It's not that simple. A pure EV needs ~10x as much battery as a PHEV. So for the same amount of batteries produced, you could make 10x as many vehicles PHEVs as EVs. Not all vehicles can be EVs due to practical issues.

Which results in more total electric miles driven replacing gas? I don't know, but "gas is destroying the world" is a brain short circuit.

Yes, EV's solve one of the many negative impacts of cars. It's not some magic bullet.

They still depend on minerals that require destructive mining from equipment that runs on fossil fuels, still use rubber tires, still has tons of plastics that are made with petroleum, still dependent on a power grid mainly sustained by fossil fuels...

We should be thinking bigger than this, even. Walk, ride a bike, or take public transit whenever possible. If it's not possible, try to move somewhere where it is.

We must be willing to be slightly inconvenienced for the greater good instead of arguing about which type of car to drive. People don't want to have that conversation, though.

Hybrids have much more efficient ICE motors, which generate less CO2 than the motors of traditional cars. The amount of CO2 is further reduced by energy recovery.

TFA links another page where it is explained how the ICE motors used in Nissan hybrids have surpassed 50% efficiency, which is an efficiency that in the past was reached only in huge 2-stroke Diesel engines for ships.

50% is already not much lower than the efficiency of the gas turbines used in electricity generation plants, but the power plants with combined cycle (gas turbines + steam turbines) may reach over 65% efficiency and the power plants with Combined Heat and Power may reach over 80% total efficiency.

Battery EVs may take advantage of continuous improvements in the energy generation infrastructure, but for now they are still not usable everywhere, so hybrids are still preferable to cars with pure ICEs.

EVs are more expensive. Hope that helps.