Certain Germans are arguing that instead of banning a technology, it should be possible to use any technology which solves the problem being complained about. So, climate change might mean that we should stop burning saved CO2 in the form of fossil fuels. OK, so any solution which stops the use of stored CO2 release should be used. The question becomes which is the best - ie, least cost - method of doing that.

Finance minister Christian Lindner and transport minister Volker Wissing have called for combustion engine vehicles to be exempt from the ban if they can run on so-called e-fuels, synthetic concoctions which some automakers are touting as an alternative to battery-powered cars.

Environmentalists say the intervention is a cynical attempt to woo FDP voters and extend the lifetime of a technology that has had its day.

As we’ve just noted about air travel. Perhaps that e-fuels idea is indeed the solution? In fact, for air travel we’re pretty sure - for whatever our thoughts are worth - that e-fuels are the answer.

Perhaps they are for cars as well? We’d be able to retain the entire current infrastructure after all. Retain personal mobility. We already have all the refuelling stations. We just need to change the source of the fuel. As per the Royal Society report about air travel.

At which point we go right back to basics. What is or should be our decision making method here? We argue that it should be markets. Set the target - net zero CO2 if that’s the thing we want. Then leave be and see which technology does win out in that competition in the marketplace.

For the alternative to that is the obviously absurd idea that those who are good at kissing babies know what’s best for all 500 million of us Europeans - or 430 million EU-ites perhaps. Politicians shouldn’t be deciding upon technologies even if there is room for them to be setting the targets that a technology must reach. So, set the target and anything that meets it is allowable.

Simples.