From Ambition to Implementation: Europe’s Sustainable Mobility Challenge

While the European Union (EU) has been leading the global effort to decarbonise the mobility sector in recent years, its actual implementation faces serious challenges despite ambitious policy frameworks. Through policy packages such as the European Green Deal and the Fit for 55 programs, Europe aims to achieve a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction of 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, and carbon neutrality by 2050.

Today, the transport sector makes up nearly a quarter of the EU’s GHG emissions. As such, the sectoral transformation relies on two main pillars: actual implementation of innovative technologies (such as electric vehicles, alternative fuels, and digital solutions) and the widespread integration of new mobility services (such as shared mobility systems, smart logistics, and active travel infrastructure).

Europe has a comprehensive vision, but is under pressure to reach the above-mentioned targets. This is because its industrial and technological competitiveness trails behind the United States and China. The transition, which requires a shift from fossil-fuel dependency to sustainable, technology-driven, and service-oriented systems, risks involving only a part of the population. At the core of these issues lies a structural weakness, the absence of a centralised political entity capable of turning these ambitious frameworks into coordinated and decisive action.

Compared to other global powers, the EU has no shortage of ambition when it comes to decarbonisation targets and has been a pioneer in defining regulations and standards. However, rules alone do not guarantee a successful transformation.

The European Green Deal and the Fit for 55 package frameworks present multiple concrete measures to reach the net emissions reduction target. Many sectoral policies have specifically been put in place for each transport sector. These include the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR), which requires every Member State to deploy a minimum number of charging stations and hydrogen refueling points along the TEN-T network. Then there is the ReFuelEU Aviation, which requires increasing shares of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) in European airports from 2025 onwards, and the FuelEU Maritime, which imposes GHG intensity reduction targets for fuels used by ships.

The overall European legislative body may be ambitious and comprehensive, but its execution into concrete actions faces hurdles. This is due to multiple threats that emerge from structural and political issues.

Structural Obstacles

While the sale of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) jumped from nearly 2 percent in 2019  to 14.6 percent of all new car registrations in the EU in 2023, this increase wasn’t evenly spread across Europe. While the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden lead the way in sales, states in Southern Europe trailed due to cost barriers and limited incentives. With only 13.5 percent of public chargers fast charging in 2023 (>22kW), far below the AFIR indications, the requisite infrastructure is lacking. Even the transition of heavy-duty vehicles (HVDs) remains limited, with alternative fuels such as hydrogen and e-fuels being expensive and commercially immature.

Political Concerns

It is important to recognise that since transport and energy are topics of national competence, unavoidable conflicts across member states are inevitable. While the wealthier Member states have the opportunity to advance faster, the others grapple with stringent fiscal limits, older fleets, and a larger reliance on fossil fuels. It also comes down to the ability of local governance to leverage the available EU funds, where often the regional authorities lack the administrative capacity to deliver projects efficiently. Overall, the tensions between EU-led ambition and national-level execution complicate achieving sustainability goals in a timely manner. This national-level application poses a serious hurdle, for instance, when it comes to the interoperability of different digital ecosystems and smart systems for transporting people and goods.

Europe vs the US and China

All these factors create a fragmented environment that undermines Europe’s strategic position, rendering it less effective than global players like the United States or China. Even though these nations have fundamentally different approaches, some overlaps can be found. Innovation in the United States is primarily driven by the private sector and complemented by selective federal support (e.g., the Inflation Reduction Act); China, on the other hand, prefers centralised state planning, public funding, and rapid infrastructure deployment. Despite their differences, both models are characterised by massive funding allocation to selected priority projects and their prompt implementation. This explains why the overall outcome of both strategies has proven to be more effective than the European one, which remains constrained by dispersed initiatives, long decision-making processes, and scattered implementation across member states. Europe is also heavily dependent on foreign players for critical technologies such as batteries and semiconductors, which are strategic to achieve the transition.

To make implementation more agile and move towards truly sustainable mobility, a deeper political integration within the EU is essential. As in other domains, unity of action is needed, a point made in 2025  by Mario Draghi, former President of the European Central Bank (ECB), while reflecting on the future of the European Union. He also underscored the importance of removing barriers to productivity in the internal market and the need to develop a common industrial strategy. This would mean coordinating investments in strategic mobility sectors such as EVs and batteries, fundamental for Europe’s long-term competitiveness and climate goals.

Europe has shown that without making adjustments, ambitions around sustainable mobility run the risk of turning into frustration. The EU’s governance structure currently prevents efficient and coordinated action. This structural weakness slows down decision-making, leaving room for different national approaches that undermine the European ability to compete globally in the fast-evolving mobility sector. Unless Europe strengthens both its political architecture and its practical capacity to implement impactful projects, it will remain a rule-maker without execution powers, vulnerable to competitors such as the US and China.

In conclusion, sustainable mobility in Europe faces technological, industrial, and political challenges. Addressing these bottlenecks involves empowering EU institutions with stronger mandates, streamlining approval processes, and developing common funding and industrial strategies for mobility. A true single market with standardised regulations and unified infrastructure would allow European sustainable mobility innovators achieve the scale needed to compete globally.

Fabrizio Meroni is a researcher and project manager specialized in sustainability and innovation in the mobility and infrastructure sectors, with a focus on the geopolitical implications of technology and policy.