On the 19th of November 2025, PubAffairs Bruxelles organised an afternoon of discussion on how the EU’s renewable fuel production can drive the de-fossilisation of road transport and strengthen food security. The event was also a timely opportunity to discuss how Europe can retain economic value within its borders, build resilience and foster its strategic autonomy, with our distinguished speakers, Alarik Sandrup, Director of Public and Regulatory Affairs, Lantmännen, Claude Soudé, Vice-Chair of the Working Party on Bioenergy, COPA-COGECA, Hans Hoefnagels, Global Public Policy Director, Horse Powertrain, Massimiliano Vascotto, Head of Public Affairs, ACEA, David Carpintero, Director General, ePURE who gave the introductory remarks and Benoît Cassart MEP (Renew Europe/BE) who gave some introductory statements.
The debate was moderated by Emily Waterfield, Freelance Journalist & Editor.
Emily Waterfield opened the event by welcoming the audience and setting out the main issues that would shape the conversation. She suggested that the discussion ultimately turns on a single, pressing question: whether renewable fuels can genuinely help the European Union balance its climate ambitions with the demands of economic competitiveness, all while preserving a sense of strategic autonomy for its industries.
She then invited David Carpintero, Director General of ePURE, to offer some introductory reflections on renewable ethanol as an EU-wide solution.
David Carpintero began by recalling Europe’s commitment to achieving climate neutrality by 2050, noting that the decarbonisation of road transport remains one of the most intricate elements of the green transition. In doing so, he challenged the prevailing narrative that full electrification is the sole viable path to reaching this objective.
To counter this assumption, he argued that Europe requires a strategy that works with the realities already in place: the existing vehicle fleet, the established infrastructure, the longstanding value chains and the agricultural sector, which is itself under pressure from persistently low market prices. Reducing emissions, he suggested, will demand the use of all available technologies. In this respect, renewable ethanol and other low-carbon fuels should not be cast as rivals to electrification, but instead understood as indispensable partners. Europe, he noted, already possesses a substantial fleet of hybrid vehicles and electric cars equipped with range extenders, all of which could make a meaningful contribution to decarbonisation if supplied with low-carbon fuels.
To support his point, he observed that ePURE members are currently producing renewable fuels that deliver an average emissions reduction of 79% compared with fossil fuels. He further highlighted that the renewable energy sector simultaneously helps to produce high-protein animal feed, bolstering food autonomy, while supplying biogenic CO₂, sustaining rural economies and reinforcing the EU’s wider bioeconomy, which he described as a tangible reality.
Looking ahead, he noted that the European industry is actively developing flexfuel technologies and hybrid powertrains. In his view, when combined with electrification and renewable fuels, these innovations will represent a practical and affordable pathway to net-zero emissions.
David Carpintero then drew attention to the regulatory environment, warning that, under the current regulatory regime, these technologies are effectively being penalised. Vehicle emissions are still assessed solely on the basis of tailpipe emissions rather than through a full lifecycle analysis, a method he argued is neither climate-effective nor technology-neutral. He eventually called for a shift towards genuine lifecycle assessment and suggested that the forthcoming revision of the CO₂ standards offers an opportune moment to rethink these criteria.
He also urged EU policymakers to recognise renewable ethanol as a central pillar of the decarbonisation effort, one that supports hybrid, plug-in hybrid and flex-fuel vehicles, and that fosters productive synergies between agriculture and industry within a coherent bioeconomy strategy. Emphasising that bioethanol is a home-grown solution backed by existing technology and infrastructure, he concluded by reiterating that, while electrification is essential, it cannot deliver the transition alone as every available technology must be brought into play.
The moderator then thanked David Carpintero for his introductory remarks as well as for setting out clear policy orientations at this early stage of the discussion. She then introduced the second keynote speaker, MEP Benoît Cassart.
Benoît Cassart MEP opened his intervention by observing that Europe finds itself at a crossroads. Road transport, he noted, accounts for nearly a quarter of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions and remains heavily reliant on imported fossil fuels. Against this backdrop, he presented European renewable fuels as a powerful means to accelerate the decarbonisation of road transport while simultaneously reinforcing food security and underpinning Europe’s industrial autonomy. He acknowledged that the automotive industry is a vital pillar of the European economy, yet one currently facing a profound crisis, marked by declining sales and a slowdown in the uptake of electric vehicles.
While recognising that electric vehicles will play a central role in the future transport landscape, he emphasised that they will not, at least for now, meet the needs of all sectors. Heavy-duty trucks, long-distance buses and the vast existing vehicle fleet require solutions beyond electrification alone, the MEP added. In his opinion, decarbonisation and competitiveness are not opposing aims: rather, he argued, decarbonisation is the foundation of Europe’s competitive strength. By cultivating a robust European renewable fuels industry, the EU can reduce external dependence, lower its carbon footprint, and promote genuinely sustainable mobility, Benoît Cassart stated.
Environmental action, however, is not sufficient on its own, in his view. Ensuring food security must also remain a central objective, he added. To preserve competitiveness, MEP Cassart argued that it is essential to make use of both first- and second-generation biofuels, despite the criticism they attract concerning land use. This approach, he maintained, allows for an energy transition that does not undermine food production. He also underlined that conventional biofuel production generates substantial quantities of animal feed, thereby bolstering Europe’s food sovereignty.
The speaker went on to argue that building a European biofuels sector is also a strategic choice for industrial autonomy, energy security and Europe’s global economic standing, particularly in an international context characterised by volatility and continued dependence on fossil fuel imports and foreign technologies. Investment in clean energy production, reduced energy taxation, improvements in energy infrastructure and targeted support for strategic sectors are, he argued, essential steps in this direction.
Turning to trade policy, Benoît Cassart criticised the EU-Mercosur agreement, warning that it could expose the European ethanol industry to large volumes of cheaper and less sustainable imports. He further noted that US import tariffs add another layer of difficulty, destabilising an already fragile European automotive sector. To counter these pressures, he emphasised the need for affordable products for domestic consumers and competitive export offerings.
He concluded by stating that Europe’s resilience depends on a path defined by innovation, ambition, and coherence between industrial and agricultural policy. Renewable fuel production, he said, is a driver not only of competitiveness, but also of food security and industrial autonomy. To succeed in the energy transition, Europe will need sustained investment in research, robust support for its industries and a comprehensive strategy that integrates technological, industrial, regulatory and fiscal dimensions.
Emily Waterfield echoed Benoît Cassart’s point about Europe possessing a powerful set of solutions before inviting the speakers to join her on stage. She then turned to Alarik Sandrup asking him to introduce his organisation before proceeding to more substantive questions.
Alarik Sandrup explained that Lantmännen is a farmers’ cooperative owned by 17,000 Swedish farmers, active across agribusiness, food production, bioenergy and biorefining. He noted that the cooperative is also involved in ethanol production for fuel, producing a product with a 98% greenhouse gas saving compared with fossil petrol. The same biorefineries, he added, generate functional foods, animal feed, biochemicals and captured CO₂ used in carbonic acid production. He emphasised that Lantmännen has invested over €1 billion in biorefineries over the years – funded internally rather than through external support – because the cooperative has confidence in the technology and sees it as vital for the farming community.
Emily Waterfield then asked Mr Sandrup to reflect on the role of biofuels in the energy transition, particularly in relation to affordability for low-income households.
Alarik Sandrup reiterated David Carpintero’s earlier point that renewable ethanol delivers a 79% CO₂ reduction on average compared with fossil petrol, with Lantmännen’s own product achieving a 98% reduction rate. Using such fuels, he argued, results in substantial emissions cuts. He went on to stress that there should be no conflict between different sustainable alternatives to imported fossil energy, insisting that Europe needs biodiesel, biogas, bioethanol and electricity. At present, he noted, only 7% of transport energy in Europe comes from renewable sources, with the remaining part derived from imported fossil fuels, imports that have contributed to a 20% rise in emissions since 1990, he remarked.
Whilst his organisation has no opposition to electrification, he stated that biofuels currently represent a sector roughly fifty times larger than electricity in European transport. On affordability, he argued that biofuels, especially low-blend biofuels, offer the most cost-effective way to reduce CO₂ emissions using the existing vehicle fleet and infrastructure.
The moderator then directed a question to Claude Soudé asking how the EU might best harness its bioeconomy and agricultural sector to strengthen industrial leadership and retain economic value.
Claude Soudé began his reply by clarifying that his expertise lies primarily in farming rather than biofuels. Nonetheless, from a farmer’s perspective, he stressed that biofuels play an essential role. He explained that persistent overproduction has pushed prices down, and biofuels can act as an outlet for managing surplus crops while providing farmers with an additional income stream. The alternative, namely reduced domestic production combined with increased imports of both animal feed and energy, would only increase Europe’s vulnerability.
He linked this process to the broader challenge of reducing the EU’s dependence on imported crops. For these reasons, he argued that a long-term strategy is required, particularly because agricultural planning must account for year-long production cycles. He also highlighted the broader advantages of the biofuel industry, as it produces both food and feed, reduces imports, strengthens sovereignty and deploys technologies that can already achieve emissions reductions today.
The moderator followed up on this final point, asking why, if these benefits are already available, they are not being fully realised.
Claude Soudé responded by acknowledging that there are limits to how much biofuel production can be expanded. Even so, he noted that the existing biofuels value chain has succeeded in maintaining jobs and processing capacity. He stressed that biofuels are not expected to meet all the EU’s renewable energy needs, nor are they intended to displace other energy sources entirely. Rather, they should be seen as an important component within a broader, diversified energy strategy.
To provide the audience with additional context before moving on, the moderator invited Hans Hoefnagels, Global Public Policy Director at Horse Powertrain, to introduce his company.
Hans Hoefnagels explained that although Horse Powertrain is a relatively new entity, it is built on more than a century of experience in combustion and related technologies. He noted that the company is a joint venture between Renault and Geely, with Aramco holding a smaller share. At its core, Horse Powertrain develops a wide range of combustion technologies, hybrid systems, range extenders, and flex-fuel solutions, innovations designed to accelerate the technological transition. Like the other speakers, he recognised that electrification is central to the future of mobility, but stressed that complementary technologies will also be required.
Emily Waterfield remarked that this background made Mr Hoefnagels particularly well placed to discuss a central theme of the debate: the need for technological neutrality through lifecycle assessments, as well as the implications of the European Commission’s upcoming revision of the CO₂ standards.
Hans Hoefnagels noted that this legislative file is of critical interest to Horse Powertrain. He recalled that, from 2035 onwards, newly sold cars must meet a target of zero carbon emissions, a requirement he described as deeply challenging, especially given that 2035 is now less than a decade away. This is precisely why the company advocates for a technology-neutral approach that could accelerate progress, even though the 2035 objective remains difficult to achieve. While affirming that electric vehicles (EVs) will form a major part of the long-term solution, he argued that they alone will not be sufficient to meet the deadline.
To illustrate this point, he highlighted the role of range extenders, namely small combustion engines capable of significantly increasing the driving range of electric vehicles. Such technology, he explained, can address a key barrier to EV adoption: range anxiety. Although range extenders rely on combustion, he emphasised that they can operate on renewable fuels, thereby contributing to decarbonisation rather than hindering it. He concluded by stressing that technologies should not be seen as competitors, but rather as a support towards a coherent transition pathway.
The moderator introduced the panel’s final speaker, Massimiliano Vascotto, Head of Public Affairs at ACEA, and invited him to discuss the forthcoming review of the CO₂ standards, which the European Commission was due to complete by mid-December.
Massimiliano Vascotto noted that it is already clear the European Commission will revisit CO₂ standards as part of its broader reform package, and that, based on previous iterations of the legislation, fuels will inevitably form part of the conversation. He explained that, as the rules currently stand, the 2035 target of 0% tailpipe emissions for new cars amounts in practice to a phase-out of combustion engines.
This approach, he argued, fails to consider the carbon intensity of the fuel itself, regardless of how sustainable it may be. Representing the European car manufacturing industry, he remarked that ACEA hopes the European Commission will introduce some form of carbon fuel coefficient, or carbon correction factor, to acknowledge that not all fuels carry the same emissions burden. At the same time, he cautioned that they do not expect the EU executive body to fundamentally revisit the 100% reduction target.
He then broadened the discussion to include the existing vehicle fleet, stressing that current legislation solely focuses on new vehicles, even though renewable fuels could play a significant role in decarbonising those already on the road. Cars in Europe remain in service for an average of 18 years, he noted, meaning that many vehicles will continue to produce emissions well beyond 2035. It is therefore essential, he argued, to decarbonise fuels themselves and to avoid reducing the debate to a purely ideological question of banning or not banning the internal combustion engine.
Emily Waterfield then turned to questions submitted online, asking Mr Vascotto how he envisions renewable fuels and electric vehicles working together.
Massimiliano Vascotto responded that the industry’s main difficulty lies in the fact that, if emissions continue to be assessed only at the tailpipe, the role of fuels becomes relevant only until 2035. This presents a major challenge for investment and risks undermining the long-term work discussed throughout the debate.
He argued that the system must be adapted to remain credible after 2035 through tools such as a carbon correction factor and clearer recognition of renewable fuels, and emphasised the need for the European Commission to follow through on its commitment to address this. Technology neutrality, he added, is vital not only for consumer choice but also for enabling a gradual and orderly shift towards decarbonised options. Echoing other speakers, he concluded that no single technology will deliver the transition; electricity will likely constitute the core, but fuels will continue to play an important complementary role.
The moderator then put to Hans Hoefnagels another question from the online platform: whether biofuels can truly be considered carbon neutral when assessed across their full lifecycle.
Hans Hoefnagels replied that the matter remains open to debate. Definitions, he noted, have been contested even within the European Commission itself. At one point, DG CLIMA suggested that lifecycle emissions should achieve 100% neutrality, an expectation he described as unrealistic, given that not even electric vehicles could meet such a standard, he stated. By contrast, DG GROW proposed a threshold of 70%, which he considered more consistent with the Renewable Energy Directive. In practical terms, he emphasised, biofuels would make a substantial contribution to the EU’s net-zero objectives, while relying exclusively on electrification would significantly hinder progress toward carbon neutrality.
Emily Waterfield subsequently asked whether any of the speakers wished to contribute further to the discussion.
Alarik Sandrup noted that the calculations of carbon savings for biofuels, such as the 79% and 98% figures he mentioned earlier in the debate, are carried out in accordance with European law and certified by independent bodies. He elaborated that these calculations take into account all relevant factors, including emissions from fertiliser production, fuel for tractors and machinery, transportation, soil emissions, and biorefineries. He clarified that this methodology has been extensively scrutinised by, among others, experts, researchers, industry representatives and NGOs, and is therefore widely accepted. According to him, this has resulted in the default values set out in the directive being too high compared with what is being observed in the actual production of biofuels.
Claude Soudé added that these values could be further improved through enhanced farming practices within the agricultural sector, although such improvements would entail additional costs. There is always a trade-off, he stated, but as technology progresses, biofuels may or may not become cheaper than fossil fuels. At present, for example, they remain the cheaper option in comparison with advanced fuels and electricity.
Alarik Sandrup further explained that these improvements are already taking place. He pointed out that CO₂ reductions achieved through biofuels have increased from 50% to an average of 79%, and he expects this trend to continue, with the eventual goal of reaching a 100% reduction. Moreover, he highlighted that some batches of biofuels achieve 98% of CO₂ saving, while others reach 130% by capturing CO₂ from fermentation and using it for industrial applications, thereby creating a climate-negative fuel. He emphasised that this technology can readily be replicated at nearly all ethanol plants in Europe.
Emily Waterfield then invited questions from the audience. One attendee observed that the prices for batteries, and therefore electric vehicles, have been rapidly declining, whereas prices for biofuels have not followed a similar trend. He therefore asked how renewable fuels could persuade fleet operators to choose them over electricity.
In response, Alarik Sandrup argued that there is no need for competition between electricity and biofuels. Instead, he identified the main challenge as the fact that 93% of transport in Europe relies on fossil energy. He suggested that none of the attendees would witness the complete phase-out of fossil fuels within their lifetimes. Cooperation is necessary, he maintained, as electricity is the cheapest option for certain applications, while for others, such as long-distance transport, it is not. He also noted that, as of today, biofuels remain cheaper and are consequently fifty times more significant than electricity in European road transport.
Looking ahead, he remarked that further improvements in combustion engines are likely, as their current maximum energy utilisation stands at approximately 45–50%, leaving scope for enhancement. He also questioned whether electricity would become significantly cheaper in the future, given that fossil fuels are being replaced by wind and solar power, which, while inexpensive, are weather-dependent, and by nuclear energy, which he described as both costly and politically divisive. Hydropower, he added, has already been developed to its full practical potential.
The moderator asked what would happen if a “magic omnibus regulation” could cut out all European legislation on biofuels and let the market and innovation freely play their role.
Massimiliano Vascotto noted that the principal challenge in integrating renewable fuels into road transport is that, without immediate changes, current regulations provide very limited recognition of decarbonisation efforts. He argued that fuel producers and industry associations require investment certainty and higher volumes of renewable fuels which, in turn, necessitate the possibility of supplying the road transport sector beyond 2035. At present, he stated, this is not feasible under the existing regulatory framework. If renewable fuels are not permitted access to the road transport market after 2035, the industry will be forced to shift towards sustainable aviation fuels and maritime fuels, which he considers insufficient to sustain long-term investment in renewable fuels.
Emily Waterfield clarified that the thought experiment under discussion involved the complete removal of existing regulations.
Alarik Sandrup recalled that she had earlier asked what is preventing increased production and use of biofuels in Europe. He argued that all the necessary elements are already in place: capital, expertise, world-leading CO₂ savings, and a surplus of feedstock. He elaborated that the greatest challenge facing farmers is currently the low price of feedstock caused by overproduction, he noted, and added that the EU has been paying farmers not to produce more.
According to the speaker, this has created a situation whereby the agricultural land set aside is five times greater than the area used for ethanol crops. He maintained that the primary barrier to biofuel production is European regulation itself. He cited, as an example, aviation-fuel rules, the 2035 net-zero target for road vehicles, maritime rules permitting only advanced biofuels, state-aid frameworks, the Energy Taxation Directive, and other measures that, in his view, discriminate against first-generation biofuels. He questioned why such discrimination exists when Europe is capable of producing sustainable fuels at low cost while continuing to import substantial volumes of environmentally harmful fossil fuels.
Claude Soudé added that farmers similarly do not understand the basis for this discrimination. He reiterated that significantly more agricultural land is being set aside than is being used for biofuel production. In addition to decarbonisation, he emphasised the important role of biofuels in job creation and in providing income for farmers.
The moderator asked all the speakers what Europe’s priority decision should be at this moment, noting that current choices will have long-term implications for achieving the net-zero target. She then took another online question directed to Claude Soudé, asking whether the production of high-protein animal feed can compensate for any loss of agricultural land used for biofuel production.
Claude Soudé explained that, when crops are cultivated for biofuels, they yield both liquid fuels and protein for animal feed. He provided the example of oilseed crops, which typically produce around 60% protein for feed, whereas most protein crops yield such as legumes produce less than 20% in Europe, with the exception of soybeans. However, soybean seeding is limited due to the European climate. He added that these oil crops are irreplaceable nowadays, as their price is determined by the biofuel rather than the protein market. Hence, without the biofuel market, farmers will not be able to produce, and exports will have to replace the EU internal protein production.
Alarik Sandrup added that, when grains are used for biofuel production, only about one-third of the crop’s weight becomes biofuel during the refining process. He emphasised that the majority of the crop is used for protein products, carbonic acid, biochemicals, and residual slurry, which can be used to produce biogas. He underlined that the main share of crops cultivated for biofuels is ultimately directed to other applications. Furthermore, he pointed out that the protein generated in this process can replace imported soy, which mainly comes from Brazil.
Claude Soudé noted that, this year, for oilseeds specifically, approximately 45% of the seed becames oil, which highlighted again the question of protein.
Hans Hoefnagels then referred to recent comments by European Commission President von der Leyen indicating that she would consider assessing the value of advanced, or second-generation, biofuels. He asked Alarik Sandrup to explain the difference between first- and second-generation biofuels and why the latter may not be ideal.
Alarik Sandrup explained that the principal issue with second-generation biofuels is their higher cost and the limited availability of suitable feedstock. He noted that Lantmännen has been producing second-generation biofuels for more than ten years using residues from the food industry and other feedstock, but the process remains expensive and inefficient. If these fuels are produced from straw or forestry residues, he added, costs rise even further. For this reason, he argued, both the maritime and aviation sectors are seeking to remove the obligation to exclusively rely on second-generation biofuels.
Claude Soudé added that second-generation biofuels depend on organic materials that farmers need to maintain soil quality. As a result, farmers cannot allocate all their residues to biofuel production. He noted that when Europe strongly advocated for the use of waste and residues for biofuels this led to the import of waste and residues instead. He also referred to the use of used cooking oil, noting that Europe now imports such oil, advantaged by double counting, to meet biofuel demand. He emphasised the need for a European energy directive that functions effectively for European stakeholders.
Hans Hoefnagels concluded by observing that this issue is indicative of a broader pattern within the European Commission: it often pushes technological and regulatory boundaries without fully considering the range of variables affecting European industry.
Emily Waterfield observed that it often seems as it is common to search for simple solutions, and that full electrification is the case for the transport sector. She remarked that the speakers presented a range of already existing solutions that go beyond replacing one simplistic approach with another. She then asked whether the panellists felt that this more nuanced message was beginning to gain traction.
Massimiliano Vascotto replied that he believed it was, at least to some degree. Until now, he explained, the decarbonisation approach has been based on measuring tailpipe emissions, which electric vehicles do not produce and therefore comply with under net-zero requirements. However, when supply chains, critical materials, and the energy mix are taken into account, the emissions profile of electric vehicles becomes much more complex.
He also emphasised that simple indicators, such as tailpipe emissions alone, are not necessarily the most effective means of assessing environmental performance and added that this concept is increasingly understood. He reiterated that the future will consist of a mix of technologies, with electricity at the core but complemented by other sources. Over time, he added, additional parameters will need to be considered to advance decarbonisation. Life-cycle assessments are already underway, and battery-electric vehicles will eventually no longer be classified as zero-emission, as future assessments will account for the entire supply chain of a vehicle.
Hans Hoefnagels followed with an anecdote: during a recent visit to India, a high-level political figure commented that it would be beneficial for India and Europe to join forces in advancing combustion excellence and electrification. He questioned this statement, observing that, while such cooperation would be ideal, combustion engines will be effectively banned from 2035 onwards.
The moderator then selected one final online question on how renewable fuels can be made accessible, particularly for people on lower incomes.
Massimiliano Vascotto responded that affordability is one of the main challenges in bringing zero-emission technologies to the market. He pointed out that vehicles with combustion engines are significantly cheaper. In contrast, he explained that the issue for fuels is different, as fuel taxation can effectively penalise people who cannot afford alternatives to combustion-engine cars. It is therefore crucial, he argued, that fuels themselves are decarbonised, but is equally important that renewable fuels remain as affordable as fossil fuels.
Emily Waterfield asked how such affordability could be achieved, noting that these are not problems that can be easily solved.
Massimiliano Vascotto answered that, although he did not know the exact margins of various fuel producers, taxation is a major factor. The Energy Taxation Directive, he said, creates large differences between fuels, and additional taxes imposed by EU member states further distort the market. Regarding the higher production costs of decarbonised fuels compared with fossil fuels, he explained that vehicle manufacturers have little influence and that their contribution lies primarily in improving combustion engines, where they have extensive experience and have already made substantial progress.
The moderator then took a two-fold question from the audience: first, whether cars can operate on 100% biofuels or whether only blended fuels are viable; and second, whether European biofuels can remain competitive against imports from highly productive countries such as Brazil.
Hans Hoefnagels addressed the first question, noting that the automotive industry also operates in Brazil, where the experimentation of E85 (an 85% biofuel blend) is ongoing. As for running vehicles on 100% biofuels, he acknowledged that he could not fully answer the question, but noted that technical issues do exist, and he referred the matter to other panellists.
Alarik Sandrup elaborated that E85 has been used for several years in Sweden and is an obvious solution, even if it is not 100% biofuel. At 85% ethanol, he noted, it remains preferable by far to using no renewable fuel at all. Moreover, converting a conventional petrol car into a flexfuel vehicle is relatively inexpensive.
For diesel engines, the situation is different, he clarified, as they can run on biodiesel combined with HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil), which is 100% renewable, although it is more expensive. He then returned to the question of incentives, explaining that Sweden offers a full tax exemption for biofuels, making them competitive with fossil fuels depending on fossil fuel prices, biofuel prices and taxation levels. With a modest tax increase on fossil fuels, he noted, HVO100 would already be cheaper and can be used in most diesel vehicles. It is already widely used in heavy transport in Sweden.
Claude Soudé added that biofuels are indeed currently more expensive than fossil fuels, which is why he is concerned about the Energy Taxation Directive. He questioned the long-term rationale for maintaining equal taxation on oil and biofuels. Concerning competitiveness, he acknowledged that the issue is complex, given Europe’s different climate. In fact, oilseeds produced in Europe typically contain 40–45% of oil, with the remainder being protein. By contrast, Brazilian soybeans contain roughly 80% of protein and 20% of oil, meaning their price is determined by protein value rather than oil content. Furthermore, Europe has only one harvest per year, compared to two to three in Brazil, creating fundamentally different production conditions and distorting competition. He noted that renewable fuels also strengthen energy independence, reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. He asked whether Europe is prepared to pay slightly more to maintain its own production rather than depend on Russia and the Middle East for oil today, and potentially Brazil for biofuels in the future.
The moderator then returned to ask the panellists what decision Europe should take now, given that current choices will determine the feasibility of achieving net-zero.
Alarik Sandrup stated that all discriminatory measures in European legislation against first-generation biofuels should be removed. Doing so, he argued, would unlock significant potential to reduce emissions, support farmers’ incomes, and expand protein production.
For Hans Hoefnagels, the key priority is to embed technological neutrality in CO₂ emission standards and underpin it with an honest measurement tool. If Europe is serious about reducing CO₂, he said, it must measure emissions transparently and across the full life cycle. This approach would not only facilitate the path to net-zero, but also help protect Europe’s once-thriving automotive industry. He also observed that, while Chinese car manufacturers once came to Europe to learn how to build vehicles, today the situation is reversed. He concluded that Europe needs an open vision to safeguard both jobs and competitiveness.
Claude Soudé concurred, stating that Europe must recognise the full benefits of first-generation biofuels and end discriminatory treatment.
Finally, Massimiliano Vascotto reiterated the importance of promoting technological neutrality. He emphasised that decisions shaping the automotive industry are made ten to fifteen years in advance, due to long development cycles. Much of what is currently enshrined in legislation, and much of what is considered future-proof reflects technological developments undertaken over the past twenty years, he said. This is why, he argued, technological neutrality is essential: it ensures that a broad range of technologies can contribute going forward. As several strategic decisions have already been made, the focus now must be on execution and implementation, he concluded.
Emily Waterfield closed the debate by thanking the panel and the audience.
Do you wish to know more about the issues discussed in this debate? Then check out the selected sources provided below!
Biofuels for transport, European Commission
Renewable Energy Directive, European Commission
We need to talk about biomass, ePURE
The EU Bioeconomy Strategy: A promising start, but…, ePURE
Surge in hybrid car sales confirms EU need for flexible approach to biofuels, ePURE
Realising the potential of renewable ethanol biorefineries for a more autonomous Europe, ePURE
From Europe’s farms to Europe’s future: How ethanol can help fuel EU strategic autonomy, ePURE
The truth about biofuel feedstocks, ePURE
EU regulatory framework for the decarbonisation of road transport, ACEA
Europe’s bioeconomy is at a crossroads – don’t undermine what works, Alarik Sandrup, Lantmännen
