In every single one of these discussions people always fail to look at reality in the proper context. Baselines are important if the objective is to evaluate the merit of any proposed solutions.

There are many reality-check baselines one can refer to in the case of the planetary-scale problem we are discussing. Here's one:

https://i.imgur.com/wbHptnf.png

A very simple chart that speaks loudly. Among other things, it says that electric cars do not matter. At all.

What?

OK. In case it isn't obvious, I'll walk you through it.

The argument presented is that a full conversion of the US into electric-powered ground transportation is crucial in the fight against climate change. Some say this can actually start to roll back atmospheric CO2 concentration levels. This, of course, is preposterous.

Let's take it a million times further than just converting the US to electric power:

Let's completely erase the US from this planet. We go from 300 million people to zero. All buildings, factories, vehicles, power plants, trains, planes, etc. evaporate overnight. Gone. Beamed into space by Captain Kirk.

What effect would that have on global atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate change?

Well, the simple answer (refer to the chart) is the planet would see a reduction in annual contributions of 14%.

This is NOT a reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is a reduction in annual inputs, that's all.

Instead of 32 giga-tons of CO2 per year contributed by humanity we would contribute 28 GT.

Which, in turn, means nothing whatsoever would change.

Atmospheric CO2 would continue to accumulate and increase at about the same rate.

Therefore, electric cars do not matter at all. Their potential impact is dwarfed by comparison to the absolute elimination of an entire nation from the planet. It is, at best, a rounding error.

I know people won't like this. Well, rather than being offended, how about explaining how electric cars would do any better than eliminating the entire US from this planet?

Here, I'll help with a fill in the blank exercise (using current White House estimate on impact of full ground transport electrification to be 1 GT per year):

Ten years from now if we change nothing:
32 GT * 10 = 320 GT more than we have today

If the US didn't exist at all:
28 GT * 10 = 280 GT more than we have today

Best case if we convert all cars in the US to electric power:
31 GT * 10 = 310 GT more than we have today

So...310 GT instead of 320 GT added to the atmosphere in ten years if we go full electric. That's assuming the 1 GT savings per year is real. Given the massive required increase in energy generation this remains to be seen.

BTW, this also assumes all other nations will remain at their current emissions levels. That is unlikely. China and India are likely going up before they come down, if ever.

Comparing our ideas to reasonable baselines is of crucial importance. In this case we learn a very harsh reality.

Electric cars are great, yes. However, we really need to stop painting them as a "save the planet" technology. That's nothing less than laughable given the data.

Again, refute the data before being angered by an argument you do not like. After all, reality does not care about your emotions. Are you actually arguing that full-electrics will have a greater impact than erasing the US from the planet? If you can't do that, you really need to re-evaluate how you see this problem.