Abstract: Energy-related emissions account for > 70% of the global total. Against this backdrop, the transport sector stands out as a major contributor, responsible for approximately 20% of worldwide carbon emissions. Within the transport system, road vehicles dominate the emissions profile, representing about 80% of transport-related emissions. In other words, road transport constitutes the primary source of carbon emissions within the broader transport domain. This study divided the automobile life cycle into production, use, and end-of-life, and conducted a systematic comparison of the carbon profiles of four vehicle types (internal-combustion vehicles, battery-electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel-cell electric vehicles) over the past decade, followed by targeted mitigation strategies. The results showed that there exist differences in carbon emissions at different stages and there are also significant differences in the carbon emission performance of different vehicle models. Production contributes 25%–50% of life cycle emissions, with battery-electric and fuel-cell vehicles burdened most by traction-battery and fuel-cell manufacturing. The use stage contributes 50%–70% and is the dominant source, where conventional internal-combustion vehicles exhibit emission intensities approximately five to eight times those of battery-electric and fuel-cell vehicles. End-of-life contributes 7%–22%, and for new-energy vehicles, battery recovery is the primary source. Building on these life cycle differences, we propose an integrated pathway that combines process optimization, energy substitution, and technological innovation to identify high-leverage abatement points, coordinate source reduction with in-process efficiency gains and end-of-life valorization, and enable system-level, coordinated decarbonization. Seven priority levers were identified: lightweighting, welding processes, coating processes, green battery synthesis, clean-fuel substitution, materials recycling and circularity, and dismantling and recovery; and each is evaluated by cost-effectiveness and implementation difficulty then mapped to a phased roadmap. In the short term from 2025 to 2030, deployment should prioritize mature options with short payback periods: lightweighting, advanced welding, low-energy and low-volatile-organic-compound coating, and dismantling and recycling, to scale rapidly while complying with the European Union Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and China’s battery-recycling policies. In the medium term from 2030 to 2040, the focus shifts to green battery synthesis and closed-loop materials recovery, with all-solid-state batteries and dry-electrode processes completing engineering validation and moving into volume production from 2035, while China’s closed-loop recovery system aligns with the 95% material-recovery target and proceeds through a five- to eight-year capital payback cycle. In the long term from 2040 to 2060, the priority is clean-fuel substitution that depends on green-hydrogen production, hydrogen-refueling infrastructure, and full life cycle biofuel supply chains, all currently constrained by infrastructure costs and the economics of renewable hydrogen, with commercial scale-up expected progressively after 2050 to enable effective substitution for fossil fuels. Anchored in a comprehensive full life cycle perspective and supported by stage-wise implementation roadmaps together with rigorous cost-benefit evaluations, this study developed an integrated, end-to-end framework for coordinated emissions reduction spanning the production, use, and end-of-life phases of automobiles. It provides systematic, transparent, and quantitatively verifiable evidence to underpin carbon-neutrality objectives across the automotive industry, while simultaneously furnishing practical, implementable, and decision-grade guidance for policy formulation and corporate investment planning, thereby accelerating the sector’s transition along credible, scalable, and durable low-carbon pathways.