What does a car life cost?

In the context of the escalating climate crisis and Putin's ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine, heated debates have flared up again in Germany over recent weeks about boycotting fossil fuels and expanding renewables. One concrete and relatively easy-to-implement measure for this is the introduction of a speed limit, which is supported by the majority of the German population in surveys. However, especially liberal politicians are clinging to the right to freedom of driving fast, and so the debate is shifting away from fuel consumption savings towards another subsidy of car driving by means of a fuel tax rebate. This is to be introduced in parallel with the 9-euro ticket and is meant to relieve car drivers. But to what extent is further subsidisation of motorised individual transport economically sensible and socially just? 
The 2022 study entitled "The lifetime cost of driving a car" attempts to quantify the personal and societal costs of car traffic in Germany in 2020 and concludes that most car drivers underestimate the personal expenses for their vehicle just as much as politicians underestimate the societal externalities. 
Cars are not only costly to purchase, but also lead to high expenses in the course of their use due to insurance premiums and tax as well as repairs, fuel and parking fees, which are often not apparent to the owners. In another study, almost half of all respondents underestimate the monthly costs for their vehicle by about 52% or €221, with most estimating fuel costs accurately. This is particularly a problem for lower-income households that are nonetheless dependent on a car. Depending on the model, they must spend approximately 36% to 69% of their lifetime income on maintaining a vehicle. An Opel Corsa, for example, incurs private costs of approximately €350,000 over a theoretical service life of 50 years, whilst a Mercedes GLC already costs nearly €680,000. If one adds the outsourced societal additional costs resulting from environmental damage increasing with rising traffic volume and vehicle size, such as air pollution, noise or uncompensated climate damage such as insufficient CO₂ pricing, the Opel Corsa would cost approximately €600,000 — almost twice as much in use — and a Mercedes GLC would cost nearly one million euros. If these externalities were internalised, meaning car owners would have to bear these additional costs themselves, poorly or unskilled workers would spend nearly 60% of their entire lifetime income on an Opel Corsa. With a Mercedes GLC it would be as much as 97%. For people with a lifetime income of 5 million euros, maintaining a car represents a significantly lower percentage cost factor: even with a shift of societal externalities and the purchase of a Mercedes GLC, they would have to spend a maximum of 20% of their entire income on the vehicle.
Furthermore, car ownership changes behaviour with regard to mobility, as additional trips are viewed as low additional costs due to the high investment in acquisition. This is also demonstrated by a study in connection with company cars, which often result in additional private journeys and the purchase of another vehicle. Company cars in Germany are also subsidised far more heavily compared to the use of public transport or bicycles, which is why car drivers gain an advantage here too. Moreover, companies often provide their employees with free or discounted parking, which does not cover the costs of providing it, whilst employees who commute without a car often experience no comparable relief. The use of public transport becomes unattractive in the process, as most people only compare ticket prices with fuel prices and disregard the fixed costs of the car.
In addition to the actual expenses and subsidies for individual transport and the provision of funds for research in the automotive industry, car users also expect the provision of roads, car parks and further services from the federal government, states or municipalities. This manifests the existing injustice in two respects, as large sums of public money flow into this infrastructure, which is simultaneously climate-damaging and very land-intensive. This harms people who — often for financial reasons — do not own a car, as they finance unsustainable subsidies through their tax contributions on the one hand, and are often those who can only afford comparatively cheaper housing near heavily trafficked roads on the other. 
In times like these, when questions of social justice and sustainability are more pressing than ever, it is therefore not fair, but rather counterproductive, to continue financing a form of mobility that is harmful in many ways to this extent. Instead, it is necessary that both car owners and decision-makers in politics become aware of the true costs of individual transport and that inclusive, fairer and climate-friendly means of transport are given higher priority than the car. Even if we live in a car nation: rethinking is worthwhile.