"They do a great job at moving pollution out of densely populated cities"

I'll give the speaker some credit for saying that, EV move pollution elsewhere - and that they still pollute.

But, how many people live in places that are so dense that the air is affected by too many cars driving around?

An argument that polution needs to be moved out of cities is only true for a small select number of cities around the world.

There are "low pollution zones" for that - Where that argument makes any sense, that tax was already imposed on the people!

"The problem of climate change (...) is believed to be caused by increasing CO2 levels"

Well, Throughout history no CONCRETE coloration has been found between CO2 levels and temperature.

I know lobbyists and fanatics like to lie and show a cropped graph, but in a real scientific long term perspective:

Furthermore, we are living in one of the COOLEST times during earth's existence, temperatures naturally fluctuate.

So what's so special about this time? We do not know the exact rate it happened previous times, but we know it will happen - no matter if we add anything to the atmosphere or don't.

"Many of it is from cars and trucks..."

Oh really? what percentage. a few precent, of which 40% are absorbed back by existing SINKS.

We'll get back to this guys misunderstanding of sinks soon.

"A horse pollutes as much CO2 as a Corvette (...) Even though a horse breathes out CO2 into the atmosphere, that CO2 is absorbed by plants and converted back into oxygen - so it's in a cycle it doesn't increase (...) a car isn't in a cycle so it's increasing"

Every single statement here is wrong.

First of all, with animals CO2 levels do increase his whole statement is just flat out wrong.

CO2 levels aren't static by them selves, there isn't a feedback loop - there's nothing to this argument.

But just for the sake of showing how ridiculous this guy is,

Let's ASSUME that as if he wasn't just utterly completely wrong.

If a sink can absorb X amount of CO2 converted by horses (as he claims)

There's no reason plants wouldn't absorb the same X amount covered by cars.

A horse pollutes CO2, using carbon it has got from the ground (soil 80%, though plants 40%) a car does the same also through carbon it has got from the ground (petrol is 87% carbon). Literally no difference, same carbon, less pollution - same sinks.

Even if the claim he bases it upon wouldn't be ridiculous - he's still just not correct about basic chemistry.

"When you plug your EV in you're probably producing CO2, it's just not being measured (...) To understand if it's worse, we need to look at how much emissions are produced through out the life of the vehicle"

Yea, emissions, beyond CO2. 

The National Academy of science has found that

If the US adds an additional 10% EVs, 1,617 people MORE will die from the air pollution.

Compared to 10% petrol cars (MUCH MORE CARS), less than HALF the pollution related deaths would happen.

The clean burning engine in your car, is significantly cleaner than most power-plants.

And that's just the electricity production, lithium mining, and many other actives cause even more deaths.

"Comparing a 400 mile range electric vehicle, (...) over it's expected lifetime it has emitted more CO2 than the conventional vehicle"

Not necessarily true - but yea if we include additional pollution it has created, it has definitely done more harm than good.

"At low speeds when the engine is inefficient (...)"

The speakers on the correct track but his misunderstanding of simple mechanics is laughable, wait until he learns about gears.

It has to do more with other factors.

"Wind and solar"

Ask Germany how that's going - the dealer in renewables.

A place where even before it became clear that they're 100% dependent on natural resources there was ENERGY POVERTY - it just costs too much, and is unreliable - no matter how many turbines and panels they added they still found themselves running their conventional power plants because of how unreliable the wind and the sun is. wasted the peoples money, made everyone poorer and did nothing for the environment.

The only real cost effective, reliable, "renewable" way is nuclear - but the green will never admit that.

Anyway, the speaker is among the weakest I've seen in a while - 

The point that hybrids are a good option for the environmentally cautious - sure, they can get a Prius.

but everything else around it? oh boy.