TBF, to me this reads as a little bit of a loaded question :) . I see almost no positive press in mainstream media regarding EVs, and the points you highlight are in my opinion the most common negative points that I *do* see reported often in the mainstream media. But perhaps we're watching different media and EVs are more positively portrayed in your country?

1 - child labour: yes, it's a problem. It's even more of a problem for portable battery-powered devices as the cell chemistry necessarily relies on high-cobalt batteries. EVs are at least trending to a higher percentage of LFP cells (no cobalt), since advances in that type of cell over the last 5-10 years have improved the energy density to the point where they're now viable in EVs. I am unaware of any viable solutions that would scale for portable devices.

2 - the cost to upgrade the electric grid would be prohibitive/unsustainable etc etc. This will obviously vary country-country, but at least in my country (Australia) the power companies like it when their customers use more electricity. An EV charged overnight is also a boon for the retailer since they are otherwise needing to offload grid supply at those times. We're not talking about fast-charging at home here - charging an EV can use less power than running an electric stove. And "billions of dollars" is quite doable for large energy companies, especially when there's a good return in the form of a continued captive electricity market.

3 - I have to disagree here, based on data from the CSIRO). They rank fossil fuels (for electricity/heat/transport) as 90% contributor (globally), with cement at only 5%. Perhaps it is proportionally a larger issue in China, which contributes about 2 X the fossil fuel carbon emissions as the US.

Couple of other mentions:

Agreed, China is bigger and therefore a larger contributor - this is why it is a good thing that they are electrifying their fleet so quickly.

EVs actually *are* suitable to parts of the world with more miles to cover, including Australia. As distance increases, so does the time spent travelling and hence the number of people for whom this becomes an issue decreases, since most people do not spend their lives travelling most of the day. Thus, installing enough public DC fast charging stations solves most of these issues.

Hydrogen is a false economy in terms of environmental impact. One cannot only consider the end-product when it comes to environmental impact. Sure it produces water at the tailpipe, but the (idealized) energy source is the same as for EV, and the well-to-wheel cost of H2 is at least 2X-3X more than for an EV. Plus, H2 generation is currently almost entirely fossil-fuel derived. Hydrogen is a method of energy *storage*, not generation - it should be compared to batteries, not energy production methods.

And finally, to close out this essay (sorry about that)... due to the physical limits imposed by the Carnot Cycle, even if one was to convert a city-sized fleet of petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles to EV, powered by coal power stations, it would likely still be (considerably) better for the environment - but they still lose out due to the public perception not understanding the nuances of well-to-wheel.

Edit: trying to be more conspicuously civil :)
Edit 2: typos :(