electric is not really that green anymore. –  Jul 26 '22 at 14:29
  • 1
    @fredsbend Of course electricity is an energy source. You can convert other forms of energy (heat, potential, etc) energy to and from electricity. Of course, it might not be "clean" energy due to the energy mix, but I explicitly mentioned the energy mix as something to look at. – Polygnome Jul 26 '22 at 15:38
  • I knew it! I knew I would find this question here on sceptics! (It’s a hot topic currently here in Germany) – Hartmut Braun Jul 26 '22 at 17:58
  • 1
    @Polygnome: Electricity serves as energy transfer, not a source. – Ben Voigt Jul 26 '22 at 22:22
  • 2
    I have no idea on German geography, but why can he not take the train for much of the way, preferably electric? – Bib Jul 26 '22 at 22:22
  • 2
    @Polygnome No, it's not. In the economic context, this context, electricity absolutely is not an energy source. Electricity is the water in the pipes, but it is not the water source. We don't collect electricity from the ground or air, like we do oil or wind. Very many of these "green" arguments lean on this misconception, taking for granted that electricity is inherently green. –  Jul 27 '22 at 15:00
  • You are not only asking about that politician's aircraft but about aircraft in general: The "Merlin light" aircraft needs about 6 L of gasoline per 100 km (this means about 40 american miles per gallon). This is very close to modern mid-size cars. I've read about a sports airplane that requires less than 4 L of gasoline per 100 km which would be less than the most modern cars require. – Martin Rosenau Jul 28 '22 at 09:03
  • @MartinRosenau I was specifically interested in the DA62 here, because that is what the claim is about. – Polygnome Jul 28 '22 at 09:42
  • @Polygnome The problem is that next time somebody is flying with another airplane and claiming the same thing. Another person will ask the same question here on this web site and the question is closed as "duplicate". – Martin Rosenau Jul 28 '22 at 14:41
  • Polygnome, @BenVoigt: electricity is neither energy transfer nor an energy source. It is energy. – phoog Aug 01 '22 at 07:31
  • @phoog: Being energy does not make it "not energy transfer". – Ben Voigt Aug 01 '22 at 14:58
  • @BenVoigt energy transfer is an act. The act of transmitting electricity is energy transfer. The thing being transferred is not the same as the transfer itself. – phoog Aug 01 '22 at 15:42
  • @BenVoigt it occurs to me that you might mean "energy transfer" as shorthand for "a medium for transferring energy." If that's the case then I agree. – phoog Aug 01 '22 at 16:49
  • @phoog: That should have been apparent from [its juxtaposition with "source"](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/53593/does-flying-a-small-ga-aircraft-use-less-fuel-than-driving-the-same-distance-by?noredirect=1#comment259136_53593) Note also that I didn't say *is* or *equals*, but *serves as*. Electricity serves/enables/facilitates the transfer of energy. – Ben Voigt Aug 01 '22 at 16:53
  • @BenVoigt perhaps it should have been, but it wasn't. I think I overlooked or attributed insufficient significance to "serves as." – phoog Aug 01 '22 at 16:57

1 Answers1

61

This article (in German) has done further research and calculations that all seem to add up. Their verdict is that Friedrich Merz's flight did not use less fuel than other German cabinet member. In fact, the only member that could potentially have caused more or an equal amount is chancellor Olaf Scholz, because his official limousine is heavily armored and therefore very heavy. Merz's literal statement can therefore be considered false.

I will translate the key paragraphs here:

Radarbox tracked Merz' flight with an estimated flight duration of 2 hours. The producer of the aircraft estimates 44.7 litres of fuel per flight hour at 60% capacity. Other sources estimate more based on test reviews, around 56 litres per hour. This means the flight might have used up to 112 litres of diesel - roughly equivalent to Scholz' limousine with 109 litres. Calculations from the Swiss Federal Agency for Civil Aviation estimate the CO2 equivalent of Merz's flight at 282 kilograms, whereas Scholz's drive would have caused 35 kg less.

Other members of German parliament do not even drive such heavy vehicles or even use electric cars, whose equivalent CO2 output is way less. Cem Özdemirs drive with an Audi e-Tron Sportback 55 would have caused 46 kg of real CO2 emissions.

John Doe
  • 1,344
  • 10
  • 9
  • 29
    Note that when talking about carbon emissions you instantly get into the whole mess of how to calculate them correctly. For example, do you include emissions due to production as well? In that case, an airplane will amortize those much better, since they typically fly for many decades, whereas cars are replaced much more often. All of this is, however, irrelevant anyway, since the original claim is solely about fuel usage. – Jörg W Mittag Jul 25 '22 at 20:54
  • 6
    ICE cars produce the majority of their carbon emissions after production, so the carbon cost of manufacturing amortizing over a longer period isn't a super great argument. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth5 – Aaron Jul 25 '22 at 21:22
  • 3
    While DA62 is not quite a "limousine" (only some biz-jets could be compared to that), it's a nice modern (by GA standards) *twin*-engine aeroplane. While it's quite efficient (comparable fuel burn to an older single-engine Cessna 182 of similar capacity), Merz could have used a single-engine DA40 and actually beat Scholz. – Zeus Jul 26 '22 at 02:40
  • 4
    @Zeus wouldn't be a fair comparison unless the aeroplane was heavily armoured, or if the point was that Scholz wouldn't need armour if he flew – user253751 Jul 26 '22 at 12:19
  • One minor correction I want to make: Google maps estimates 687 km from the Bundeskanzleramt to Sylt. At 19,7l /100km that is 134l used by Scholz – SirHawrk Jul 26 '22 at 13:12
  • @SirHawk For me, it does suggest a route of 559 km, via the A24, which at a rate of 19.5 (not 19.7) l / 100 km comes out to pretty exactly 109 liters of fule – Alexander Wolters Jul 26 '22 at 17:33
  • @AlexanderWolters weird: it still recommends 687 km for me: https://imgur.com/a/2LQSsPL Edit: If I switch Start & Destination around it sometimes recommends your route and sometimes mine – SirHawrk Jul 27 '22 at 08:07
  • 6
    @user253751 Airplanes have no need for heavy armour. Airports can be secured on the ground, and heavy armour is useless mid-flight. – gerrit Jul 27 '22 at 13:59
  • The car will have to take the car train from Niebüll to Westerland, during which a different footprint applies. :) – Hagen von Eitzen Jul 27 '22 at 14:40
  • The discussion completely neglects that there would have to be a car at the airport to pick up our hobby pilot. At least in the case of the chancellor, that would be the same limo that would thus have to drive the whole distance whether he flies or not. – tobi_s Jul 28 '22 at 04:12