should be
The critical goal is to further reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.
Thus if you want to ever get to zero, you need to electrify the transport.
We can produce synthetic fuel, but it will be very hard to reach the kind of volumes we have for fossil fuels, hence synthetic fuels should only be used for long range trucks, airplanes etc.
All transport that can be electric should be electric. Transportation make up the bulk of CO2 emissions, so if you don't turn most of it electric, there is no way to get down to zero CO2 emissions.
You can bring the net environmental impact of CO2 to zero by using a fuel with a carbon neutral cycle, such as biofuels; if you are regrowing as much source material as you are consuming, there is no net emission.
> Thus if you want to ever get to zero, you need to electrify the transport.
Individually, no, but practically, for most transport in use, probably.
Those have been tried and found competing with food production and forest land (which we also need to keep CO2 locked up). Currently they're not a viable strategy as things stand. Perhaps this might change in the future, but the path is not clear. For EVs on the other hand the path is more well defined.
necessary, but not sufficient.
There is absolutely no conflict of goals here. The faster we can transition the better.
The critical goal is to further develop electric cars so they become the obvious choice for consumers.
As we go from a few million EVs to tens of millions, it is of course important to move towards cleaner electricity.