I think people are looking at different derivatives.
If you compare the rate of change of emissions, they do continue to rise as new electric vehicles are produced. But, the claim that an EV is more efficient than a regular truck is not a claim about the first derivative, but about the second.
That is, in theory, an EV raises CO2 emissions less than the equivalent truck. That's saying the impact should be visible in the *2nd* derivative being negative, but not necessarily the first.
I suspect there is not in the US (as almost everyone who wants a vehicle has one or two already) but there certainly could be in less vehicle-saturated markets.
When it's a straight 1 over 1 it's easy - for example, if someone were to buy me a Milwaukee M18 lawnmower, I'd be willing to scrap the existing gas one, so it can no longer pollute. If I were to give it away or sell it, it would still be doing whatever it does for someone else.
Yep, that's always a concern, and one of the reasons I framed my response around what the argument was, and what the claim was. I haven't really done enough research to know or feel confident in whether that claim is borne out or holds and the concern you've raised is the major thing that could get in the way.
I was largely just commenting on the disconnect in the discussion that I was observing.
That the real deal is figuring how to reduce the number of vehicles in total.
Is the F150 Lightning better than commuting to work in a deuce and half? Sure. But it is not carbon neutral or negative except when compared to something worse - and there’s always something worse that could be compared.