EU Car Emissions Policy Divides States as 2035 and ETS 2 Battles Intensify

EU, ETS

EU car emissions policy is becoming a major fault line between member states as governments debate how much flexibility automakers should receive after 2035 and how quickly carbon pricing should expand into road transport and buildings.

France, Spain and Sweden defended continued electrification, while Poland called for greater flexibility in vehicle CO2 rules and further changes to ETS 2. The European Commission’s current proposal would replace the existing 100% tailpipe-emissions reduction requirement for new cars and vans from 2035 with a 90% reduction, with the remaining emissions compensated through low-carbon steel, e-fuels or biofuels. 

EU car emissions policy increasingly matters for metals markets because the regulatory outcome will influence the pace of EV adoption, internal-combustion vehicle production and material demand across batteries, copper, aluminium and automotive steels.

At the same time, disagreements over ETS 2 show that Europe is still negotiating how quickly consumers and transport markets should absorb the cost of decarbonisation.

2035 Flexibility Could Reshape Automotive Metals Demand

The Commission’s proposed flexibility would allow plug-in hybrids, range extenders, mild hybrids and some internal-combustion vehicles to remain in the market beyond 2035, provided manufacturers meet the wider emissions framework. 

That matters because the automotive material mix changes significantly depending on powertrain.

Battery electric vehicles typically require larger battery packs and more copper-intensive electrical systems. They directly support demand for lithium, graphite and selected nickel and manganese products depending on battery chemistry.

Hybrids require much smaller batteries, reducing battery mineral intensity per vehicle. However, they still consume more copper and electrical components than conventional combustion vehicles.

Continued ICE production would also sustain demand for metals and components linked to traditional powertrains, including speciality steels, aluminium castings and exhaust-system materials.

Low-carbon steel is becoming another strategic element. Under the Commission proposal, EU-made low-carbon steel could contribute to compensating the remaining emissions permitted after 2035. 

This could create a new commercial advantage for European steelmakers investing in lower-carbon production. Automotive decarbonisation would then depend not only on the vehicle powertrain but also on the embedded emissions of its materials.

The industrial argument is therefore becoming more complex than EV versus ICE. Europe is increasingly debating whether decarbonisation should be measured through tailpipe emissions alone or through a broader combination of powertrain, fuels and lower-carbon materials.

ETS 2 Debate Highlights Cost of Europe’s Transition

The political divide extends beyond cars to carbon pricing.

ETS 2 is designed to expand emissions trading to fuels used in buildings, road transport and additional sectors. Its full launch is currently scheduled for 2028, while EU institutions have also been strengthening its market stability reserve to reduce excessive price volatility. 

Poland is pushing for stronger mechanisms to control carbon prices and has argued for further flexibility around implementation.

The issue is important because ETS 2 could eventually increase the carbon cost associated with road fuels and heating. Governments are therefore balancing emissions objectives against household costs, inflation and industrial competitiveness.

For metals and manufacturing, carbon market design has indirect but significant consequences. Faster electrification supports grids, charging infrastructure and electrical metals demand. Slower implementation could extend fossil fuel consumption and delay part of that investment cycle.

Germany has meanwhile focused on the longer-term availability of allowances under the existing ETS, highlighting concern over how rapidly the emissions cap declines as Europe approaches its 2040 climate targets.

These debates show that Europe has broadly agreed on the direction of travel but not on the speed or industrial structure of the transition.

The eventual policy mix will influence where manufacturers invest, which automotive technologies survive and how quickly European material supply chains need to adapt.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Europe’s automotive debate is shifting from a simple ICE-versus-EV argument toward a contest over technology, carbon pricing and material origin. For metals markets, the final policy balance will determine how quickly demand moves toward batteries, copper and low-carbon steel.