But… was it really necessary to abandon the “all-electric” option for new cars from 2035, as announced by the European Commission on 16 December? And what are the economic and climate benefits of this decision?

The Automotive Package presented in Strasbourg proposes that the official target of a 100% reduction in emissions for new cars remain formally in place, but in reality it is lowered to around 90%. Free credits linked to e-fuels and biofuels, bonuses for the use of European “green” steel and supercredits for small electric cars compensate for the missing 10%, creating “space” for non-electric cars after 2035 and without an end date. In addition, the introduction of a three-year fleet emissions average effectively allows until 2032 to achieve the 55% reduction target. This means that in 2030, the share of fully electric cars could stop at around 45%, instead of the 58% required by the current rules. This slowdown weighs heavily on these decisive years and makes it more difficult for Member States to meet their overall climate targets.

The Commission also proposes to create a new category of small M1e electric vehicles (up to 4.2 metres), which is an interesting choice. Also, the Battery Booster Strategy is mobilising €1.8 billion (including €1.5 billion in zero-interest loans) plus €300 million for raw materials, and measures on company fleets and incentives link public support to low/zero-emission vehicles produced in Europe. But, the targets for vans and lorries are being relaxed (in particular, exemptions are proposed for some e-vans from tachographs and speed limiters, with cost benefits but risks to road safety and working conditions). Moreover, the new proposal on company fleets allows targets to be met with plug-in hybrids alone: an approach that reduces the real impact on emissions and air quality and risks making companies pay more for less climate-effective vehicles. Overall, this strategy remains a mixed bag: strong on industrial support and “made in the EU”, but weaker on CO₂, air quality and safety than the current legislation.

The main reason that led the European Commission to give in to pressure from car manufacturers and many governments, including the German and the Italian one, is that they were convinced that it is possible for now to avoid completely phasing out the internal combustion engine and the entire industrial system that revolves around it, while still maintaining a sufficiently ambitious level of emissions reduction and safeguarding that part of the  European car industry, which is not yet ready for “all-electric”.

The point is that the so-called “alternatives” to electric vehicles do not stand up to serious analysis. Plug-in hybrids emit up to five times more CO₂ in real-world conditions than claimed and cost consumers in average around 500€ more per year than expected because they use much more fuel than anticipated at the time of purchase. Range extenders combine limited electric range with SUV fuel consumption when the combustion engine kicks in. Biofuels, when deforestation and land use are taken into account, can emit more CO₂ than fossil fuels, continue to pollute the air, compete directly with food production and, if produced in a truly sustainable way, will never be enough to fill car tanks: better to reserve them for sectors that are difficult to electrify, such as aviation and shipping. As for synthetic fuels, they are extremely inefficient and very expensive: they could add up to £2,000 per year to the cost of running a car compared to an electric car, without eliminating air pollutants.

All this tells us that the end of internal combustion engines by 2035 is neither an ideological whim nor a technological gamble: it is an industrial choice that remains necessary. Postponing or weakening it means exposing the European automotive industry to very real risks in terms of competitiveness, employment and technological leadership. The future of the car is electric, and Europe must face this change with clarity and speed.

This is also because facts show that European CO₂ emission standards are working. There is no evidence to justify a downward revision of the targets for 2030 or 2035. All major European manufacturers are on track to meet the targets set for the period 2025–2027. Even the only major group currently lagging behind, Mercedes, can compensate by purchasing credits from surplus manufacturers, thus avoiding penalties. It is therefore not the industry as a whole that is in difficulty, but a part of it that is struggling to adapt, that has influence and power over governments and the media, as well as easy access to the Commission, and that is now pushing to slow down the regulatory framework.

The market confirms this trajectory. In 2025, sales of battery electric cars are growing rapidly across much of the EU. Ten Member States are increasing their shares greatly: in Denmark, electric cars account for 70% of new registrations, in Belgium and Finland over a third, and in France and Germany almost 20%. Overall, in the third quarter of 2025, fully electric cars accounted for 17.4% of new car sales in Europe. Italy, with just over 5%, remains a negative exception, but with clearly growing figures.

This development is no coincidence. It is the direct result of EU CO₂ standards, which have forced manufacturers to invest and bring smaller, more affordable electric models to market. Between the end of 2024 and 2025, models designed for the middle class arrived, such as the new electric Renault 5 and compact versions of the VW and BMW ranges. By the end of 2025, nine electric models will be available with a starting price of around €25,000, rising to nineteen by 2027. Without stringent targets and clear direction, this offer would not exist.

Contributing to this trend is the reduction in battery costs, which are estimated to fall by almost 30% by 2027. This will make electric cars even more affordable, facilitating the achievement of the 2030 targets. At the same time, the charging infrastructure is expanding rapidly: all EU countries have already met their targets for 2025, and more than three-quarters of the main motorway network is covered by ultra-fast charging. The idea that the conditions for mass adoption of electric vehicles are not in place is no longer that valid.

Slowing down the transition now would therefore be very costly. According to analyses by Transport & Environment, backtracking on the phase-out of combustion engines in 2035 could lead to the loss of around one million jobs across the European automotive supply chain, including batteries, and the loss of planned investments in batteries and related activities. In the same scenario, there is also talk of a potential decline in added value and a blow to the charging ecosystem. The reason is simple: global competition does not wait. If Europe sends the message that electric is negotiable, investments will follow less hesitant markets.

Furthermore, weakening European targets is a direct gift to Chinese competitors. Thanks to a coherent industrial strategy and a clear focus on electric, China now has a clear advantage in the mass production of electric vehicles and, above all, batteries. In 2024, it accounted for 80% of global cell production and over 90% of certain key components. Brands such as BYD have already overtaken Tesla in global sales and are entering the European market with force, thanks in part to new factories in Turkey and Hungary. If Europe slows down, the technological and industrial gap will only widen.

Within the European industry, moreover, there is no unified position. Alongside pressure from some industry and trade union associations for a “pragmatic approach” that prolongs the use of hybrids and alternative fuels, there are clear voices calling for the opposite. The heads of Audi, Volvo and Polestar state unequivocally that electric cars are the best technology, not only for the climate but also for performance, efficiency and innovation. Continuing to reopen the debate on combustion engines, they warn, destabilises consumers and discourages investment.

In conclusion, NO, it was not necessary to give up on “all-electric” halfway through. And the economic and social benefits of this choice are difficult to grasp. On the contrary, we risk losing the industrial game as well as the climate game.

Yesterday's Commission proposal is only the starting point of a legislative process that will involve Member States and the European Parliament, which are very susceptible to the most backward lobbies and close to the right-wing majority. There are already voices saying that this package is still too ambitious, that the percentage reduction in emissions by 2035 needs to be significantly reduced, that the scope for biofuels and e-fuels needs to be increased, and that conditions and limits need to be relaxed.

This is why the phase that is now beginning in Brussels and in the MS is decisive and calls for action for those political representatives,businesses and civil society, which know that the future lies in electric mobility as part of a broader ecological transition.

As this package is only at the beginning of its journey, it can still improve or worsen considerably. We must prevent flexibility from becoming a permanent loophole; correct the treatment of plug-in hybrids based on their actual emissions and costs; limit biofuels and e-fuels to sectors that are truly difficult to electrify; strengthen the 2030 targets that drive investment and employment; and definitively align climate and industrial policy by investing in batteries, software, charging and skills.

At stake are the climate, the health of citizens, the competitiveness of  European industry, and the direction of future mobility. In a global context where Asia and other emerging markets are accelerating, Europe needs regulatory certainty, not constant rethinking. Defending ambitious CO₂ targets and accompanying them with a solid industrial policy is the only way to protect jobs, competitiveness and technological autonomy. Everything else is a waste of time and resources that we cannot afford.

Monica Frassoni,

18/12/2025