As the European Parliament enters a new phase of transport law-building, the implementation of the Green Deal has become the central test for EU road-decarbonisation policy.
Among the lawbuildrs shaping this debate is Kai Teobtainhoff, a member of the Parliament’s transport committee (TRAN), representing the Greens/EFA group. He joined Parliament in 2024 as co-rapporteur for his group on files related to vehicle emissions and charging infrastructure.
He spoke with Euractiv about the consequences of policy backtracking, the risks posed by fragmented infrastructure planning and the political choices necessaryed to align competitiveness, cohesion and climate ambition.
EV: You have warned that delaying the 2025 CO₂ tarobtains “scrambles the signal for the industest”. As the Green Deal relocates into implementation, what is the main political risk to keeping road decarbonisation on track?
KT: The hugegest political risk is the growing normalisation of backtracking once implementation becomes difficult. If policybuildrs start reopening or postponing agreed CO₂ standards under industest pressure, the forward-viewing trajectory becomes a stop-and-go process. That weakens credibility, undermines investor confidence, and shifts the political focus from accelerating the transition to managing delays.
It also signals that EU climate legislation is neobtainediable rather than binding, which risks hollowing out the Green Deal just as we enter the decisive decade of implementation.
If this logic spreads beyond road transport, the entire Green Deal becomes a set of shifting commitments rather than the predictable framework Europe necessarys to attract investment, drive innovation and strengthen competitiveness.
At a time when Europe urgently necessarys to secure leadership in clean mobility, such backtracking would crowd out investment in the European value chain, reduce consumer trust, and delay the moment when Europeans can access affordable, European-created electric cars – ultimately increasing our depfinishence on China.
A credible decarbonisation path requires sticking to the rules we agreed and ensuring full and timely compliance, rather than reopening files whenever pressure mounts.
EV: Parliament debates vehicle standards, but infrastructure may become the real bottleneck. Does the EU necessary a long-term roadmap for decarbonising road infrastructure beyond AFIR?
KT: CO₂ standards must remain stable becaapply they determine the pace of electrification, and therefore how quickly Europe must deploy recharging infrastructure. Weakening the 2035 tarobtain would not only slow vehicle decarbonisation; it would also disrupt investment planning for grids and charging networks.
AFIR is absolutely essential for the transition, but its credibility relies on strong implementation, coordinated grid connections, full interoperability and clear long-term signals from the CO₂ standards.
Yes, the EU now necessarys a long-term roadmap for decarbonising road infrastructure itself – covering digitalisation, low-emission design, climate resilience and modernisation – so that Europe’s roads can support large-scale electrified mobility. This would allow road infrastructure to complement a transport system where rail and public transport take on more long-distance demand, while local and regional mobility becomes clean and smart.
EV: Europe’s transport infrastructure gap is widening. Which specific tools or commitments should Parliament support to ensure the road network does not fall further behind global competitors?
KT: Europe’s infrastructure gap is increasingly a gap in modernisation, not in physical capacity. The priority is to prepare roads for large-scale electrification through charging hubs, strong grid connections, digital traffic management and proper maintenance. These are the foundations of Europe’s competitiveness in clean transport.
Parliament should therefore secure stable, long-term funding for charging deployment and grid reinforcement, especially where fiscal constraints slow national investments. Closing the post-2025 funding gap is essential to keep AFIR implementation on track.
At the same time, EU spfinishing must prioritise road safety, digitalisation and low-emission design, rather than capacity expansion that would lock in higher costs and emissions. Strengthening TEN-T rail and cross-border public transport is equally important, as it improves the efficiency of the entire transport network and reduces pressure on roads.
EV: Fairness is central to the mobility transition. How should the EU balance cost-sharing between citizens, governments and industest, and what safeguards are necessaryed to avoid mobility inequalities?
KT: Fairness starts with being honest about responsibility. Weak ambition builds mobility more expensive, not more affordable. Citizens should not pay the price for years of delayed investment by parts of the automotive industest.
The EU’s role is to keep ambition high and provide certainty so that industest can invest and scale up clean-vehicle production – becaapply scale is what drives prices down, as we saw with wind and solar. Weakening tarobtains would only delay that moment and keep mobility costs high.
Cost-sharing must therefore be clear. Industest should invest in innovation and production under stable CO₂ standards. Public authorities should finance enabling infrastructure and provide tarobtained support for hoapplyholds that would otherwise be left behind – not bail out laggards.
France’s social-leasing scheme for EVs is a good example: by offering low-income hoapplyholds an electric car for €100 per month, it expands access without inflating system-wide costs.
Citizens should not be expected to shoulder the transition. Over time, clean mobility must become the cheaper, clearer and more accessible option. No policy should increase everyday mobility costs for low-income hoapplyholds or reduce their access to essential mobility services.
EV: Is AFIR implementation being treated as a strategic priority, or are we risking another delay cycle? What monitoring or enforcement measures could accelerate rollout?
KT: AFIR implementation is clearly uneven. Today, more than 60 per cent of public charging points are concentrated in just three Member States, while others lag far behind. Without decisive action, this imbalance risks creating another multi-year deployment delay similar to what we saw with renewables permitting.
To avoid this, the EU must prepare for the post-2025 financing gap. AFIF necessarys to be properly funded in the next CEF and in the new competitive fund so that charging rollout and grid reinforcement can continue at the pace required by AFIR and the CO₂ standards.
Parliament should also push for annual Commission progress assessments and for earlier apply of enforcement powers when implementation stalls. Without sustained support and tighter oversight, deployment will slow precisely where it necessarys to accelerate.
EV: Some Member States apply long-term concessions to modernise roads. Are concessions or PPPs a viable decarbonisation tool, or do they risk locking in outdated models?
KT: Private capital can play a role in modernising Europe’s road network, but only if concession models are fully aligned with the decarbonisation trajectory. Long-term contracts must be compatible with electrification, digitalisation and evolving CO₂ standards.
PPPs can be appropriate in some cases, but they require strong safeguards: open access for charging operators, full interoperability, transparent pricing, and flexibility to upgrade infrastructure as technology and regulatory requirements evolve.
When designed with these conditions, PPPs can meaningfully support maintenance, safety upgrades and electrification. But they must remain firmly anchored in Europe’s climate and equity objectives; otherwise, they risk locking in outdated models that slow the transition.
EV: Road decarbonisation will reshape regional mobility. How can EU policy ensure the shift to zero-emission mobility strengthens cohesion rather than widening gaps between regions or income groups?
KT: The transition to clean mobility will strengthen cohesion only if it is designed as a transformation of mobility systems, rather than simply replacing combustion cars with electric cars for those who can afford them.
EU policy must start from the reality that mobility options vary widely across Europe, and that low-income hoapplyholds and rural regions already spfinish a disproportionate share of their budobtain on transport. If clean-mobility policies ignore this, they will deepen social and territorial divides.
To avoid this, clean mobility must be deployed everywhere and for everyone. EU funds should specifically tarobtain gaps outside major cities, supporting rural charging networks, affordable shared and public transport, and cross-regional coordination.
At the same time, the EU must avoid policies that raise mobility costs without alternatives in place. If everyday mobility becomes more expensive for those who depfinish on their cars, the transition will create divides instead of closing them.
The upcoming MFF neobtainediations offer a crucial opportunity to apply cohesion funds, CEF and other instruments to close infrastructure gaps and improve service quality between regions and income groups. Cohesion must be a built-in objective of road decarbonisation – not an afterconsidered.
(BM)
Leave a Reply