The moods in the automotive manufacture turned radically in just a fewer years. present it is easier to find a president of the European (and not only) automotive company, who would be very or at least moderately skeptical of the planned ban on the registration of fresh combustion cars from 2035 than 1 who would proceed to preach the praise of electromobility and announced that the full scope of cars produced by his company would shortly be only battery (the hydrogen drive was almost never replaced, possibly outside Toyota).
Oliver Zipse, president of BMW, has just made it rather clear that the European Union should abolish the ban, as it will have dramatic consequences for the profitability of European car companies that will succumb to Chinese pressure. Volvo has announced its resignation from the control to purely electrical vehicles since 2030, although the brand president continues to express his religion in electricity, although stressing that it cannot proceed as planned by the EU. Volkswagen is struggling with the effects of enthusiastically adopting a strategy for switching to electrical vehicles. During the first 4th of this year, sales of cars per battery decreased by 25% in Europe. As a result, the exemptions and plans to close the company's next factories. Hence the demands of the Wolfsburg company to hold the entry into force of the ban. In a akin tone, Chief Renault speaks.
Toyota, which is not a European producer, but a global mogul, openly criticises the forced transition to electromobility, especially in battery form.
Carlos Tavares, president of Stellantis, who owns the Peugeot, Fiat and Citroën brands, stands out against the changes in the EU regulation – and this is an exception. Taveres stated that rules should not be changed during the game, while producers knew perfectly well what the rules would be and they had time to prepare. The explanation of this position may be that Stellantis announced a joint venture in May with Chinese automotive company Leapmotor and intends to release 2 cars in battery versions primarily: tiny T03 and SUV C10. So you can see who is most curious in maintaining the absurd ban in force. As usual, it's worth asking yourself: qui prodest - Who's using.
What makes you wonder, erstwhile again, if the full green order strategy is not at all at the core of any lobbying of the mediate State, well hidden, but on a scale that we did not dream of, but which may or may not come out someday. It can be considered that this is simply a conspiracy theory, but there have been many cases revealed after any time of lobbying in the EU. Why should this not besides apply to her flagship program, especially erstwhile it is clearly visible who is benefitting? It's just speculation, of course.
We, therefore, as consumers and customers of the automotive industry, have the chance to at least hold the entry into force of the ban - and delay, under favourable conditions, could mean a complete deletion of the ban. A review of the prohibition regulation is planned for 2026 and the final decisions can be made if the position of the European car manufacture is found to be highly negative. Ironically, all of this is happening completely above Polish heads, and if we are saved from this absurdity, it is primarily due to the position of German corporations. Well, Poland doesn't have any car manufacture of its own, so it doesn't truly substance in this game.
However, it strikes another thing – it is simply a common feature of all conversations about regulations that are within the green order. The discussion is mainly about erstwhile to introduce a ban, and it is uncommon that there is simply a shy request that it may not be introduced. Of course, the large interests of European industry, but besides Chinese, are important. If president Stellantis says that companies have already put quite a few money into working on electromobility in line with EU plans, he is actually right. And indeed – moving distant from the 2035 deadline would be changing the rules during the game. but it's the only thing that makes sense.
The problem is that in rule no 1 presents arguments that are completely obvious, concerning an absolutely fundamental issue: the ban on the registration of fresh combustion cars is an utmost intervention in the market, completely distorts it, radically restricts the right to choose customers and causes technological evolution, alternatively of following the needs of buyers, users and the performance of this or any another solution, is due to authoritative – and surely besides lobbyist – preferences artificially pushed towards the most likely blind street. That's something to talk about and remind. The frequently emerging approach, according to which this phase of debate and decision has already been behind us and there is no point in returning to it.
The point is absolutely. People want to drive efficient, comfortable cars with combustion engines – whether with conventional engines or hybrids – due to the fact that the drive has not been invented to date, which would be equally effective from the point of view of many factors: range, velocity of "charge", energy delivery. Under marketplace conditions, cars for the battery would of course have their place, but it would be niches, not mainstream. It is desirable to remove all the regulations that halt investments in combustion engines – not only the ban on 2035, but besides the subsequent ridiculously bulldozed emanation standards, the impact of which on anything in the climate is zero.
Luke Warches
