Not necessarily. Making a technology of this magnitude "feasible" requires substantial investments on a scale that requires buy-in from politics and the populous.

Just look at how cars got where they are now. If cities had not invested in converting cobbled streets into asphalt streets [1], if nations had not invested in building highway networks, cars would not have been "feasible", as you say.

[1] In hindsight, asphalt may look like the only plausible solution for city streets, but it actually causes a bunch of problems with drainage and microclimate because it completely seals the surface. In cities where traffic relies more heavily on walking, bicycles and trams, you will see more cobbled streets because they work better in these aspects.

"Don't you think that if the alternative was feasible it would have already been implemented without coercion?"

No, probably not.

It would be very easy for industry to just chug along cars with combustion engines.

Nobody owns the market, and certainly nobody controls the vast value chains and incidental markets.

The more obvious issues are batteries and electricity production and distribution.

Tesla would not be possible without constant 'Climate Change Marketing' from government and other sources - and - subsidies, which are a non-market force.

There are too many variables to switch, and it works better if there is some kind of 'plan' - regulatory apparatus help shape that.

The 'lighter the better' I think in this case the timing of the announcement and phase out is just about right.

This comment almost seems to willfully satirize libertarianism. Does it follow that if a goal hasn't been accomplished without a state mandate, it must be impossible?

It might be in this particular case, but to be convincing we would need to show our work, or at least make a more specific argument.