Members of the European Parliament are currently debating amendments to the EU’s car CO₂ emissions framework, with discussions focusing in particular on a proposed flexibility allowing manufacturers to meet their targets over the 2025–2027 period, rather than on a strict annual basis.
The proposal does not alter the overall emissions reduction targets, but instead changes how compliance is calculated, giving carmakers more room to balance their performance across multiple years. Supporters argue this approach reflects the practical challenges of industrial transition, while critics warn it could delay immediate emissions cuts.
Environmental organisation Greenpeace said it recognises the need for a degree of flexibility, but stressed that this must not come at the expense of climate ambition.
“We recognise that some degree of flexibility can be important during a major industrial transition. At the same time, flexibility must come with clear guarantees that emissions reductions will continue and that manufacturers still have strong incentives to accelerate the shift toward cleaner vehicles,” said Lazar Šljukić from Greenpeace.
He added that certain amendments currently under discussion could strike a more appropriate balance between flexibility and environmental integrity.
“For that reason, we believe several amendments proposed by members of the Left group are constructive, because they aim to preserve the environmental integrity of the regulation while still acknowledging the challenges facing the sector,” he said.
The debate over flexibility has also been linked to broader concerns about jobs and industrial competitiveness, with some policymakers arguing that easing short-term compliance could help protect European manufacturers during the transition.
Greenpeace, however, pointed to longer-term structural shifts in the industry.
“Our expertise is primarily in climate and environmental policy, so we prefer not to speak in detail on labour-market questions. What we can say is that from what we have seen in current studies and market projections, the electric vehicle and battery sectors are expected to create significant new employment opportunities,” Šljukić said.
“It will be essential for the EU and Member States to support workers and manufacturers during this transition so they can remain competitive in the global clean mobility market,” he added.
Industry stakeholders have also raised concerns about the potential unintended consequences of the proposed flexibility. According to materials from ChargeUp Europe, allowing manufacturers to average emissions over a three-year period could create a “loophole” whereby carmakers delay the rollout of electric vehicles until the final year of the compliance window. This, they argue, could slow down EV supply in the short term and risk underutilising Europe’s rapidly expanding charging infrastructure.
To address this, the group has proposed additional safeguards, including a “no backsliding” clause that would prevent emissions from increasing compared to current levels, even within a more flexible compliance framework.
As negotiations continue, attention is turning to which amendments could ultimately shape the final outcome of the legislation.
“We support amendments that maintain strong environmental standards while providing clarity for industry. In particular, we see the amendments proposed by members of the Left group as a constructive step in that direction, as they aim to preserve the climate ambition of the regulation while addressing some of the concerns raised during the debate,” Šljukić said.
The discussion comes as EU lawmakers work to finalise their position on the proposed changes, with amendments expected to play a key role in determining how the balance between flexibility and climate ambition is ultimately defined.
Leave a Reply