Reality is electric power may or may not be carbon neutral and even then a LARGE percentage is lost is transmission, conversion and storage....
To be fair, most of those variables and logistical costs/losses apply to liquid fossil fuels and renewable fuels as well. Moving energy around is never free, regardless whether it's a tanker truck of diesel or an electrical transmission line.
And although electricity generation sometimes does involve the potential for air quality impacts and carbon emissions too, it can matter that the generation of those pollutants is NOT from a tailpipe. Both in terms of keeping the pollutant source away from the populations that could be harmed by it, and in terms of the mechanics of addressing the pollution itself. For example, plenty of electric generation plants that run on natural gas or oil or coal control NOx emissions using SCR systems working on the same concept as what's in the exhaust of a modern diesel car..... But for obvious reasons, SCR is much easier to manage in the stack of a powerplant than it is in the downpipe of a Jetta. Steady state operation that can be carefully controlled and optimized for temp/etc, vs a car that varies from cold to hot and full load to idle etc, plus no packaging concerns....
So, IMO good reasons why EV tech has advantages when operated in the right role that puts it in its sweet spot.
But I agree with the points about the insanity of the obsession with long range and fast charging. You're taking a technology that DOES work perfectly in some specific situations of short-haul, stop-and-go operation with relatively low loss to aero or rolling resistance and plenty of regen opportunity..... and then you're asking it to go and do what it does worst and an ICE, especially a diesel, engine does best: punch a hole in the air at 80 mph for 10 hours straight, dealing with continuous losses and no energy recovery, while running the heat or AC all the way, and with the absolute minimum of stopping and refueling time. That's using the wrong tool for the wrong job. And it's why I am just dumbfounded by the folks "switching" from a TDI to an EV. You either had the wrong use case for the TDI or now have the wrong case for the EV, or vice versa. One extreme to the other. All the craziness with fast charging and long range are strained attempts to make the wrong technology work in the wrong application. And it's wasteful of EV production resources, charging resources, and harmful to batteries. Why is everyone in the EV world focused on this instead of solving other EV adoption problems that have a far better cost-benefit potential?
To be clear, I'm a proponent of EV availability and development since for solving certain transportation problems (urban use, taxis, short haul delivery, regions with serious local air quality issues tied to tailpipe emissions). For those situations it makes sense. Trying to apply it to every scenario, including ones where it is a poor match, or force it on anyone is where the equation falls apart in my opinion. I want anyone for whom it works best to have every ability to obtain it and gain benefit from it. But it wouldn't work at all for my unusual case where distance and conditions make it a poor choice and I don't care to be told that I need to suffer trying to adapt it or should accept it or that the problems I and those in my position see with implementing it are not real. Not any more than I want someone to tell me that a screwdriver is the right tool for torquing a cylinder head. Go ahead and try it if you want but it's plainly not suited and you don't get to be offended when we laugh when it doesn't work out. Others whose operating environments are not suited to an EV won't be interested either. In this self-selecting group of diesel passenger car owners, it makes logical sense there are lot of us holding that view.