This has been covered in the threads of this forum, but it all gets lost in the soup. I'll try to post a cohesive summary of the info when I have more time. It's been interesting. For now, my quick take is this:
Environmentally speaking, EVs are pretty clean and getting cleaner, but there is still pollution associated with them, including upstream sources. Harder to quantify is impact of securing materials (like cobalt), making the infrastructure more robust, ect.
The current US grid doesn't use much coal anymore. Other non-renewables, like natural gas, are much less polluting and dominate US energy production. Some states have a cleaner balance than others, and renewables are a fast growing share of energy production. Some states are even committed to have renewables be the dominant or only contributor.
Even as it stands right now, even in the most coal-heavy grids in the US, the emissions generated to power EVs is far less than the pollutants that would otherwise come out of tailpipes. Some people claim that's not true in some places, but the available data doesn't seem to support those claims.
The sources for this data has mostly been posted in these threads. Again, the soup. I'll try to compose it later.
At present, sure, hypothetically. In reality there is no impingement right now. Only a rhetorical one. The most aggressive plans are 10 years out, just for new cars, and only in some states.
With a cleaner grid and more of the EV downsides addressed, I don't think peoples' ability to travel by car will be impinged, much if at all. It'll look a little different though. More convenient in some ways, probably less convenient in others. Probably cheaper and easier in the long run, but there will be some growing pains and anxiety.
It's not purely political. Certainly not for me. But everyone seems to be working with their own preferred facts from their own preferred sources.
I'd agree that nobody's right to travel is currently impinged. The concern for many is that EV mandates will amount to a significant impediment on people's freedom to travel. I think it's a valid concern. And no...Ships, trains busses and ride shares are not an acceptable concession. Nor should they be.
In my opinion those concerns are born of the assumption that society will simultaneously not improve upon the shortcomings and will double down on the mandates. That doesn't sound realistic to me. We are and will continue to mitigate the issues such as EV battery cost, access to charging, range, etc. In ten years, the trip to Portland you reference will look even more like a ICE road trip. In 20 years, near identical.
To repeat, travel by car will likely become more convenient in some ways, probably less convenient in others. Probably cheaper and easier in the long run, but there will be some growing pains. But significantly infringing on peoples freedom of travel by car? Nah. I don't think we'll see that.
@mrfixitman, I find myself agreeing with the the substance of much of what you say, but you really gotta work on your delivery. Are you trying to convince people of something, or just convince yourself that you're right? If convinced the world is going to play out more aligned with your vision than your detractors, perhaps that can inspire some patience. Hubris is corrosive. It's why you have detractors in the first place.
I mean, as of right now, that's pretty much what's going on, though much less aggressive. There's no federal mandate, and the EPA's federal power is being curtailed by the courts. Some states have have a no-new ICE sales by 2035 plan. California is trying to go 100% zero emissions grid by 2045 (not 2035).