EV's are a good idea, but more people need to understand that they're not a panacea. In many ways, we're just shifting the cost of environmental destruction onto the third-world, in terms of destructive mining practices required in the production of the batteries. Likewise, the toxic components of the batteries remain toxic indefinitely, unlike nuclear waste, which continues to not only be more and more re-usable, meaning less is produced, but also has a defined time-span after which it is no longer hazardous. This is a challenge with EV's as well as with solar and wind power generation, because in order to allow for 24/7 power distribution, we'll need more and better batteries (this doesn't address the other issues such as scalability.) These problems have to be addressed so that we're not just substituting one environmental problem for another.
That said, EV's are a step in the right direction, because we've got to get emissions under control. We shouldn't need to be burning any fossil fuels except on a very small scale. I don't see jet aircraft being able to operate without fossil fuels yet, not without some huge advance in technology, and we'll still need petroleum for plastics manufacture, but if we can eliminate the emissions from ground vehicles and power generation, that would be a huge step in the right direction. (Of course, I will continue to insist that nuclear must be a part of this conversation, but it gets terrible, and almost always unwarranted, press.)