Tax is often used to change behaviours, as well as raise revenues for public services. That the more rapid adoption of EV as a cleaner technology has been subsidised makes complete sense.
Although some of the benefits are now coming to an end, the key remaining is that tax on electricity is much less than the duty and taxes on fossil fuels. I do not expect this to last.
Lithium is unpleasant - whether better, worse or just different to fossil fuels is debatable. The characteristics which make it unattractive is the reason for extensive research into cheaper and nicer alternatives - sodium-ion being amongst the current favourites.
The media (bless 'em) have focussed on experiences in Detroit which has far colder winters than the UK. In Norway which has equally harsh winters, ~85% of cars currently sold are EV. They seem to manage - so what are our US cousins doing wrong?
The sale of EVs by Hertz may not be just a simplistic customer reaction. The US market is very under-developed compared to the UK:
- about 7% of current US car sales are EV vs ~20% in UK
- total EV fleet in the US is ~1% of cars registered vs ~5% in the UK
- distances travelled tend to be larger (range issues)
- low demand means recharging network unsurprisingly lags (even) the UK
I accept EVs may not suit all. I do not own one but as a 2 car household would actively consider one (probably small and s/h) for more local use and a technology confidence booster.
Strident argument without balance is a triumph of noise and emotion over the rational.