I don't have an EV, but I think it was sometime in 2012 that the world demographics shifted from "majority rural" to "majority urban" -- in other words, more than 50% of mankind now lives in cities. I couple that with the record set on the Autobahn in a tesla of 2200 kilometers in 24 hours. Even in a gas car, I've never needed to go that many kilometers in a day - and regardless of the powerplant I wouldn't want to! But it speaks to what's possible when the infrastructure is there.
So I agree with you, Pipm -- for the majority of our species, an EV is a better choice -- it's simpler, quieter, pollutes less at point of use, etc. and it has the capacity to do everything a typical city person (aka, most humans on earth) needs from a vehicle.
The other side of the coin though is that if that electricity comes from burning a billion tons of coal a week or whatever, or if those lithium batteries end up in landfills and messing up the water table, or any number of other issues (which I'll add, the effects of which are often just transferred from the wealthy urban to the rural poor) it's not the solution to pollution that the marketing claims them to be. In some cases, quite the opposite; the video mentions this. But those are separate questions -- the first is "what's the best vehicle for most people"; the second is "what's the best way to move people and goods without impacting the environment". They don't necessarily have the same answer!
Toyota appears to be going broad on the first question -- "Best vehicle for most people" is different if they are urban, and surrounded by infrastructure, as opposed to if they are rural or remote, and they say "Widest range of customers possible". Thats good -- and thank goodness it's Toyota with this attitude. Imagine if the only car company recognizing that some folks need ICE was Fiat or Peugot?!?! Anyone want to go to the back of beyond in a Panda?
