Imagine you're running a 100-meter sprint against Usain Bolt. He's already at the 90th meter, his muscles are working perfectly, his technique is impeccable. You're somewhere around the 60th meter, panting, your shoelaces untied, and your chest is tight. And what do you do? Instead of gritting your teeth and speeding up, you stop, call the judges, and demand that the finish line be moved to 150 meters, saying that will help you catch your rhythm.
Sounds stupid? Of course. If you're slow, increasing the distance doesn't help you. It helps the fast one gain an even bigger advantage. And that's exactly what just happened in Brussels. Europe gave in to the lobbies and eased the goal of 100% electric vehicle sales by 2035, and replaced it with a “softer” target of a 90% emission reduction.
While Germany is popping champagne because they will be able to produce piston engines for a few more years, China is probably dying of laughter. We just gave them another decade to run us over.
The devil is in “technological neutrality”
Politicians and CEOs of major car companies sell this to us as “breathing” and “realism.” They say the market isn’t ready. That the grid isn’t ready. That customers don’t want electric vehicles.
Let's be brutally honest: Customers don't want expensive and mediocre electric vehicles.
When you sit in a modern Chinese car that costs a third less than its European competitor but offers technology from 2030, you understand that the problem is not the drivetrain. The problem is the arrogance of the old continent. By deciding to 90% reduction and deployment synthetic fuels (e-fuels) and "green steel" we have created a bureaucratic loophole through which it will be possible to drive Porsche 911This is great news for weekend drivers and collectors (even me, I admit), but a disastrous strategy for the mass industry.
Why? Because while the best engineers in Wolfsburg and Stuttgart will be working on how to squeeze every last bit of efficiency out of the internal combustion engine (which has a dismal 40% thermal efficiency) and how to fuel it with expensive e-fuel, in China they will be perfecting batteries that are already being charged today with 1000 kW.
Math doesn't lie: kW vs. nostalgia
Let's look at the numbers, because unlike PR services, they don't know emotions. China's electric vehicle exports has doubled in the last year. Despite tariffs that are more of a Band-Aid to an open wound, Europe is awash with cars that offer specifications that make European pride pale.
Let's take for comparison an average Chinese "flagship" model (such as the Xiaomi SU7 or Zeekr 007) entering the market today, and put it next to a European "premium".
-
Charging power: The Chinese are standardizing 800-volt systems with charging speeds over 400 kW. This means you are “fueling” electrons almost as fast as you are filling up with petrol. European average? We still brag about 150kW or 170kW, while at 200 kW we are already talking about “ultra-fast” charging.
-
Acceleration: Family Chinese SUV today until 100 km/h (62 mph) accelerate into under 3 secondsThis used to be Ferrari territory.
-
Torque: Electric motors offer instant 700 Nm (516 lb-ft) or more. No turbo lag, no gearbox, no "jerking".
-
Price: The Chinese model offers this for the price of a well-equipped Golf GTI.
Europe's new rules allow the goal to be achieved 55% reduction in emissions by 2030, it will move to the year 2032. Two years of “extension”. In the world of technology – and the car is today gadgets on wheels – two years is an eternity. That's like saying in 2008 that we'll stick with keyboards on phones for a while longer because "touchscreens haven't been proven yet."
It's not a green transition, it's a technological revolution – and European car suicide
This is where we make the biggest mistake in thinking. We talk all the time about the “green transition”, about saving the planet. This is noble, but in brutal capitalism it is irrelevant if the product is not good. The truth that hurts is this: The electric car is simply a better technology. It's not a green transition. It's a technological revolution in mobility.
It has fewer moving parts (about 20 versus 2,000 in an internal combustion engine). The torque is instant. It’s cheaper to maintain. It’s quieter. It’s faster. Even Audi CEO Gernot Döllner admitted in a moment of honesty: “The electric car is simply a better technology.”
And yet, the industry behaves like a spoiled child. By relaxing regulations, Europe is sending the wrong signal. A signal that innovation can be delayed. That the status quo can buy by lobbying. This is dangerous. China is not waiting. The US is investing billions. And Europe… writes complicated regulations on what counts as “green steel” and hopes for a miracle. In reality, this is European auto-suicide.
Conclusion: Will we become the Cuba of Europe?
At the end of the day, I'm a cynic for a reason. The European automotive industry has been the engine of our economy for the last 100 years. Now we're watching that engine lose compression.
This EU concession, this moving the finish line “further away”, is not a lifesaver. It is merely prolonging the agony. Instead of forcing ourselves into radical innovation, we have bought ourselves time to rest on our laurels. When we wake up in 2035, our roads will be full of cars – except that on the steering wheel there will not be the logo we know from childhood, but one that we cannot even pronounce or read today.
But there is something good in every car. Maybe this move will at least keep a V8 engine alive for us dinosaurs to take for a walk on Sundays. While on the left, silently and swiftly, we will be overtaken by those who have understood that the finish line does not move, but rather runs faster to it.
