"We could have been putting in solar since the 1970s but the same tools (and corrupt CEOs) opposing EVs now were opposing solar power then."
If it paid off, people certainly would have.
"You know what else uses fossil fuels? ICEVs. "
Thanks Capt. Obvious. And burning them fossil fuels where the energy is used eliminates the energy loss of transmission as you have with Electric Cars. You think you are smart, but failed to even mention that significant inefficiency. The case is made by the experts - the railroads. They use electric trucks on the trains for sure, but charge them with diesel fuel. If they thought all-electric was cheaper/more efficient on the whole they would have done that the same as when they switched from steam engines.
"Even when charged from COAL, an EV has lower lifetime emissions than an ICEV, because of the immensely greater efficiency."
So you haven't convinced me that electric cars are any better or do anything other than move pollution to the poor neighborhood. But your condescending attitude reveals you could care less about the poor or reality so off you go in your Tesla.
The fact that you need coal to make and charge EV means that you still rely on fossil fuels and don't have a complete solution. Call me back when you have an EV that uses no fossil fuels whatsoever. If that was the more efficient way, it would be the cheaper way and no force would be needed to adopt it.
"The batteries coming out literally right now do not use cobalt."
Many do in fact use cobalt, and the point stands that it adds a geo-strategic layer no matter what elements it requires.
"We already know how to recycle lithium batteries. "
Knowing how is different than doing it. The efficiencies usually dictate what happens and if landfill is the cheaper way, that is where they will go.