Postponing (again) the rules regarding the ban on internal combustion engine vehicles is nonsense, according to Marc Muller, founder of the company IMPACT LIVING.
An electric car is much simpler to produce than an internal combustion one. There is no – apart from battery chemistry and the nonsense you read in the media – major innovation in an electric car. Same electric motor, same battery management system, same charger, and moreover the same globalized designers. A Chinese or a European one, it’s the same car with the same architecture.
Competition is therefore played on volumes and production efficiency. Whoever produces quickly and in large quantities wins. Some Chinese manufacturers already have assembly lines automated to 95%. That is to say, roughly without humans, but above all with low variable costs. Once the factory is built, producing more costs very little.
Meanwhile, China registers nearly 1'000'000 electric vehicles per month versus 150'000 in Europe. With these volumes, this allows the Chinese to make margins on electric vehicles, to reinvest in production innovation and to further lower prices.
The time window during which the European consumer agrees to pay more for a worse product on the pretext that it is made in Europe is shrinking at a supersonic speed.
If measures are not urgently put in place to limit consumers' ability to buy internal combustion vehicles, the European industry will fragment and will end up being a mere importer of Chinese products, rebranded Polestar, Peugeot or Dacia… with no jobs to show for it. It’s written in advance; the rest is short-term lobbying.
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
"Brazil wants to steer the negotiations toward 'implementation', in other words to move from commitments to action," stresses Pierrette Rey, spokesperson for WWF Switzerland.
As COP30 unfolds and leaders, experts, and civil-society actors once again debate how to speed up the transition and tackle global warming, one idea is resurfacing: consuming less energy. Here’s why.
"If the Federal Council is now considering abolishing the program — or at least withdrawing the federal contribution — it is mainly because of the windfall effects it generates," explains Philippe Thalmann, professor of environmental economics at EPFL.
"Today, 70% of our results come from abroad, while 70% of our investments are made in our historic service territory in Switzerland," says Cédric Christmann, Chief Executive Officer of Primeo Energie.