[Structural Critique] - EU Automotive Policy in Turmoil - Coexistence of Zero-Emission and Internal Combustion Engines 💥 The Structure of "Deferral Governance" ⚡️

🟣 Membership Information
This article is available in full for free.
Structural Critique, which provides an interdisciplinary analysis of international and domestic politics, security, economy, and industry, is updated daily for members. You can join with a free first month, so please consider it.

🟧 Introduction: The Unease of EU Policy—Neither a Retraction nor a Shift

The EU has effectively revised its policy to ban the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035, proposing a plan that allows for their sale under certain conditions.

At the same time, the policy of positioning EVs as the core of next-generation eco-friendly vehicles remains in place.

These two are inherently difficult to reconcile as policies. However, the EU has chosen a path of coexistence rather than resolving them as a contradiction.

In this article, I will analyze whether this seemingly "inconsistent" policy is an accidental drift or an intentional governance structure.

🔵 Chapter 1: Accepting Engines is Not a Defeat, but a Realistic Response

The background to the EU's conditional acceptance of internal combustion engine vehicle sales is the clear reality of slowing EV adoption.

European EV sales ratios are lower than expected, and the growth model dependent on subsidies and regulations is reaching its limits. Furthermore, European manufacturers are under severe pressure regarding profitability due to the price competitiveness of Chinese-made EVs.

Under these circumstances, maintaining a total ban by 2035 carries the risk of damaging the industrial base itself. Accepting engine vehicles is less a retreat from ideals and more a realistic response to avoid industrial collapse.

🔵 Chapter 2: Why "Zero-Emission" Cannot Be Abandoned

Nevertheless, the EU has kept the term "zero-emission" at the center of its policy.

This is not due to technical judgment, but for political and institutional reasons.

・Cannot deny the legitimacy of past environmental policies
・Need to maintain consensus with pro-environment member states
・Must protect policy continuity as a bureaucratic organization

As a result, a structure has emerged that maintains the ideology while relaxing the reality.

🔵 Chapter 3: Governance Techniques for Simultaneously Promoting EVs and Accepting Internal Combustion Engines

This policy package prioritizes managing conflict between member states over logical consistency.

Germany seeks industrial protection, while France and Nordic countries emphasize environmental discipline. The current state is one where this conflict is frozen in a way that "denies neither side" rather than resolving it.

As a result,

・Accepting engine vehicles for individuals
・Mandating EVs for company cars and leases
・Creating new categories for small EVs

A multi-layered and fragmented institutional design has been adopted.

🔵 Chapter 4: The Structural Impossibility of Linear EV Adoption Theory

At the root of EU policy, there remains a linear assumption that "EVs will eventually become mainstream."

However, in reality, EVs are bound by multiple constraints: subsidies, battery supply, geopolitics, and industrial competitiveness.

In particular, dependence on China and the Taiwan risk exist as premises that are not discussed in official documents.

Unless these premises are made explicit, policies that depict EV adoption as a straight line will continue to deepen their divergence from reality.

🟪 Final Chapter: What the EU Chose Was Deferral, Not Resolution

This EU automotive policy is neither a failure nor a state of confusion. It is a form of deferral-based governance designed to "prevent the collapse from being exposed at this very moment."

・It does not reject zero emissions.
・It does not cut off internal combustion engines.
・It relaxes numerical targets but retains the philosophy.

This structure does not solve the problem, but it succeeds in temporarily maintaining political stability. However, the distortion in the timeline will inevitably manifest somewhere.

The question is not whether it should be EVs or engines. What is being questioned is the fundamental basis of governance: how to align the timelines of policy and industry.