Two regions, two atmospheres. Despite the sluggishness of its economy, China boasts of its technological advance in electric cars during the Beijing motor show, which made its grand return on April 25 after several years of shutdown due to the Covid pandemic. Conversely, in Europe, and in particular in Germany, protest is mounting against the ban on the sale of new thermal cars by 2035. Published at the end of April, a document from the European Court of Auditors could relaunch the debate. While he highlights the fact that “battery electric vehicles seem to be the only viable solution” to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions from thermal vehicles, he considers that “the ‘electric revolution’ in Europe risks becoming reliant on imports and ultimately harming the European automotive industry and its more than three million manufacturing jobs.”
Director of the Permanent Study and Research Group on the Automotive Industry and Employees (Gerpisa), Tommaso Pardi is concerned about the impact of a possible step backwards. The CNRS researcher, however, considers it necessary to develop a real European strategy and to work on the conditions of access for Chinese manufacturers to the European market.
The European Court of Auditors noted this week that CO2 emissions from passenger cars have hardly decreased in a decade, while expressing doubts about Europe’s ability to guarantee “mass adoption of electric vehicles” due to of their cost. This observation comes in a context of growing criticism around the ban on thermal engines planned for 2035. Should we fear a step backwards on this flagship measure of the European Green Deal?
There is a storm warning on the 2035 objective. In certain countries, industrial coalitions are campaigning for a return to technological neutrality, against accelerated electrification. In Germany, manufacturers easily achieve a third of their sales thanks to plug-in hybrid vehicles: on the occasion of the review clause provided for by the text in 2026, they could seek to push this technology until 2040, for example.
However, I do not believe that the Court of Auditors will move in the direction of calling into question the ban at 2035, that would be a very bad thing. His report clearly shows that only electrification will make it possible to decarbonize, because other technologies have not changed the situation. An electric vehicle is structurally more carbon-free than a thermal equivalent. As for plug-in hybrid models, they have been designed to serve performance: this results in cars that are not very energy efficient. Their weight and power mean that the batteries drain quickly. In total, the equation is very bad: we have approved vehicles which emit only 45 grams of CO2 when in reality, and in the best case, they emit around 150 grams! There is a scandal surrounding rechargeable vehicles which is well highlighted by the Court of Auditors.
What I find extremely disappointing, however, is that it does not point out the problem of very heavy and very expensive electric vehicles and does not attack the European rules which continue to favor them.
That’s to say ?
The CO2 objectives are set by weight. This allows heavy vehicle manufacturers to have a real competitive advantage. Even if it is capable of doing so, a manufacturer will not sell vehicles lighter than the European average because this would tighten its thermal objectives. This regulation is extremely problematic.
However, the European Court of Auditors never mentions it. It remains in the same logic since Dieselgate, which consists of tightening regulations without thinking about the regulatory causes which explain the drifts in weight and power of vehicles. However, we absolutely must move towards lighter vehicles to reduce emissions and make the 2035 objective possible. But current regulations prevent such products from emerging, and raise the risk that it will be the Chinese and not the Europeans who serve these markets. It is urgent to put in place measures to prevent current regulations from blowing up the Green Deal.
What do you mean ?
It was about making the most efficient transition possible by going electric. However, the heavy and expensive vehicles currently sold are certainly virtuous compared to a thermal equivalent, but their CO2 emissions over the entire life cycle have nothing to do with a light electric vehicle. Their cost also slows down the renewal of the park since they are inaccessible to a large part of the population. This finds itself stuck, because at the same time, measures such as EPZs are being implemented. [NDLR : zones à faibles émissions] or rising fuel prices. This calls into question the idea of a just transition. Finally, the switch to electric was envisaged as a way of preserving the competitiveness of European industry, except that the Chinese are today in a position where they could recover most of the European market. We must rectify the situation.
You mentioned the idea of revising the current CO2 regulations, which favor the heaviest cars. What other levers do you identify to enable Europe to reduce emissions from its passenger car fleet without sacrificing its industry?
I think we need strong intervention from Europe, otherwise we will not be able to produce the expected results. Regulations have been implemented, with support for the start-up phase. The industry was then told to manage to move downmarket and find a solution to Chinese competition. However, the Chinese case still has the merit of demonstrating that the State plays a central role in this transition.
I think that a common strategic consultation is necessary to articulate, for example, the structuring of the battery sector in line with the 2035 objective: I do not understand why we do not yet have clear and binding legislation around the carbon footprint of batteries. We could also consider a European ecological bonus, perhaps like that of France. Finally, we must negotiate conditions of access for Chinese manufacturers to the single market compatible with maintaining European competitiveness. If we want to meet the 2035 objective, we will have to cooperate with Chinese manufacturers, because they are already dominant in the value chain.
Is the American Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) a model to follow in your opinion?
Indeed, the IRA simultaneously articulates all the issues, that of materials with a very clear orientation of research and development on low cobalt technologies, consumption bonuses and credits for the production of electric vehicles produced in the United States. . The plan also addresses the social issue which is major, since a third of total employment in the automobile industry could be threatened by electricity, to the extent that almost the entire mechanical sector will disappear. . The IRA puts in place social clauses. It’s a real industrial strategy.
The picture seems black. Do you have hope that Europe can achieve its objective of decarbonizing transport while retaining its industry and the thousands of jobs that depend on it?
I think we have a shooting window. The letter sent in March by Luca de Meo, the boss of Renault, seemed to me to go in the right direction. I did my thesis on the arrival of Japanese manufacturers in Europe in the 1980s and 1990s. Europe managed to maintain their share around 10% by negotiating the conditions of their access to the market. China represents a much greater threat than Japan at the time, but it is still possible to create the conditions so that its arrival is not too disruptive.
.