[iand675]

The writing has been on the wall for 5+ years that government bodies would eventually legislate this, even for casual observers. If these auto manufacturers as industry insiders couldn’t plan ahead to handle this outcome, it sounds like they might deserve to be unseated.

[verdverm]

The politicians often change or reverse laws, should they plan based on the law or the consumers. Personally, I think it quite likely that all these government deadlines for ICE will not be met and the changeover will take much longer than hoped. We don't even know if the manufactures can make enough EVs in these time frames, we still have hurdles for battery and electricity distribution. All that energy in liquid form has to now go ever wires, which are showing strains already. Imagine the entire vehicle fleet needing to feed off that same system, we need to put a ton of resources into the grid

[Gibbon1]

Your comment reminds me of the Big Three's attitude towards automobile emissions and safety regulations. They thought they could force the politicians to reverse those laws. And they were very wrong about that. Even when they got their business friendly allies in power, nope.

And the stakes now are oh so much higher.

[verdverm]

What's happening is that aspirations are meeting reality. If the table stakes were in fact "oh so much higher", the people would be demanding the politicians to do something about the infra. There is "oh so much more" to do besides just the cars. Electrical grid capacity, fire departments at many more car crashes for battery fires, at home charging (but what about all those that park on the streets), battery production and disposal, the list goes on. It's not just the car makers, we the people need to stop making them the only target. How come we don't hear about the other stuff on HN?

Point is, the politicians can set some year because that gets them votes, but as has been predicted and is playing out, things are very behind schedule and won't make the dealline

[rolph]

>>auto manufacturers<<

i forget the corporation, but i recall an ad depicting a CEO, telling the team "were not in the oil business were in the energy business"

likewise, --were not in the ICE automotive business, were in the private transportation business-- sounds parallel.

[PM_me_your_math]

That's funny considering the church of climatology can't exist without government subsidy.

[_aavaa_]

Neither can the current fossil fuel industry. Either through explicit subsidies, or through implicit ones by allowing them to use the environment as their free sewer.

[kjghkjghkjgh]

The fossil fuel industry can exist fine without subsidies. Where else can people get cheaper fuel?

[_aavaa_]

Again, the fuel is cheap only because they aren't being charged for the externalities (e.g. CO2e) that the fuel produces.