The approach of the maturities fixed by the European Commission begins to start to become aware about the challenges and the risks to which a strategic industrial sector is confronted with. It would be the time. In 2035, the sale of cars with a thermal engine will be forbidden. From 2025, the carmakers which will not reach a determined level of sales of private electric vehicles will be hurt by penalties which could reach several billion each year. These arrangements have as an objective to reduce the CO2 emissions of the States-members. They have been adopted by the European Parliament in February 2023 after long years of discussions, without being the subject of dissents, to such a degree the objective of the fight against the climate warming was at the center of the priorities.

But are they appropriated and mainly, their cost is it in proportion with that objective? We can doubt of it because the accumulation of greenhouse gas occurs at the world level and its local consequences are without link with the emissions localization. The carmakers mainly belong to four economic zones: the European countries, the United States, China and Japan. These last three countries are major emissions sources, China due to its size, the U.S. because of consumers habits and of the lack of any real political will and Japan due to its industrial power. But none of them has taken such radical measures.

So, we are in a paradoxical situation where the carmakers belonging to the economic zone which, related to its number of inhabitants, is the lowest emitter of CO2, are going to be hurt by forbidding measures and extremely heavy penalties, when their competitors coming from countries which are the main contributors to the climate warming, will continue to freely develop themselves. In a competitive world, so we cannot ignore the risk of their disappearance. Yet, when these rules were adopted, no real debate has been organized about their economic consequences. The right balance between the costs which were going to be supported and the real benefices regarding environment has not been the purpose of any discussion.

These measures occur at a time when Europe is afraid by its disconnection with the U.S. regarding growth and productivity and by the competition of Chinese carmakers whose competitiveness is not stopping to improve thanks to their large internal market and to the upgrading of their products. So, the survival of the European car industry is threatened by the restrictions decided by Brussels. In this context, it is going to be difficult to reach the re-industrialization objectives.

The decision by a State to impose the electric vehicle comprises a major mistake: this one misunderstands the relation between the producer and the consumer. It is not the first one who dictates its choices to the second one. It is the consumer, in order to meet his needs, and it is the only one who determines them, who chooses and it is to the supplier to propose to him the goods he needs. It is this misunderstanding which explains the low interest of the European drivers for the electric vehicle. It is more expensive, despite the subventions, frequently costly for the States budget, and mainly, it has not an enough autonomy. Which family would buy a car which will not allow it to go into vacations? Figures are unequivocal: the share of the new electric vehicle registrations in 2023 were already low: 14.6%. It has again fallen during the last eight months to 12.5%. The crucial question regarding autonomy is less important in the U.S. because the long travels by car are rarer and the gasoline is much less expensive. In China they are near non-existent.

The Middle Empire carmakers already have many advantages. They have at their disposal an internal market with near 30 million new car registrations per year, which is a factor of costs reduction. Since 2016, the State offers subventions for the acquisition of an electric vehicle after having thought to impose quotas limiting the thermal engine vehicles but it renounced to that. In the cities where the traffic was tense and where a special authorization to register a car was needed, it is now given automatically when it is an electric vehicle. The results are eloquent: since the beginning of the year, electric vehicles registrations grew by 30% when thermal engine ones fell by 7%. That favors the production of local brands to the detriment of the foreign ones whose market share represents now only 37% this year against near 60% in 2017.

That ascent is a foretaste of what the European market will be confronted with. 20% of the China production is already exported, mainly in South-East Asia. So the country became the first exporter in the world with 5.2 million vehicles. But if the regulation rules become heavier on the European market, the tariffs raising will incite Chinese carmakers to invest in Europe and they will increase their market shares to the detriment of the European groups. Along with the size of their internal market, they will have for a long time another competitive advantage thanks to their links with the battery producers. China is the first supplier of special metals and of rare earths which are necessary to their fabrication and these industrials have already built many giga factories which operate with competitive costs.

The choice of Europe to adopt such radical measures will reveal itself with heavy consequences on the financial field and on the employment level for the carmakers as for their components suppliers because their production needs much less workforce. In Germany, for the first time, Volkswagen envisions to close a factory and it is just the beginning of a process. It is foreseeable that the government, confronted with a new social and political agenda, and when its predecessor did not say anything during the preparation of the 2023 measures, will start to make pressure on Brussels to revise the calendar of the interdictions and of the penalties. The French government would be well inspired to support this step.

The choice of adopting such radical measures is all the more unjustified than it existed much more efficient solutions regarding environment and which would not have such heavy consequences as for instance, the interdiction of diesel engines. The emission of fine particles, even if the new engines are less polluting, constitutes a major danger and is at the origin of respiratory grave illnesses.

There is also the full review of the road transport. The railways companies have abandoned this activity without any reaction of the States which were their main shareholders. The European institutions, so aware about competition, would be well inspired to interest themselves to that issue. For instance, the adaptation of the railway network to containers transportation would allow significant reductions of the fuel consumption and of the CO2 and particles emissions in the atmosphere.

There are, at last, the coal power plants. How is it possible to impose the suppression of a transportation mode used by hundreds of million persons and to let operate in Germany and in Poland for instance an electricity production mode such polluting and CO2 emitting?

The most spectacular measures and the most authoritarian ones are not always the most efficient. The European decisions in favor of electric vehicles are giving a good example.