Report
Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars in the European Union: A 2025 update and key factors to consider
This report is a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of the global warming potential of passenger cars sold in the European Union (EU). It compares sales-weighted average medium segment gasoline, diesel, and natural gas internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). The analysis covers the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from vehicle and battery production and recycling, fuel and electricity production, fuel consumption, and maintenance. This analysis is an update of ICCT’s previous vehicle LCAs.
Key findings
4x less
Life-cycle emissions of battery electric cars are nearly 4 times less than gasoline cars.
73% to 78% ↓
Life-cycle emissions of battery electric cars are 73% lower than gasoline cars. When using only renewable electricity, the reduction is up to 78%.
20% ↓
Life-cycle emissions of hybrids are 20% lower than gasoline cars.
30% ↓
Life-cycle emissions of plug-in hybrids are 30% lower than gasoline cars.
Figure 1. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of medium segment passenger cars sold in the European Union in 2025
Key findings
Our analysis supports the following findings:
The life-cycle emissions of battery electric vehicles in the European Union are estimated to be 73% lower than those of gasoline internal combustion vehicles.
As presented in Figure 1, BEVs operating on the projected 2025–2044 average EU electricity mix had estimated life-cycle GHG emissions of 63 g CO2e/km. This is 73% lower than the emissions of gasoline ICEVs running on the average blend of fossil gasoline and ethanol, estimated at 235 g CO2e/km. These savings go beyond just tailpipe CO2 emissions: Emissions from fuel production are higher than those from electricity production with the EU average mix.
Although BEVs were estimated to have about 40% higher production emissions than ICEVs due to emissions from production of the battery, these additional emissions are more than offset after about 17,000 km of use in the first one or two years.
Furthermore, the life-cycle emissions of BEVs were 24% less than estimated in ICCT’s 2021 life-cycle analysis study (Bieker, 2021), which reflects the ongoing decarbonization of the EU average electricity mix. When using only renewable electricity, BEVs were estimated to produce life-cycle emissions of 52 g CO2e/km, 78% lower than gasoline ICEVs.
Fuel cell electric vehicles are estimated to have low life-cycle emissions only when using renewable electricity-based hydrogen.
The emissions of FCEVs running on currently available natural gas-based hydrogen were estimated to be 175 g CO2e/km, which is 26% lower than the life-cycle emissions of gasoline vehicles. Only when using renewable electricity-based hydrogen, which is still not widely available in the European Union, are the life-cycle emissions of FCEVs similar to those of BEVs, at 50 g CO2e/km, which is 79% lower than gasoline cars.
Hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles have 20% and 30% lower emissions, respectively, than gasoline ICEVs.
The life-cycle GHG emissions of HEVs were estimated at 188 g CO2e/km, while PHEVs showed emissions of 163 g CO2e/km when considering average real-world fuel and electricity usage. These values are 20% and 30% lower than gasoline ICEVs, and three times higher than BEVs using the EU average electricity mix.
Diesel cars show similar life-cycle emissions to gasoline cars, and natural gas-powered vehicles are estimated to have emissions only 13% lower.
Gasoline and diesel ICEVs showed comparably high life-cycle emissions, of 235 g CO2e/km and 234 g CO2e/km, respectively. A hypothetical sensitivity scenario for an optimistic uptake of advanced biofuels in the average gasoline and diesel mixes (not shown in the figure) indicated that the life-cycle emissions of ICEVs could be reduced by 0.5%–0.6% for gasoline, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid ICEVs, and 3% for diesel ICEVs. This does not change the observed trends in the climate impact of the powertrain types. Life-cycle emissions of ICEVs powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) were estimated at 203 g CO2e/km, or 13% lower than ICEVs powered by diesel or gasoline.
Not reflecting the development of the electricity mix over time and using less representative values for vehicle lifetime and fuel and electricity consumption distorts the comparison of powertrain types.
Similarly, underestimating the usage phase by not accounting for the discrepancy between real-world and test fuel and electricity consumption benefits gasoline, diesel, and natural gas ICEVs and HEVs more than BEVs and FCEVs. Figure 2 presents how the combination of these factors distorts the results in comparison to using representative values.
Policy recommendations
The findings support the following policy considerations:
The phaseout of new ICEV, HEV, and PHEV registrations by 2035 would align sector emissions with EU climate targets.
When running on the EU average fuel and electricity mix, only BEVs offer a large-scale reduction in life-cycle GHG emissions. To achieve a similar emissions reduction potential, FCEVs would need to be restricted to the use of renewable electricity-based hydrogen. For ICEVs, HEVs, and PHEVs, meanwhile, the development of the average mix of fossil fuels and biofuels that can be expected from current policies and market developments would not allow vehicles of these powertrain types to meet EU climate targets. While vehicles running solely on e-fuels could, in theory, achieve life-cycle GHG emissions similar to BEVs, the future availability of e-fuels for the road sector is uncertain while costs are expected to remain high.
Complementary policies: Decarbonizing all components of the life-cycle emissions of passenger cars could be achieved by complementary policies.
Alongside tailpipe CO2 emission standards and a phaseout of powertrain types that lack large-scale decarbonization potential, complementary policies can decarbonize vehicle production emissions. Examples include the battery production carbon footprint provisions in the EU Battery Regulation and sustainability criteria for vehicle purchase subsidies. Improvements in the energy efficiency of BEVs could be achieved through energy efficiency standards, and decarbonization of the EU power sector can be achieved with the Emissions Trading System.
Emissions regulations based on life-cycle emissions could be effective in the long term but come with high uncertainties and administrative burdens and take several years to be developed.
This analysis shows that comparing the life-cycle GHG emissions of vehicles with different powertrain types is highly sensitive to methodological choices. Basing vehicle regulations on life-cycle emissions thus risks disproportionally benefiting powertrain types that do not offer a sufficient long-term decarbonization potential. Moreover, it would require extensive administrative effort for companies and governments to trace, report, and verify emissions for each step of vehicle production, as well as time to build sufficient capacities and effective cross-industry data sharing platforms. Further, introducing LCA-based regulations would require several years of reporting and negotiation to establish both a baseline and an emissions threshold curve that decreases over time.
Vehicle life-cycle assessment methodologies should consider the development of the fuel and electricity mix during the lifetime of the vehicles, fuel and electricity consumption values that are representative of average real-world usage, and a full vehicle lifetime.
Our analysis of the impact of methodological choices on the estimation of life-cycle emissions illustrates the need to harmonize methodological guidelines. As presented in this study, attaining representative results requires considering projected changes in the fuel and electricity mix during the lifetime of the vehicles, fuel and electricity consumption in real-world driving conditions, and the full lifetime of passenger cars.
For media and press inquiries, please contact Susana Irles, Senior Communications Specialist, at communications@theicct.org.