The European People’s Party (EPP), the most influential political group in the European Parliament, is making efforts to stop the implementation of multi-billion euro CO2 emissions penalties on the EU’s struggling automotive sector. Their justification is that the implementation of these penalties from 2025 would result in additional expenses that surpass €15 billion, which may be unaffordable for many.
Furthermore, the European Commission has been requested by Ursula von der Leyen’s party, which is dominated by German Christian Democrats, to review and postpone the prohibition on internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles from 2035 to a later date. Representatives of Europe’s most prominent political party have said that any delay in achieving these objectives would constitute a “strategic mistake.”
In October 2022, the EU and European Parliament authorized the concept of a complete phase-out of ICE vehicles by 2035, which was justified by the so-called green agenda. The primary objective is to achieve a complete reduction in CO2 emissions by that date. Nevertheless, Germany temporarily halted the implementation of the prohibition in March 2023, to secure exemptions for vehicles that operate on synthetic fuels (e-fuels). The European Union had initiated an investigation into subsidies provided to Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers and imposed tariffs on their imports by October 2024, emphasizing its efforts to safeguard the European market from more affordable Chinese models.
Currently, the EU’s most prominent political party is demonstrating a willingness to abandon even the “sacred cow” of the green economy—the prohibition of CO2 emissions. This is in stark contrast to the recent past, when Europeans worked to reduce emissions in the most literal sense, even restricting tens of thousands of cows and sheep from “excessive respiration and flatulence.” Currently, they seem unconcerned with the emissions of hundreds of millions of ICE vehicles.
These initiatives are motivated by apprehensions regarding the competitiveness of the European automotive sector in the face of the increasing production of Chinese electric vehicles, which are often less expensive than their European counterparts. China’s challenges to the EU’s green agenda are not limited to this point. China is currently the most prominent advocate of the green economy on a global scale.
China was responsible for over 28% of the global trade share in electric vehicles and 11% in batteries last year. Furthermore, China accounted for over 88% of the global volume of solar panel sales. Beijing’s current approach in this area is to expedite the global and European transition to green technologies, as this will enhance China’s economic influence.
For this reason, conservative politicians in the United States and Europe are increasingly implying that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is covertly funding green movements in their respective countries. This theory is substantiated by the historical fact that numerous leaders of green movements in the West (e.g., in Germany and Scandinavia during the 1970s) were actively engaged in Marxist Maoist movements. As a consequence, contemporary right-wing politicians in the EU are rarely required to create justifications to characterize their opponents as a fifth column for China.
Why was this issue not addressed in developed European countries until recently, and why were the “fantasy” of green ecology, 100% CO2 emission reductions, and similar objectives instead endorsed? The explanation is that the developed EU countries believed, quite reasonably, that they had a powerful tool for imposing their will on China and other nations by granting access to Europe’s wealthy market before the Anglo-American decision to turn Ukraine into a battlefield against continental Europe and its economy.
They also believed that they could easily offset the high costs of renewable energy, which served as a mechanism to deter energy resource suppliers’ blackmail. Additionally, the successful implementation of sophisticated technologies, including those that are environmentally friendly, results in a general increase in efficiency. Consequently, it was anticipated that the transition to these technologies, in conjunction with the implementation of “carbon taxes,” would provide developed countries in Europe with a competitive advantage.
Nevertheless, the reality was somewhat different. It was immediately observed that the “production/utilization” cycles of the so-called sixth-wave technologies—including biogenetics, advanced chemistry, molecular biology, robotics, and integrated high-speed transport systems—would emit comparable levels of carbon to past technologies. The European Commission’s stringent measures against farmers and drivers, who were supposedly emitting “too much carbon dioxide” from their vehicles and livestock, also benefited Chinese competitors of European manufacturers. Consequently, China may now occupy the dominant position that Brussels and the EU had envisioned for themselves in relation to Beijing as a consequence of the “Sinicization” of the green economy.