For days now, reports have been circulating that the EU wants to force smaller fuel tanks on hybrid cars. That is not what is happening. The demand comes from Transport & Environment (T&E) – an organisation that plays a central role in “In the Name of Climate”. A fact check and some context.
Where the 15-litre demand comes from
In mid-October, T&E published a new analysis of plug-in hybrids. Based on European Environment Agency data, it concludes that plug-in hybrids registered in 2024 emitted almost six times as much CO₂ on the road as officially stated. Compared with combustion cars and conventional hybrids, they cut emissions by only 14 per cent in real life, although test figures promise 83 per cent. Only 27 per cent of the distance was driven purely on electricity (InsideEVs).
As a remedy, T&E recommends that policymakers only favour plug-in hybrids with a fuel tank of at most 15 litres – combined with at least 200 kilometres of real-world electric range from 2030, fast charging above 100 kilowatts and an electric motor at least three times as powerful as the combustion engine (InsideEVs). At 6.7 litres per 100 kilometres, 15 litres last for about 220 kilometres (in French). The idea is not new: it already appeared in T&E’s report “Smoke screen” of October 2025, as the German magazine Auto Bild points out (in German).
How an NGO demand turned into an “EU plan”
In recent days, several outlets turned it into an EU initiative. The German portal Tichys Einblick, for instance, wrote that the European Commission was planning to limit tank sizes. No such plan exists. Auto Bild sets the record straight: no regulation, no concrete plan, just one of four recommendations by a non-governmental organisation.
What the EU actually does is gradually tighten the so-called utility factor – the assumption of how much a plug-in hybrid is driven electrically. German carmakers want to freeze the next step of that correction. That is worth a serious debate. An invented 15-litre plan is not.
False reports like this do the critics a disservice. Anyone who criticises climate networks must be more precise than they are – otherwise legitimate objections can be dismissed as conspiracy talk. That is why I removed a passage from the second edition of my book that could not be substantiated.
Why the demand still fits the picture
The fact that T&E decides nothing does not mean it shapes nothing. On its own website, the organisation lists its 2025 donors of more than one million euros, including the Climate Imperative Foundation, the ClimateWorks Foundation and the European Climate Foundation. The European Commission itself appears on the list with 500,000 to one million euros. This is exactly the foundation network I describe in “In the Name of Climate”.
The result is a loop: the Commission co-funds an organisation that then proposes regulation to it and builds public pressure. How much money flows to NGOs overall is hard to track. In 2025, the European Court of Auditors found that EU funding for NGOs is not transparent enough; between 2021 and 2023, some 7.4 billion euros went to non-governmental organisations.
The problem is fossil fuel, not the tank
T&E points to a real problem. Many plug-in hybrids are rarely charged, especially company cars: in early 2026, 71 per cent of the plug-in hybrids sold in the EU went to companies. Honest emission figures are therefore right. And tying tax breaks to vehicles that mostly burn petrol in everyday use sets the wrong incentives.
But a tank cap targets something else. It makes the combustion engine unattractive, not fossil carbon. That is the same mindset behind the combustion engine ban, which I trace in the book: fighting a technology instead of a source of emissions. A plug-in hybrid that runs on electricity in daily use and on renewable fuel for long trips is not a climate problem. The goal is defossilisation – avoiding emissions from fossil carbon – with electrification and renewable fuels working together.
The 15-litre debate exposes both weaknesses of today’s climate politics: networks that set the agenda with public and private money, and opponents who squander their own credibility with exaggerations. Both erode the trust that effective climate protection needs.
“In the Name of Climate” – How green networks are gambling away Europe’s industry & jobs, making China the winner and democracy the loser.
Order now on Amazon · Keep me updated
Leave a Reply