400 mile electric RV

I say OK, what yardstick should I use to measure the degree I am saving the planet? Elites tell us it is all about the reduction of the planet's GHG Emissions.

What yardstick do you use to justify keeping your ICE? You can keep using that yardstick - no one is going to come to your house and take your ICE car.

I say OK, to compare the many BEVs in the marketplace, what is the breakeven/carbon parity (in miles) for said BEVs? And all I hear is the sound of Jiminy Crickets.

You posted one study from Volvo, which was based on the relatively inefficient BEV XC40 (79 MPGe vs 140 MPGe for the Tesla Model 3).Here's what Tesla's report says:

The manufacturing process of a Model 3 currently results in slightly higher GHG emissions than an equivalent combustion engine vehicle. However, based on the global weighted average grid mix, a Model 3 has lower lifetime emissions than an equivalent ICE after driving 5,340 miles

If reducing GHG Emissions is NOT the goal (selecting a BEV that reaches carbon parity the soonest), then what is? Hmmmm....could it be all about money (power)?

How about operating cost? Emissions (even if you don't care about CO2, there are other emissions like Nitrous Oxide and particulates)?

But for as little as your wife drives, she should drive her S430 into the ground, before shopping around for a new car.

Government Subsidy games remind me of the old Robin Hood philosophy (redistribution of wealth). Except, the diminishment of wealth falls on those who can not afford to buy BEVs.

Subsidies only apply to manufacturers that are new to EV's, the most popular (Tesla and GM) have already sold so many EV's that they are no longer subisdized, and they are still cost effective and popular cars.