End of thermal cars in 2035: "good news" even if "the clean vehicle does not exist"

"History (...) A new era."

It is in these terms that Pascal Canfin, chairman of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament, welcomed the decision voted in Strasbourg on Wednesday 8 June: MEPs came out in favor of banning the sale of passenger cars and new combustion engine vans within the European Union.

Still needing the approval of all 27 to materialize, the decision is expected to take effect in 2035.

With the vote ending the sale of non-zero emission cars in 2035 we are taking a historic decision that leads us to a new era of climate neutrality.

It's a major victory!

@Renaissance_EU

— Pascal Canfin (@pcanfin) June 8, 2022

Brussels is thus forecasting a 55% reduction in CO2 emissions on the continent by 2030. A wish that the electricity fairy should grant: the European Commission intends to accelerate the transition to carbon neutrality (planned for 2050) by encouraging manufacturers to invest massively in the electrification of the new vehicle fleet. 

But precisely because of the environmental impact of the batteries powering these vehicles, this European thunderclap revives a stormy debate: what if the electric car was ecological "false good news"? 

Some answers with Pierre Leflaive, Transport Manager at the Climate Action Network (RAC), an association representing in France an international network of NGOs working for ecological transition. 

France 24

Pierre Leflaive: We can detect an expression of relief there: a progressive bloc in the European Parliament succeeded in having a limit set for the sale of the most polluting vehicles, without this limit, all the climate objectives of the transport sector were condemned. 

Victory for the climate in Parliament 🇪🇺: the production of thermal cars will be banned in 2035!

The lobbies that wanted to weaken the text by reducing the objective are (for once) defeated despite the support of the right and the far right.

We are going forward !

(kinda) pic.twitter.com/Tz1oNi1sm1

— Manon Aubry (@ManonAubryFr) June 8, 2022

This vote thus highlights two rather unprecedented facts: a coalition of MEPs is ready to fight to inscribe ecological ambitions in the stone of Community regulations.

And these citizens' representatives have the ability to resist pressure groups linked to car manufacturers.

This is very good news for the climate. 

Manufacture, obsolescence of batteries, half of which are manufactured outside the EU… Critics of the electric car argue that it only transforms the nature of pollution.

The clean vehicle does not exist: producing a car inevitably means emitting greenhouse gases.

With the electric, we stop emitting via an exhaust pipe, but we certainly continue to pollute on other phases.

The electric vehicle nevertheless induces real progress: according to studies, it emits up to five times less CO2 than internal combustion vehicles.

And this, by considering all the pollution of its life cycle, from the construction of the vehicle to the recycling of the batteries, including the production of electricity.

We are also in a position to reduce these emissions: through technological progress, but also quite simply by relocating battery production to where these vehicles will be sold, within the EU. 

But since it is impossible to eradicate all forms of pollution related to the automobile, and because the manufacture of batteries requires the exploitation of rare metals whose stocks are not infinite, other levers must be activated: the sobriety, and the reduction of the European car fleet, via public transport, cycling, carpooling, an asset which allows us to reduce our dependence on the car. 

Opponents of the vote in the European Parliament dispute the technical feasibility and economic viability of such a major transition. 

Is the industry ready to convert quickly enough, technically?

The answer is yes.

The electric vehicle is a technology that has been mastered today.

In terms of market share, its sales are increasing.

Stellantis and Renault have also – in front of their shareholders – displayed ambitious objectives, the implementation of which will certainly have to be monitored by 2030.

And the more investments will be made in the electric vehicle, the more the manufacturing costs, and therefore the selling prices, will fall under the impulse of economies of scale.

More European citizens, among those who remain dependent on the car, will thus have access to electricity. 

European manufacturers are facing increased competition from Chinese or American industries, which are investing massively in electricity.

However, the automotive sector is the largest employer in Europe.

Far from being confined to the environment, the issue is therefore also societal: it was appropriate for the EU to set foot in the electric automobile industry, so as not to be left behind.

Will this project not prevent manufacturers from continuing to export thermal vehicles on the world market, thus perpetuating pollution elsewhere

Are all continents able to electrify their vehicle fleet?

Already important for the most disadvantaged in Europe, the challenge of access for low-income households to an electric vehicle concerns very large populations in developing countries.

This is where the responsibility of the European Union comes in: Europeans have the chance, and therefore the duty, to be able to show ambition in this field.

We are not only historically responsible for a large share of greenhouse gas emissions, but we also have the economic and industrial capacity to accelerate this transition. 

Could the surge in oil prices caused by the war in Ukraine reinforce the calls for energy sobriety that you mentioned

This increase already induces an expense of around 100 euros per month and per household.

To this loss of purchasing power, sobriety or electric cars certainly provide an answer.

But this war could lead to several scenarios. 

Regressions could materialize.

The use of alternative technologies such as biofuels have a high CO2 emission balance.

As they are based on the exploitation of crops, such as bioethanol, they would increase the pressure on arable land, and consequently the price of foodstuffs, all over the planet. 

But we could also learn lessons from this crisis.

The explosion in the price of energy, and de facto of imported foodstuffs, reminds us that if our economies had begun to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, the repercussions of the war in Ukraine would be less violent.

What scientists and NGOs predicted about the cost of environmental inaction has become more tangible.

Rather than warning about the dangers that are coming, we are now talking about what is happening before our eyes.

The acceptability of the ecological transition has thus increased.

But are we going to get out of this Ukrainian sequence by accelerating our transition, to become more resilient in the face of this type of shock?

Or will setbacks and inertia expose us, not only to climate change, but to new economic perils?

We are at the crossroads.

The summary of the

France 24 week invites you to come back to the news that marked the week

I subscribe

Take international news everywhere with you!

Download the France 24 app

google-play-badge_EN