The Arrival of Mega-Trucks in Europe: Good or Bad News for the Climate?

Last Tuesday, the European Parliament adopted a measure that could pave the way for “mega-trucks” to enter EU countries. While the European Council will have to make the final decision, this measure is sparking debate. Could having such trucks on our roads help reduce emissions from the freight transportation sector?

What are we talking about?

Currently, the maximum length for freight trucks on French roads is 18.75 meters, with a maximum weight of 44 metric tons. If this measure were adopted, trucks measuring 25.25 meters in length and weighing up to 60 metric tons could appear on the roads.

A decarbonization potential…

Because they are heavier, 60-metric-ton trucks consume about 30% more fuel than 44-metric-ton trucks^[1][2], but their average payload is higher: 23.4 metric tons on average for mega-trucks, compared with 16.8 metric tons for a 44-metric-ton tractor-trailer^[3]. Thus, when calculated per metric ton transported, the carbon intensity of a 60-metric-ton truck is lower due to economies of scale (see question 6 of our Freight FAQ).

Nevertheless, transport densification is a significant driver of decarbonization for the mass adoption of smaller payloads—for example, when switching from a light commercial vehicle to a 44-metric-ton truck (a fivefold reduction in carbon intensity)— but the reduction in carbon intensity becomes asymptotic when the payload is already substantial. Thus, The CO2 savings per metric ton-kilometer for a 60-metric-ton vehicle compared to a 44-metric-ton vehicle are only 5%.

But this is overshadowed by the harmful effects it causes

The main advantage of the 60t is economic : It would reduce freight transportation costs by 20%^[4], in particular because fewer drivers and trucks are needed. This economic benefit may lead to rebound effects that could mitigate or even reverse the climate benefit of this trend toward mass transit:

• Transportation demand could increase due to lower costs and the need to optimize the load factor for a larger volume;
• Rail, a low-carbon alternative to road freight, could in some cases be abandoned in favor of road transport, which will become (even) more advantageous.

The issue is not limited to climate impacts:

• The safety of the 60t is compromised by longer braking distances and a larger blind spot;
• The current infrastructure (roundabouts, highway rest area parking lots, etc.) is inadequate. Sweden reportedly invested more than 500 million euros between 1988 and 1998 following the authorization of these trucks^[5].

What conclusions can we draw from this?

The authorization for 60-metric-ton trucks to operate is therefore primarily an economic measure rather than an environmental one, and offers little benefit for the climate when compared to the risks of rebound effects and the increased competitiveness of diesel engines (for now) that it entails.

This perspective clearly illustrates the need for a systemic approach to decarbonizing freight transport in order to ensure the competitiveness of low-carbon modes of transportation and the necessary transition away from the fossil fuel sector.