- ADAC traffic president advocates CO₂ pricing as a tool for climate targets
- According to ADAC, average four-digit number of resignations
- Discussions and resignations mainly on social networks
At the start of the year, the ADAC unexpectedly came under criticism from its own members. This was triggered by statements made by traffic president Gerhard Hillebrand, who had spoken out in favor of higher gasoline and diesel prices in an interview. The aim, he said, was to use CO₂ pricing to steer behavior in order to meet German and European climate targets.
Controversial statements on CO₂ pricing
Hillebrand had explained that the ADAC fundamentally considers CO₂ pricing to be a suitable instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He said, „Der ADAC hält die CO₂-Bepreisung für ein richtiges Instrument, um die Klimaschutzziele zu erreichen.“
Translated: “The ADAC considers CO₂ pricing to be the right instrument for achieving climate protection targets.”
In his opinion, financial incentives are needed to encourage people to switch from gasoline and diesel vehicles to more climate-friendly alternatives. At the same time, he warned against watering down climate targets at the European level. Europe must stick to ambitious CO₂ reduction targets in order to limit global warming.
These statements were widely interpreted by the public as an endorsement of significantly higher fuel prices. Drivers of classic combustion engine vehicles in particular felt that they were no longer being represented.
Reactions from members and sentiment on social media
Numerous users expressed their displeasure on social networks such as X. Under hashtags such as #AdiosADAC or #ADACkuendigen, members reported or announced their resignation. Photos of letters of resignation were frequently posted, accompanied by clear criticism of the club’s leadership.
Several voices criticized that, in their view, an automobile club should represent the interests of drivers and not support demands that make driving more expensive. According to comments, owners of older gasoline and diesel vehicles in particular feel financially pressured.
A few members also spoke up to defend Hillebrand’s statements or point out the extensive services provided by the ADAC. However, these voices remained clearly in the minority in the public debate.
Statement by the ADAC
The ADAC responded to the ongoing criticism with a clarifying statement. The club emphasized that it was fundamentally opposed to higher costs for motorists. In its publications, the ADAC regularly puts pressure on oil companies and politicians to avoid excessive fuel prices.
At the same time, the automobile club stated that Hillebrand’s statements had been abbreviated in public reporting. It warned against placing an excessive financial burden on people and had been demanding for years that CO₂ pricing must always be accompanied by relief and compensation measures.
Regarding the reported resignations, the ADAC stated that the number of resignations was currently in the mid four-digit range. It hoped to be able to convince former members to rejoin through personal conversations.
Contextual consideration
The debate shows how sensitive the issue of mobility costs has become. Rising fuel prices, political climate targets, and the shift toward electric mobility are causing growing tensions between interest groups and parts of the driving community. It remains to be seen whether the discussion will have a long-term impact on trust in the ADAC.
