Campaign group T&E has intensified pressure on the European Commission to dismiss automakers’ request for a post-2035 exemption that would allow new cars to continue running on biofuels. The plea from the automotive industry comes at a sensitive moment, with the Commission preparing a package of measures for the vehicle sector. The central issue is no longer whether biofuels can technically power combustion engines, but whether the European Union can justify their use given the limited and increasingly unreliable supply of sustainable feedstocks.

Biofuel production within Europe has undergone major structural changes over the last decade, especially after regulatory reforms discouraged the use of crop-based fuels such as palm, soy and maize. As a result, the EU shifted toward waste-based alternatives, relying heavily on used cooking oil, animal fats and industrial residues. While these fuels are considered more sustainable, the bloc’s dependence on imports has surged. A significant portion of waste-based biofuels consumed in Europe is sourced from outside the region, raising persistent concerns about traceability, fraud and the authenticity of “waste” classifications.

Moreover, truly advanced biofuels—those derived from municipal waste, sewage sludge, or lignocellulosic residues—remain limited in quantity. These advanced fuels are already earmarked for sectors with limited decarbonisation options, particularly aviation and maritime transport. If the road-transport sector were granted access to the same pool, demand could exceed realistic sustainable supply several times over. T&E argues that resource scarcity alone makes the automotive industry’s proposal incompatible with the EU’s long-term climate strategy.

Biofuels’ Carbon Neutrality Claims Falter Under Lifecycle Analysis

Automakers have framed biofuels as a “carbon-neutral” extension for internal combustion engines, insisting that the CO₂ emitted during combustion is offset by the carbon absorbed by the plants used as feedstock. However, lifecycle assessments present a far more complex picture. Crop-based biofuels in particular generate emissions across multiple stages: land clearing, fertilizer use, harvesting, processing, refining and long-distance transport. When these indirect and direct emissions are included, the carbon savings shrink dramatically, in some cases nearing parity with fossil fuels.

Deforestation linked to biofuel crop expansion also undermines the climate rationale. Land converted for soy or palm plantations releases large amounts of stored carbon that cannot be compensated simply through later biofuel use. Even when biofuels deliver moderate reductions in emissions compared with petrol or diesel, the carbon savings often fall well short of what is needed to meet the EU’s 2035 goals.

A separate challenge concerns land efficiency. The land required to grow biofuel feedstocks could deliver far greater climate benefits if used for ecosystem restoration or solar-energy deployment. Rewilding these areas or dedicating them to solar farms can result in a more substantial net reduction in greenhouse gases. This land-use argument is gaining traction among climate researchers and is increasingly shaping the EU’s broader energy strategy.

The group also noted that even in the best-case scenarios—where waste-based biofuels are genuinely sourced from residues—the scalability issue remains. Residue streams are finite and cannot expand in proportion to the emissions reductions required for a continent-wide transport transition.

Automaker Lobbying Risks Weakening Europe’s Zero-Emission Policy Direction

The 2035 ban on tailpipe emissions for new vehicles was designed as a cornerstone of EU climate policy, signalling a long-term transition away from combustion engines. By pushing for a loophole tied to “carbon-neutral fuels,” automakers seek to preserve combustion technologies for new plug-in hybrids, range extenders and even conventional engines, provided they run on certified biofuels or e-fuels.

If granted, this exemption could significantly dilute the impact of the 2035 rule. Consumers might continue purchasing cars with combustion engines under the impression that they are environmentally benign, even though the fuels required to run them are scarce or contested. This would slow the adoption of electric vehicles, weaken investor confidence in zero-emission technologies and create ambiguity around the real pace of decarbonisation.

Moreover, allowing automakers to rely on biofuels shifts the burden of clean-energy transformation from the automotive sector to the fuel-production ecosystem. Instead of redesigning mobility systems around electrification, automakers would depend on fuel suppliers to meet climate goals—an approach that contradicts the spirit of the EU’s emissions regulation.

Policymakers are also concerned that prioritizing biofuels for cars would distort allocation across sectors. Aviation and shipping have few near-term alternatives to energy-dense liquid fuels, while road transport can electrify at scale. If biofuels are diverted to cars, the hardest-to-decarbonise sectors could face shortages or rising costs, jeopardizing broader climate targets.

Strategic Alternatives Offer Greater Long-Term Stability

T&E and several energy analysts argue that rather than prolonging reliance on biofuels, Europe should focus on accelerating infrastructure and investment for electric vehicles, hydrogen-based solutions and synthetic e-fuels manufactured using renewable electricity. These alternatives align more closely with the EU’s long-term decarbonisation pathways and avoid the land-use trade-offs that have plagued biofuels for years.

Electric vehicles, powered by an expanding renewable grid, offer significantly lower lifecycle emissions than any biofuel-based solution. Even when accounting for battery production and raw-material extraction, electric mobility delivers substantially deeper and more predictable emissions reductions over time. The rapid decline in EV battery costs, coupled with growing charging networks, strengthens the feasibility of large-scale electrification.

Where liquid fuels remain necessary—especially for aviation and heavy shipping—synthetic e-fuels produced from green hydrogen and captured carbon represent a more scalable long-term solution. Although still expensive and technically challenging, e-fuel production can expand without competing for agricultural land or generating deforestation risks. Prioritizing these e-fuels for sectors with limited alternatives is seen as essential for a balanced decarbonisation strategy.

Equally important is the EU’s effort to restore ecosystems and expand renewable capacity. Land previously allocated to biofuel crops can support forests, wetlands or solar installations—each delivering higher climate returns. This perspective is pushing policymakers to reassess the perceived benefits of biofuel expansion.

As the Commission prepares its next set of proposals, the tension between automaker demands and climate-science realities is becoming increasingly evident. For campaigners, the choice is clear: Europe must avoid policies that revive the combustion engine’s lifespan under the guise of carbon neutrality. The limited availability of sustainable biofuels, combined with weak lifecycle emissions performance and intense competition from other sectors, is turning the automakers’ proposal into a direct threat to Europe’s long-term climate integrity.

(Adapted from FastBull.com)

Categories: Economy & Finance, Regulations & Legal, Strategy