There is nothing wrong with electric as a means of propulsion, but yes current battery technologies are questionable in terms of how they are produced and recycled. The problems with battery production etc still apply to hybrids as do the problems with the source of electric generation. Did they take in the emissions of servicing and replacement parts on ICE engines?
I don't think batteries are great, it's what we have and personally prefer to see hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, but that requires green hydrogen generation and distribution to be put in place, which sadly are not there in this country.
As for TED talks, I'm not one for them.
They don't appear to require rigerous evidence (not that there is for all of this subject) nor do they appear to require a declaration of vested interests. Many presenters on many subjects seem to have a vested interest, so using a TED talk as fact isn't something I would do.
The chap giving the talk you linked to works for this company, who don't have a lot of detail around what they actually do, but are texas based and consult for many industries. As such I'll take it with a pinch of salt.
https://www.swri.org/who-we-are/history#slideshow-2
According to the guys profile they consult for the auto industry (OK so who paid for the research which was used as the basis of data for the talk?)
https://tedxsanantonio.com/2019-fall-speakers/graham-conway/
What's funny to me is the inconsistancies. On one graph electric is lower emissions when you exclude electric CO2, but much higher when you include generation CO2, however hybrid is lower when you add in the same electric (Which is not consistent if electric is bad). The hybrid requires more CO2 to create (not shown on the latter graph) and yet the generation is so bad that the EV is eeeevil, but not the hybrid, where electric improves things.
This is also based on burning coal, gas and oil to generate electric (which just doesn't happen elsewhere to the same extent). If you look at his profile he states that 64% of the fuel comes from fossil fuel in the US. So where are the data souces and what percentages would be replaced if for example you looked at other countries that are not hitched to coal/oil for electric.
I mean if you look at this data from the UK from 2016 it was only around 50% then, and most of that was gas, which is far cleaner than coal and oil.
https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/our-work/generation/electricity-generation.html
The UK has improved it's mix since 2016 then and even a drop from 64-54% would drastically change the graphs.
https://www.edie.net/renewable-generation-overtakes-fossil-fuels-in-uk-electricity-for-first-time/
So now we're at around 40% and dropping, which again changes the graphs.
But what about people who use home solar and the chargers with solar on the roof? Again that's going to change the mix.
Just looking at the talk and the profiles, which don't match. For example from the profile....
But the graph during that talk shows something else in terms of the miles needed to break even, pretty much double and then some. So which is wrong?
I do agree emissions of manufacturing is a big deal, but at least for EV production it's come down a lot very quickly as people are using solar to power plants.
That of course can apply to any manufacturing, but I know EV makers are doing this.
Again power generation mix is a big deal too, but using the US, where the supreme court just ruled the EPA can't make states reduce emissions as it would affect the states and the power, coal and oil companies in those states shows it's a bad example.
As renewables and other low CO2 generation goes up and where people generate their own electric, it's going to be much better.
In terms of ICE vehicles, did they include the embedded costs of surveying and locating oil, simulation of the wells, extraction, refining, transport of the fuel or just the CO2 from burning it?
They don't actually say, which is where my issue comes. If you're going to make points at a public talk, provide data so it can be peer reviewed.