Not at all puzzling. It's what half the posters in this topic have been saying. When a reasonable alternative exists, there's no reason not to consider it. When one doesn't, there's no reason to regulate me into something that doesn't do what I need. If someone can get by with a Prius or whatever, more power to them. The alternatives out there now don't do what I need. My current vehicle does, and I'm not poisoning anyone's air. My vehicle will pollute less in it's lifetime than a Prius will.
Yeah, but that's not what everyone here is saying. See:
I want a gasoline-powered car, MY car that I've spent countless hours messing with and tweaking the performance on, not an electric one. I want to smell gasoline, hot metal and oil, not ozone. And that's my freedom of choice, and I resent leftists trying to force otherwise.
Implying that even if there are alternatives that are reasonable, and that don't do harm to others, there's still some inherent right to go on polluting your neighbor's air because you worked so hard on that gasoline engine.
That comment was in response to this entirely reasonable one:
There will come a day when whatever replaces the internal combustion engine is clearly the superior option, better range, cleaner, probably quicker. It's shortsighted (as in the view from 1901) to refuse to acknowledge that, and to declare that you just don't want one. I want one, and I want mine to fly and do warp speed.