Emmanuelle Ducros 8:54 a.m., March 25, 2024

Every morning after the 8:30 a.m. news, Emmanuelle Ducros reveals to listeners her “Journey into absurdity”, from Monday to Thursday.

Jean-Dominique Sénard, chairman of the board of directors of Renault, was interviewed last week by the Senate Economic Affairs Committee. He deplored the fact that no serious impact study had been carried out at European level, before banning the sale of thermal cars in 2035.

He is not the only leader in the automotive sector to worry about the feasibility of the end of the thermal engine. The boss of Stellantis Carlos Tavares before him. Volkswagen, which is postponing the construction of a battery factory, Mercedes which will keep thermal technology longer than expected. The builders are burned by political errors... As nothing has really been prepared, evaluated, it is foggy.  

Why has the EU not carried out these impact studies which would allow us to see things more clearly and perhaps identify problems?

For what ? The first reason is that it has the unfortunate habit of thinking that it can set an objective on a corner of the table, and that that is enough to make public policy. Without ever wondering how or with what effects. Stewardship will follow. She did the same thing with agriculture.

The second reason, for having carefully avoided the impact study, is that she sensed that the answers would force her to confront magical thinking with reality. A reality meant breaking the neck of ecological dogmas.

Which ?

First, the green dogma of degrowth, which continues to shape the thinking of a whole part of the European left. To transform the automobile fleet, it is necessary to build parts and battery factories. However, it has become almost impossible to set up in France, in a whole part of Europe, they are all systematically subject to of opposition. An impact study meant writing in black and white that we needed large factories, or giving up our auto sector to import. Hard to take.

We also need metals, rare earths.

Here again, an impact study required telling citizens the reality. We have to import these metals. So sign free trade agreements. Or else, we have to start opening mines again here, on European soil... As the commission's strategy has rather consisted of exporting environmental nuisances far, far away to have the impression that we live in a green paradise, It doesn't fit with the narrative. The consequences of the all-electric objective are hard to face in the face of the electorate.

And then there's the question of powering these cars.

The transformation of the vehicle fleet implies very significant growth in electric uses. This fits neither with the discourse on everything renewable, nor with the discourse on reducing consumption. It's contradictory. An impact study on the electric car required us to clearly state the reality. We need to produce much more, in a stable and carbon-free way, that requires nuclear power. So, we let the subject rot, out of simple fear of facing the figures and the facts. Europe is caught up with reality and its hypocrisies.