Luca de Meo is the CEO of Renault and also the president of the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA). The executive recently said that automakers in Europe want the carbon emission limits for 2025 to be postponed to 2027 because battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are not selling as much as necessary for their new car sales fleets to meet these limits. Not everybody agrees with these measures. Carlos Tavares, the Stellantis CEO, said it is absurd to postpone the carbon limits and that it is time for these companies to compete. As usual, the exception confirms the rule: these companies will only make partnerships if they have no better option.

Forget about the “alliances” that were named as such just to skip the word “takeover.” That’s what happened to Daimler and Chrysler’s “merger of equals” in 1998, the Renault and Nissan alliance in 1999, and even the deal between Fiat and GM in 2000. The American carmaker had to pay Fiat $2 billion in 2005 to end the “partnership.” In the current economic environment, most car companies are unable to take over any competitors. Their sole objective when joining with others is to cut costs and have a better chance of survival in a world that urges them to go electric. In a way, that goal makes it easier for them to play together while that is convenient.

Nobody will complain because an electric Alfa Romeo flagship’s hum sounds just like the whir of a Volkswagen econobox powered by batteries. Most electric motor performance differences can be set by software. That means several vehicles can adopt the same electric powertrain, and buyers will not even notice. Some already can’t tell if they saw a Rolls-Royce or a Hongqi on the roads, so even the looks do not make that much of a difference anymore.

The problem is that developing these powertrains costs a fortune. On top of that, emission regulations are forcing automakers to rely on suppliers for the most crucial component in their BEVs: the lithium-ion cells. The ones with enough money in the bank are attempting to make their own batteries or creating joint ventures that give them some control over these components. However, the cells are far from being the only concern, as the partnership between GM and Hyundai shows.

The automakers plan to join forces in several fields, including fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) and even internal combustion engines (ICEs) – which makes a lot of sense. If BEVs do not sell as much as they were supposed to, these guys will have to market traditional cars. Without engines that comply with emission regulations, they’re doomed. That said, why not share these costs of development? If ICEs prove to be a burden in the long run, car companies may also lose less in the process.

Carlos Tavares diagnosed this situation as “a kind of survival mode.” According to the Stellantis CEO, the automotive industry is now “beyond fear.” You can interpret that in several ways, but let’s focus on the two most important ones. “Beyond fear lies freedom” is a famous saying, but this is not what the Portuguese executive intended to say. “Beyond fear” may also mean you have reached a desperate point where the slightest mistake can kill you. Tavares’ reaction to the ACEA request to the European Union (EU) is the best example of why the latter may be the right interpretation.

While many car companies fear they will have to shut down factories and fire people due to emission regulations, Stellantis thinks it is the best moment for these opponents to feel the weight of bad managerial decisions, as if they did not plan enough for the rules. Yet, it does not seem to have been the case. Volkswagen has bet heavily on BEVs, and its wager did not work out because sales for electric cars are not as high as expected by the company and some of its competitors. Ironically, this confidence in BEV sales performance is probably what Tavares classifies as Volkswagen’s self-inflicted shot in the foot.

The German automaker planned for BEV incentives in its homeland, Europe’s largest market. Yet, the local government decided to cancel them. When taxpayers’ help was off the table, people stopped buying electric cars as much as they did. Considering car buyers still do not want to pay a fortune in fuel, they went for hybrids or PHEVs. The only logical conclusion is that it was not a lack of preparation but rather anticipating a scenario that ceased to exist. Talk about legal certainty… That’s what Tavares is demanding: if the game rules change while the game is on, that will penalize those who followed them and were sure these regulations would lead them to victory. For all the others, the options are joining forces, complaining, or sobbing and curling up into a fetal position.

The sad thing is that competition is so rooted in the minds of the automotive industry’s honchos that they will only join forces to survive, not to try to find better solutions for electric vehicles, such as creating a battery swap standard. If all cars, from all brands, used the same replaceable battery modules, swap stations could work with all brands. Cars could install just the ones they needed for daily needs – which would make them lighter, improving their ranges – and add more units for eventual road trips. Any doubt about battery pack durability would disappear. Yet, we do not hear about such an alliance because those betting on this solution want to develop their own and make others follow it when (and if) it becomes prevalent.

The bottom line is that these companies prefer to sell battery packs that will not last more than 15 years, leaving customers with disposable cars. Every now and then, you will hear about a new study based on ridiculous calculations that claims batteries will last as long as the automobile. Ignore them, especially because ICE cars last way more than 20 years if properly maintained. My car is 22 years old and still takes me anywhere I want to go. If you think about it, 15 years may be just what carmakers need to figure out a better solution – if they are still alive. They are not selling BEVs; they are buying time.