Exclusive Interview
“Our flagship initiative” – An exclusive interview with Renew Europe coordinator Bianca Pinto
Together with its coalition partners from EPP and S&D, Renew Europe has been a central player in shaping the Parliament’s role in the CO2 standards for cars and vans revision. Bianca Pinto, MEP, and the group’s coordinator in the ENVI committee, sat down with the Financial Times on Tuesday to explain Renew’s priorities on the act and coalition dynamics in Parliament.
The exchange took place on the 19th of May — before yesterday’s provisional agreement on the file.
Joshua Starbatty in Paris | Published MAY 21 2026
Part 1 — Lifecycle thinking: Renew’s flagship initiative
FT: Ms. Pinto, thank you for agreeing to speak with the Financial Times. The trilogue week is ongoing. Can you give us an overview of Renew’s priorities during this final phase?
Pinto: Anyone following the process – not only in these last days, but also before – may have understood that all the measures related to the lifecycle assessment methodology are very close to our heart. We were very happy to have all our LCA measures made it into the Parliament’s mandate. However, we are sad that the positions of the other institutions are not as ambitious as ours on this priority. We are monitoring the process to keep the provisions as close as possible to our original ambition. That is our flagship initiative. We also have other topics we care a lot about. We are pushing for a 5% cap on biofuels and 5% on low-carbon steel. We are not red-lining on these caps – we are open to adjusting them – but we hope to keep them as close as possible to our original position. We are also very close to our partners in the coalition, meaning even topics that were not necessarily a priority on our own agenda such as the Just Transition safeguards and the Social Climate Fund earmark are ones we take seriously.
FT: You said lifecycle assessment is the primary concern for Renew, while other institutions are less keen on this. How is it going in the trilogues on lifecycle?
Pinto: Since the beginning, we were very open to engaging the other institutions on LCA. Early on, we sent our ideas to the Commission for them to evaluate and give us their opinion. We had the impression that their position did not move, even though the way we framed LCA is technically feasible. However, we understand why the Commission has an interest in keeping the architecture of the regulation as close as possible to the original proposal. Introducing LCA while maintaining their architecture is difficult. The Council, sadly, is not aligned with our proposal. We understand that they are concerned about the complexity that LCA introduces. On our side, we are conscious of this concern, but we do not think that something as gradual, progressive, and moderate as the way we framed LCA would result in excessive complexity.
“… we do not think that something as gradual, progressive, and moderate as the way we framed LCA would result in excessive complexity.”
FT: Renew has generally also been very concerned with simplification. We know that lifecycle emissions are very hard to assess. So, what exactly is the thinking behind introducing the lifecycle methodology, even if only supplementary to the tailpipe approach for now?
Pinto: Firstly, it is important to keep in mind that we care about simplification not only in this file but across the work in general. Simplification is a reality for us, but we have many other priorities that we need to uphold. As a coordinator, I try as much as possible to dialogue with my Renew colleagues, and after many meetings and discussions we decided that LCA needed to be key in our fight. Personally, I speak as a researcher that has focused also on the topic of lifecycle emissions. I have for example done field work in places where critical raw materials are mined, between South America and Africa, and discovered the extent to which this has very important environmental consequences. So, if we want to be credible, we should put this in the conversation. This is part of the wider effort towards change, for example, through the CSRD directive and the directive on sustainability reporting. As has been pointed out by the rapporteur in his interview with you, it is important to focus on tailpipe emissions today, among other reasons for investment certainty. Less environmental impact is clearly associated with electrification, so keeping the tailpipe approach will result in furthering our goal of continuing electrification. However, the idea is that by introducing LCA as a supplement, we start to progressively look at the whole supply chain and to favour the manufacturers that are already integrating these considerations by investing and cutting their lifecycle emissions. There are best practices across our industry, and we need to incentivise them.
“… the idea is that by introducing LCA as a supplement, we start to progressively look at the whole supply chain and to favour the manufacturers that are already integrating these considerations …”
FT: There have been many concerns voiced throughout the work on this regulation that the introduction of lifecycle methodology risks to turn the focus away from the fact that electrification and specifically full battery electric vehicles are best at cutting emissions. What do you say to those who would push back on LCA?
Pinto: At no point was our introduction of LCA a means to increase loopholes within this text. As was already envisioned in the original parliamentary draft, and confirmed in the current trilogue draft, the idea is to make LCA super-credits apply with respect to the 10% flexibility, maintaining the 90% emission reduction ratio. As a researcher and economist concerned about environmental economics, my perspective is science-based. A recent report of the International Energy Agency – which is also publicly available – says that electric vehicles compared to combustion engines are responsible for half of the emissions. However, if the whole supply chain is sustainable, there is another quarter that can be cut. This means there is a difference between an EV that has zero tailpipe emissions and one that has zero tailpipe emissions and is sustainable across the lifecycle. We are confident that European manufacturers would welcome these procedures as they are more concerned by this than manufacturers from other countries that have shown less commitment to sustainability. When the proposal of the Commission was prepared, the automotive sector had already signalled support for the introduction of lifecycle assessments. So, we know that manufacturers are open to this.
“… there is a difference between an EV that has zero tailpipe emissions and one that has zero tailpipe emissions and is sustainable across the lifecycle.”
Part 2 — Technology neutrality, flexibility, and competitiveness
FT: Let us move to the question of fuel and steel credits to offset the 2035 emissions target reduction. Renew has signalled it was in favour of the rebalancing – up from 3% to 5% on fuels and lowering the steel credits accordingly. What is the thinking?
Pinto: As Renew we believe in liberalism. We would not want to say that one way is better than another but rather guarantee technology neutrality – so that manufacturers choose which transitional technology to implement. There are two options. Either we keep our ambition as it was before – in which the Commission was requiring 100% reduction of emissions – and we rule out any kind of transitional technology. Or we include some flexibilities. We welcome the second option, because it answers a need of the automotive sector. And if so, we cannot say that low-carbon steel is better and biofuels are worse. Both are transitional and both have their pros and cons. And of course, in the long-term we want full electrification. More specifically, within the renewable-fuels sub-category, there are different options with different levels of environmental impact. Our parliamentary text favours those that have a lower environmental impact, by capping at 1% those that are more polluting. This is to guarantee both ambitious environmental standards and technology neutrality.
“… we cannot say that low-carbon steel is better and biofuels are worse. Both are transitional and both have their pros and cons.”
FT: The question of “technology neutrality” has been a leading theme in the debate. You said yourself that you are a researcher and that electric vehicles are the best way to decarbonise. Does allowing more fuel credits to be used bear the risk that we are not pushing forward fast enough with battery electric vehicles? This is not only a question of climate but also one of industrial competitiveness, considering European OEMs already struggle with competition from China and elsewhere.
Pinto: It is true that by probably not acting early enough we are now facing very harsh competition from foreign manufacturers. However, there is ground for the European automotive sector to catch up. The 10% flexibility introduced in this legislative text is a buffer for the transitional phase during which manufacturers need to adjust. But of course, the long-term direction is electrification. And again, we see provisions like the lifecycle assessment as a chance for industry because we think that consumers here and eventually also in third countries are concerned with sustainability. They will favour vehicles that have low lifecycle emissions over those where the lithium for the batteries was sourced in polluting ways, and they will therefore favour the European vehicles.
FT: The Council’s has entered trilogues with a strong preference for a 1.2x super-credit multiplier for “low-emission vehicles”. There is nothing similar in the EP mandate. How does Renew see that?
Pinto: We are concerned that an excessive focus on low-emission vehicles while the initial idea was to focus on zero-emission vehicles could dilute the climate ambition of the original draft. As a centrist and pragmatic force this is not something we reject altogether, but it really depends on the details. We are still waiting for clarification on that. We hope that in the end this does not dramatically alter the current Commission proposal – which, remember, is already a reduction of the original emission targets, which were at 100%. We welcomed this because we felt that the automotive industry needs this flexibility, but it should not be used to make a U-turn on climate commitment. This would also be very negative in terms of market signals.
“It is true that by probably not acting early enough we are now facing very harsh competition from foreign manufacturers. However, there is ground for the European automotive sector to catch up.”
Part 3 — Social questions and parliamentary dynamics
FT: In the beginning you said that you were aligned with the S&D’s proposals to introduce just transition safeguards and the Social Climate Fund earmark. How important is the social side for Renew?
Pinto: The rapporteur’s emphasis on the fact that this is a compromise package brilliantly explains the dynamics of our coalition in ENVI. I am very proud to be part of the coalition, because I believe that each of the three parties [Renew, EPP and S&D] brings in valuable inputs about issues the other parties would not have thought about themselves. It is definitely true that social fairness, social justice, the rights of workers, is a primary concern of the S&D. But it is not as if Renew and EPP were against social fairness. Social fairness is important to our liberalism and progressivism as well, which brings us close to the S&D. Of course, it is true that they are more socialist, while we have a more liberal approach and the EPP ground everything in a more conservative view. It really is a package, and we have a lot of common ground. So, the S&D came up with it, and we decided to support it even though we had not thought about it in the beginning. We know that there is a wide need for complementarity on this file, not only on sustainability, investment certainty and industrial competitiveness. So even though the social dimension is maybe not as important to us as LCA, it is something we are willing to defend and hope to see in the final text.
FT: We have talked about the substance of the file, but we must also speak about the political dynamics. Being an observer in today’s committee meeting, it felt like the content was sidelined to some extent by concerns about procedure, and we saw a widening rift between your coalition and the other groups. Do you see a risk that these dynamics get in the way of the adoption of an agreement?
Pinto: I am hopeful on the opposite. We have already cooperated with these groups – we have discussed with the Greens and Left. We know that their priorities are very different from the other parties they engaged with today, so we are confident that this is just a political strategy to catch our attention right now and to make sure that some of their proposals are introduced in the file. However, I think that in the end the urgency of this file will come first, and when it comes to vote on the final version, I hope to be as close as possible to the original parliamentary draft. Our work will not be jeopardised – unless of course the priorities that were put forward within the parliamentary draft are all dismissed, but I doubt that will be the case. As I said, I am an economist before being a politician, so maybe I am a bit distant from this type of dynamics. I tend to bring in a more technical perspective. Sometimes, as you were saying, the actual content of the file is sidelined to make power talks. There are parties pushing very hard to make their own party interest come before the actual interest of European citizens and the European automotive sector. That is something that is understandable, but needs to be condemned, because what we care about is to deliver to citizens. As citizen representatives, we need to make sure we end up with the best possible text. I am very hopeful that this whole story is going to end well, and that some of the noise was just entertainment. I am hoping to have a cohesive Parliament, as we had when we voted on the ENVI committee mandate.
“I am very proud to be part of the coalition, because I believe that each of the three parties [Renew, EPP and S&D] brings in valuable inputs about issues the other parties would not have thought about themselves.”
FT: Thank you very much for your answers.
Pinto: Thank you.
Also read:
“Productive discussions” and fragile coalitions – by Joshua Starbatty | MAY 20 2026
Read about trilogue day two: progress made on the interinstitutional negotiations and political dynamics turning hectic.
And:
Trilogue week opens with a fresh wave of lobbying – by Joshua Starbatty | MAY 19 2026
Stakeholders have set out for their final lobbying campaigns on the CO₂ standards revision and CCV file.