The electric power they use must come from somewhere. Converting fossil fuel to electric power sacrifices some energy for the conversion. The environmental damage of producing them is significant. They are much more expensive than standard vehicles.

How about public transportation, bicycles, carbon tax, efficient city design, fuel use standards. All of these would eliminate more pollution than electric cars.

Electric cars are a gimmick so that people can feel they are protecting the environment without making a real sacrifice.

And what about population control?

Because the inevitable outcome is that everyone loses, just as Hillary didn't win because she wasn't liberal or too liberal or too middle of the road of WTF ever the excuse was not to cast votes for her. In that case, the important thing was that a democrat won, because a democrat would be infinitely better than any republican.

Yes, in your post you are technically correct, but you fail to recognize that humans are slow to react to change. My family are buying 100% EVs and doing our part to drive perception that EVs are practical. We also do everything within our power and wallet to change how public electricity is produced. One of my siblings is already 250% beyond their electrical use, because even though solar power isn't 100% clean, it is the best solution possible for a sustainable future. Their household is running a $1,300/month negative balance with their utility.

Everyone in every state and country needs to tell their government officials to build more wind and solar facilities and shut down unsustainable coal and nuclear power plants. Any change towards sustainable is better than failing at the stubborn decision of those who only know all or nothing.

Using a 3,000 pound vehicle to transport a 150 pound person is by no means ever efficient.

Good urban design, as you mentioned, would make a huge impact. I love European cities with people living within walk/bike distance from where they shop, work, and go to school and abundant public transportation.

Electric cars are a step, although a small one, in a better direction. There needs to be a paradigm shift in other aspects of how we think we should live our lives, but again I’m mostly just echoing what you said.

Population is slowly reaching its projected upper limit and is projected to be heading down. I’ve read a number of articles correlating female literacy rates with a decreased birth rate. You feed and educate poor people (especially girls and women) and things get better. However, it all comes back to consumption.

As a species and society, we’ve gotta get away from our addiction to consumption and excess. Star-Trek like technologies of clean fusion and replicators would solve that, but that doesn’t exist in real life. We’re going to have to do it the hard way and just plain accept that we don’t all get to have giant houses, perfectly manicured yards, and pounds of meat to consume at our whim.

If it was all non-fossil fuels, then I would think it would be cleaner.

He compares emissions for an Idaho (mostly hydroelectric) vehicle with that of a West Virginia (mostly coal) vehicle.

The only people who don't believe that are Republicans. They don't believe in climate change either. They don't believe in science.