The argument, as I understand it, isn't that they have a larger carbon footprint but they have near the SAME carbon footprint, only differ in where carbon is burned in the production life-cycle and operation.

Technological transitions create wealth inequality gaps. Good or bad, who knows. I am certainly seeing more EVs on the road (but I live in a wealthy community), I'm also noticing how they get bigger and bigger (consuming more and more carbon since in my state 70% is still produced that way).

Even if an EV is the same price as an ICE it doesn't mean the person has equal ability to fuel it (as is the case with ICE cars). Where are renters supposed to charge their cars?

If you're poor, fueling an EV is time-consuming, therefore, expensive process. China doesn't really want everyone to drive a car on the road for mass transit. Why does everyone gloss over that? Only the rich in China drive cars--whatever the type. The masses take public transportation.

So I think you're totally jumping the gun here. The battle isn't between EVs and ICE, it's between cities vs resource areas (like farms, manufacturing, mining, etc.) Nothing new here.

Cars won the last time (when cities had extensive public transit networks). EVs won't work for most of America. ICE cars in America won't go away anymore than guns, in our lifetime.