(And batteries can be recycled. Try recycling gasoline.)
Mining does not necessarily burn oil: https://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/...
Tires polluting more than exhaust is a myth. It's honestly surprising anyone believes this one: https://www.dcbel.energy/2021/08/24/myth-busted-lifetime-ele...
(This one is doubly surprising, because gas cars have tires too. Even if tires were single-handedly melting glaciers, an EV would still be avoiding tailpipe emissions.)
EVs are not perfect, but they are better - considerably better - which is why there's so much misinformation about them. The oil industry has enormously effective PR.
Another thing to consider is how gasoline is transported around. Gas pipelines are possible but last mile delivery is inevitably a huge inefficient truck.
Moving electricity is a solved problem - power lines have no emissions.
Hydrocarbons can come from wood and other biomass, too. Woodgas is not unheard of. Plants feed on the bulk of emissions, if you need the cycle completed for you.
Tires are definitely an issue but producing gas involves a lot of trucks as well. Between all the work in oil pumping/refining/distribution there must be quite a bit of rubber burnt!
Edit - I think the tire issue definitely needs to be solved, but theres no reason it has to keep us using gas vehicles over electric
Ah, I may have miscommunicated my concern, which is that the resources involved/required in the acquisition, sequestration, production, and recycling of batteries may ultimately be more damaging than conventional fuels [in the long run]. It is possible that I am wrong, however, it remains a personal point of concern.
I would definitely be interested in exploring this further. It seems probable to me that we won't have a better grasp on this for years yet as EVs are still pretty new and not widely adopted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqxaH47DTs
Yes, there are up-front environmental costs to electric cars, but I wager it's worth it.
Scenario: We could churn out 50,000,000 electric cars next year, with all the strip mining and oil-burning required. But somehow, we had nuclear/solar energy and a grid in the US capable of supporting the power draw. The outcome would be a much healthier country, on the whole.
The goal long term is to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. Transport is the most obvious "hard" problem - nuclear/solar/wind are clearly going to take over coal and gas. It would be beneficial to move transport over to electric now, to "centralize" the fossil fuel problem to power plants.
This is not being fair or charitable. Some people are genuinely curious, like myself, but are treated as if some type of malice was intended just for asking.