Suppose that we don't make a law banning it eventually. So some invest, others don't, deciding instead to focus on their current capabilities. In twenty years we've had an industry transition: everything's electric, those manufacturers died but made a lot of money, which was for the most part not invested in electric car development, but in other industries-- maybe in AI, maybe in something else.
Meanwhile, if we don't do this and instead make a law banning it eventually the manufacturers have no choice. They have to invest in EVs. This means that they will abstain from further developing ICEs and focus, probably, on batteries and electric motors. They can't just run the business for the now to produce dividends to invest in other industries but have to maintain their industry and develop it so that it remains relevant two decades from now.
So it's a social choice: dividends to invest in other industries or the industry existing in the future, and the political decision is the industry existing in the future. I assume that any industry preference for the other path, i.e. disappearing/winding down while paying out dividends has to do with the present relatively (to the zero-interest rate days anyway) high interest rates.
I feel like I only hear this argument after people voted with their vote and somebody doesn't like the result.
That said, not really opposed to continuous raising of ICE / gas tax until it's undesirable since that's how it works a lot of the time for something not immediately dangerous (i.e. C4 is banned, Cigarettes are taxed).
Step #1 put a price on the currently unpriced externalities for fossil fuels. Starting with the pollution they put into the air whenever they operate.