On June 8, the European Parliament voted to end the sale of internal combustion engine cars by 2035. Members of Parliament did so by agreeing to reduce tailpipe CO2 emissions of new car sales by 100% in that year, as proposed by the European Commission. This is historic. For the climate, but also for people’s wallets.
On June 29, EU Member States agreed – although adding a clause to “assess the progress made towards achieving the 100% emission reduction” in 2026. The EU institutions will now meet for negotiations to finalise this decision. Seeing this proposed 2026 review however, it’s important to revisit debates on e-fuels and ‘technological neutrality’ that likely made Member States consider it. These debates should not get a longer lease of life, causing gridlock on the road to a better automotive future and scaring consumers.
Because despite glossy ads featuring the newest electric vehicle ranges, the reaction of – some – car makers is hardly ‘over the moon’. Case in point: the reaction of one organisation representing the German car value chain, calling the Parliament vote “a decision against innovation and technology and [that] misses the reality of the people”.
Electric cars: cheaper, sustainable and long-lasting
This “misses the reality of the people” argument is confounding. We have 13 years to complete a transformation of the automotive sector…that’s already taking place. Transition is part of the history of the car sector, and with sound public policy this has delivered and will deliver beyond niche innovation.
Change is part of life. Huge transformations in the past have become our basic consumer expectations today. One example: in the 1980s, BEUC lobbied hard to make sure that lead was removed from petrol. One reality changed to a better reality.
In the 2010s, we noticed signs of structural change in an automotive sector that realises it plays a significant role in climate action – also to secure its own future. BEUC and its members therefore investigated what this change means for consumers. We found electric cars are already the cheapest option for many drivers, and will soon be for all. Especially people who buy second-hand cars and/or live in peri-urban and rural areas can save by going electric, as they benefit from lower maintenance and running costs.
Afterwards we received questions from policymakers, journalists, family, and friends: “What about the environmental impact of electric cars?” “Should I expect to have to replace my car’s battery at some point?”. So we compared the sustainability and durability of electric vehicles with that of the internal combustion engine. We revealed an electric car’s battery is expected to last as long as the car itself – making an onerous replacement unlikely. Electric cars also emit less CO2 than petrol cars, even when considering their whole lifecycle.
Buzzwords like ‘technological neutrality’ are nonsense
Another frequent question: “Is going electric the only sustainable solution for our cars?”. Here there are two theoretical candidates. Firstly, fuel cell (hydrogen-powered) vehicles. But these are costly, and we observe they are not really part of car makers’ plans in the near future. Anyway, they will still be allowed from 2035 as they are considered zero-emissions.
Then there are ‘e-fuels’: new synthetic fuels that would replace diesel and petrol in a car’s tank – maintaining the internal combustion engine. E-fuels are a costly solution for all owners of a car running on them. Price-parity with petrol is forecasted only for 2037, with electric cars consistently outcompeting e-fuels.
We nevertheless see pundits defending costly ‘solutions’ with the mantra of “technological neutrality” or “openness”. Frankly, it’s an argument that flies in the face of reality – to fall back on that choice of word – of an automotive market witnessing booming electric sales.
In a market long dominated by the combustion engine, we should welcome electric vehicles as a viable alternative to tackle the climate crisis and benefit consumers. It has also been acknowledged that mobility (and its legislative framework) has been modelled around one technology – the internal combustion engine – at a time where no one was crying over technology neutrality.
Promoters of technological neutrality are not guardians of free competition, rather using a catch-all term as scarecrow. It is a tool to argue against societal choices, the environment, the interest of consumers, and the market orientation derived from the political goals set up democratically at a time of crisis.
Climate action: an opportunity to break out of fossil-fuelled mobility
While BEUC advocates the benefits of electric driving for people who need or want a car, we are not automotive salespeople. Greening cars doesn’t complete the process of breaking out of a mobility system that fundamentally depends on fossil fuels. The EU, its Member States, regional and local governments must also make train travel easier and convenient, develop public transport, and improve walking and cycling infrastructure. The goal is to make our mobility and lives affordable, convenient, and – why not – fun, without using a car.
Like the end of lead in petrol, a cleaner automotive sector will benefit Europe. The decision to stop CO2 emissions from cars in 2035, a generous deadline, is precisely the stimulus needed as it pushes the automotive industry to bring cleaner cars to showrooms, creating a second-hand market of affordable electric cars. This also illustrates that climate action is an opportunity for a better daily life. EU institutions ought to keep that in mind during their final negotiations on this file.