I notice you are not listing any of these much easier to accomplish objectives. To be honest, I'm not very interested in your theory of public bargaining. Could you specify a few of the big ideas that you think will make a bigger difference over the next decade?

There are obviously hundreds of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, across many countries.

It's up to you to defend the 100% reduction number I'd say, which is the whole point I'm making.

Why not 99% for example?

Because 100% is not enough. We need to be carbon NEGATIVE to get back to the good place. (And, yes, we'll never be 100% non-emitting. We need to be NET negative.)

We're talking about 100% of cars being fully electric, not a % reduction in emissions.

Yes, but I don't have time to sort through hundreds of them. I'm asking which ones you think are the low hanging fruit. Just 3 or 4 examples would do.

How about converting electrical generation away from coal and natural gas?

Clearly this would have a larger impact than allowing 1% of cars sold to be hybrid or gas.

Now how about a reason you'd want 100% of cars to be electric and not 99? What about 98? Have you done any actual analysis here or are you just reflexively making the largest demands possible?

100% of new cars is critical because of how long cars last. People can keep a car running for 50 years after it’s sold, getting rid of ICE cars requires making them unappealing. As gas stations start to close owning an ICE car will become extremely inconvenient.

A hypothetical 10% of new cars being ICE eventually means only ~10% of gas stations survive, that’s just not enough. It’s vastly more efficient to do that in lockstep so people aren’t stuck with relatively new cars their unable to fuel which then get scrapped.

Hmm so then what about 99%? Is that also "not enough". How could you possibly know?

If 10% of new cars being ICE isn’t enough to keep most gas stations in business then any number less than 10% would also cause most gas stations to fail. In the early days people where willing to be inconvenienced because ICE where such a step up. But, if the alternative is drive 20 minutes each way to a gas station or charge up an your parking space it’s just not going to be worth it to drive ICE.

It’s just a question of efficiency. The first day sales of new ICE are outlawed there are going to be a large number of ICE cars already on the road which keeps most gas stations in business the next day. In effect the difference between 0% ICE or 10% ice is only visible several years in the future.

It’s simply bad policy to create a situation where a lot of 5-15 year old cars get scrapped because nobody can find a gas station. The country is much better off when people scrapping cars because they can’t get gas are doing that to 20+ year old cars.

Well, there's abundant effort already going on to shift away from fossil fuels, as you are surely aware.

I haven't advocated for 100% of cars being electric; you appear to have me confused with someone else. You keep repeating this in every comment (to me and others) and try to hang responsibility for it on other people. It's sufficient to say you don't agree with the policy goal of the Indian government, rather than projecting it onto everyone you interact with.