I think "bad tradeoffs" is the term you're looking for. If you think the negative outcome has infinite negative value, there's not really a lot that can be said to that as it becomes a Pascal's wager.

If you don't acknowledge any of the tradeoffs involved in pollution and instead just make a point about harm in a vacuum, it's hard to know how to consider it.

No, I think everyone recognises tradeoffs here and your belief that I'm creating a dichotomy is unwarranted. I'm addressing distorted perception of the parameters of tradeoffs.

Like the overwhelming exceptionalism of how we all care about the environment and the future health of our children... just don't take our gas-guzzling cars and non-stick pans way!

We are not rational beings, but we so deeply believe we are.

Im on my 4th electric car, every single one has been remarkable in terms of cost, build quality, innovation etc.

If the cybertruck was out a year earlier, I suspect I know a few people driving "gas guzzling" trucks that would have bought that instead, because it would have been cheaper, faster, and in almost every measurable and unmeasurable quality, better.

Why do you think people will forever hold on to ICE? It strikes me that electric cars are a step change in almost every way, maybe the reason people still have ICE is they didnt have a compatible electric alternative at the time.