Why does everyone seem to think 'damage to the environment' is some scale with intensity that can be mitigated by simply removing or lowering some kind of damage.

This ignores the kind of damage being caused. In the case of the article, they're talking about chemical runoff from lithium mines into waterways.

Just because you stop burning fossil fuels, doesn't mean those waterways are going to magically stop being polluted, or that the pollution in those waterways won't have drastic effects on ecosystems.

Every time we damage the planet, we damage it. Polluting waterways on one side of the world won't be mitigated by curbing fossil fuel addiction elsewhere.

Everything in life is a compromise. If you can damage waterways a bit while preventing the thermal runoff which renders most tropical areas uninhabitable, it might be the lesser evil you'd have to choose.

A lesser evil is an evil nevertheless, it's true. But being lesser, it's easier to overcome later.

It sounds like, at the present, we're trading (local pollution in lithium- and cobalt-rich areas and landfills) for (local pollution in oil- and gas-rich areas and logistic networks, and global pollution from exhaust). At the present, batteries are beneficial in terms of global warming; but probably a wash in terms of pollution from resource extraction. OTOH, it appears that progress is being made towards the recycling of lithium batteries. If that situation improves, the impact of resource extraction will diminish but not vanish.

It's also a problem with windmill turbines. There's no end-cycle in progress so many of the decommissioned turbine blades are moved to the landfill. I bet there's something incredibly strong and lightweight materials can be used for but so far many are trash.

We used to burn wood and mine for coal, then drilled for oil, then fracking for gas, and now mining lithium. The environmental problems are still there but the consumer side sounds "greener" with each iteration. Personally, I find the idea of replacing all cars with electric cars to be backwards. Why when you can use this as a turning point to reduce dependence on personal vehicles and pursue alternatives?