Sure, those are somewhat valid points, I simply think a well-thought-out approach would have been far more beneficial.
Let's just take a hypothetical, since we don't really know what would have happened: If well-designed series hybrids with about 30-40 miles of pure electric range and the ability to charge that much smaller battery in a single night with a simple 220 outlet instead of an expensive home-charging system had been the focus, rather than pure electrics, then nearly every single (legitimate) negative aspect of pure-electrics would have been addressed. They still would have been a bit more expensive, but that's just about the only downside. How many more people would have purchased them? My daughter still owns and drives a 2002 Prius, and unlike electrics there were really no actual downsides, just a lot of FUD from people who didn't understand the technology. Same is true of series hybrids. But let's say, to be extremely conservative, that the uptake on series hybrids would have been just double what it has been for pure electrics. Would that have actually been better for the environment than the push to pure electrics? (Probably, but I don't know for sure.) If more companies had therefore jumped on board early, would the rush to better series-hybrids have led quickly to better tech and even quicker uptake of the new tech, ultimately leading to far better outcomes in terms of automotive pollution than we have seen with the push to pure electrics? Probably, but again because the industry and world just screamed "PURE ELECTRIC" and hopped on-board the hype we will may never know the answer.
Even a year or two of concerted research first would been great, but let's face it, as a species we are pretty bad at planning and much better a this:
View attachment 2189816