Thanks for doing that research. I read the summary which is all written in third person and assumed that was the whole article. Less likely to be malicious if it’s just the newspaper’s equivalent of a personal blog…
Petrol / diesel vehicles usually have a longer range than electric… as long as they are topped up.
But to answer your real question, I also wonder what the point of the article is. It seems like the point is to dissuade people from buying EVs and to keep oil companies making as much money as possible. Since we are talking about hypotheticals (she might still buy EV if her family has a petrol car to borrow), why not discuss the hypothetical of a bus / train / car share network that makes a personal vehicle irrelevant?
Edit: maybe I’m just being too cynical but why would someone who’s so passionate about the environment to buy an EV and talk to a reporter about it and her environmental impact miss out a chance to push systematic change? Maybe she’s taken out of context, maybe the whole thing is made up maybe I’m just not understanding enough of other people’s viewpoints
Nowhere does it mention owning a house with a garden. Even if you could own or co-own a flat or a terraced house you wouldn’t have a landlord leeching from you every month.
… Besides, not all 8 billion people live in America