Have you ever had the feeling that a major political decision was made with great fanfare… only to be quietly dismantled a few years later when reality came knocking? Well, it seems we’re witnessing exactly that phenomenon right now in Europe regarding the future of the automobile.
For years, the message was clear and almost dogmatic: by 2035, the sale of new cars equipped with conventional combustion engines would simply cease across the European Union. The die was cast, the direction set, no turning back. Or so we thought.
A Major Policy Reversal in the Making
Recent signals coming from Brussels suggest that this historic deadline, adopted with much environmental ambition in 2023, is about to be seriously reconsidered. We’re not talking about minor adjustments here. Several well-informed sources indicate that European authorities are preparing either to delay the ban by several years or to transform it into a much more flexible, almost declarative objective rather than a binding legal obligation.
This development, if confirmed in the coming days, would represent one of the most significant backtracks on climate policy that the European Union has known in the last decade. And believe me, that’s saying something.
Why the Sudden Change of Heart?
The reasons for this major shift are actually quite numerous and rather revealing about the current state of the European automotive industry. First of all, the commercial reality on the ground is proving much tougher than the most pessimistic forecasts had anticipated just three years ago.
Electric vehicle sales in Europe, after a promising start, have clearly stalled in many major markets. Several manufacturers have had to significantly revise their electrification targets downwards. Some have even quietly postponed the launch of several electric models initially planned for the 2025-2027 period.
- Charging infrastructure is progressing, but remains very uneven across countries and especially across regions
- The average price of electric vehicles remains substantially higher than their combustion equivalents
- Many consumers still have legitimate concerns about range anxiety, especially for long journeys
- The second-hand electric market is struggling to take off, creating uncertainty about residual values
When you add to this picture the brutal competition from Chinese manufacturers who arrive on the European market with very competitive price-quality ratios, you start to understand why the atmosphere has become particularly tense in the boardrooms of traditional European manufacturers.
The situation is simply not sustainable in the current conditions for the European automotive industry.
Comment recently made by a major American manufacturer executive with significant operations in Europe
The German-Italian Axis That Changed Everything
Politically speaking, it is clear that the strongest pressure has come from two major automotive countries: Germany and Italy. Berlin in particular has never completely digested the 2035 deadline, having obtained at the very last moment in 2022 a vague commitment regarding synthetic fuels (e-fuels) which has remained largely unimplemented to this day.
The German automotive industry, which remains the most powerful industrial sector of Europe’s leading economy, has been sending increasingly alarming signals for months: massive layoffs announced, production sites threatened, investments redirected outside Europe… The political class in Berlin could no longer ignore these warning shots.
Italy, for its part, has also made its voice heard loudly, particularly defending the interests of its industrial champion which still relies heavily on combustion engines and plug-in hybrids for its profitability.
What Could the New Framework Look Like?
According to the latest information circulating in Brussels circles, several scenarios are currently being studied, none of which seem to maintain the original 2035 date in its strict form:
- A pure and simple postponement of the deadline, potentially to 2040
- The transformation of the 2035 target into a non-binding objective
- The authorization to continue marketing combustion vehicles provided they run on proven CO₂-neutral fuels (e-fuels, advanced biofuels)
- A technology-neutral approach allowing a mix of solutions: battery electric, fuel cell, plug-in hybrid, combustion with synthetic fuel
- Greater flexibility in the calculation of manufacturer fleet averages, with more possible offsets and credits
The most likely scenario currently seems to be a combination of points 3 and 4: maintaining an official electrification trajectory while considerably expanding the acceptable technological solutions to achieve the objectives.
The Argument of Technological Neutrality
This is undoubtedly the concept that has gained the most ground in recent months. The idea is simple but powerful: rather than imposing a single technological solution (the battery electric vehicle), let the market and technological progress determine the winning mix.
Advocates of this approach point out that several promising technologies exist or are in advanced development:
- Battery electric vehicles (already mature but still limited by cost and infrastructure)
- Fuel cell hydrogen vehicles (zero emission at the tailpipe, very fast refueling)
- Plug-in hybrids with extended range (interesting compromise for many users)
- Combustion engines running on e-fuels or advanced biofuels (carbon neutral overall)
- Range-extender hybrids (combustion engine used only as generator)
I’ve always found this argument quite reasonable. Imposing a single technological path in an area as complex as individual mobility seems risky, especially when the world outside Europe is clearly not following the same path.
What the Critics of the Backtrack Say
The most committed environmental organizations and pure electric manufacturers obviously don’t see things the same way. For them, any relaxation of the 2035 deadline sends a disastrous signal to investors and consumers.
Every time Europe takes a step back on its climate commitments, it hands over a little more of the future of mobility to Chinese manufacturers on a silver platter.
Position regularly defended by representatives of the pure electric vehicle sector
They also argue that the technology is ready, that charging infrastructures are progressing rapidly, and that only political courage is now lacking to complete the transition.
The Chinese Shadow Over European Decisions
It’s impossible to talk seriously about the future of European automotive policy without mentioning the Chinese elephant in the room. Chinese manufacturers have achieved in less than a decade what European brands took nearly a century to build: technological mastery, production capacity at unmatched costs, and control of much of the battery supply chain.
The recent imposition of additional customs duties on Chinese electric vehicles (up to 38% in some cases) was certainly supposed to rebalance the situation. In practice, many industry observers consider this measure largely insufficient given the structural cost gaps that exist.
The fear expressed in private by many European decision-makers is simple: by forcing European manufacturers to move too quickly towards a technology where they are structurally disadvantaged, the EU might quite simply be accelerating the deindustrialization of the continent rather than its ecological transition.
What This Means for the Average European Motorist
Beyond industrial and political considerations, what does this potential change mean for those who simply need a car to go to work, take their children to school, or go on vacation?
In the short to medium term, probably good news:
- More choice will likely remain available in 2030-2035
- Prices of new combustion and hybrid vehicles should remain more stable
- Resale values of thermal vehicles should hold up better
- Less brutal transition for people living in rural areas or poorly served by charging infrastructures
In the longer term, however, questions remain open: will this flexibility allow Europe to maintain a coherent industrial strategy? Will manufacturers now dare to invest massively in new technologies if the rules can change every three years?
The Risk of Permanent Regulatory Instability
This is perhaps the most serious long-term risk. The automotive industry is one of the most capital-intensive sectors in the world. When major industrial decisions require investments that span 10-15 years, regulatory stability becomes an absolutely crucial factor.
Each major regulatory change forces manufacturers to review their entire product plan, their investments, their R&D orientations. Too many changes in direction and the risk is to end up with a European industry that is permanently late, constantly running after moving targets.
One begins to wonder: wouldn’t it have been wiser to set realistic intermediate objectives from the start rather than adopting extremely ambitious targets and then having to backtrack regularly?
Conclusion: Between Pragmatism and Ambition
The European Union finds itself today facing a particularly difficult equation: reconciling legitimate climate objectives, the preservation of an essential industrial fabric, and the reality of technological and commercial developments that do not follow the initially planned trajectory.
The next few weeks will tell us whether Brussels opts for a courageous but politically costly pragmatism, or whether it prefers to maintain the initial ambition even at the cost of a potentially painful industrial restructuring.
One thing is certain: the future of the European automobile will not be written exactly as planned in 2021-2022. And that, in itself, is already a major political and industrial development.
What do you think? Is this potential backtrack a necessary adjustment to reality or a dangerous abandonment of climate ambitions? The debate promises to be intense in the coming months.
(Word count: ~3,450)
