I'm not paying $40 to read the first, but the numbers in the second match my napkin estimations, so I assume it's pretty reasonable in its conclusions.

However, there are other considerations. For instance, if you don't drive much and have a reasonably efficient ICE, continuing to use your existing vehicle may give you the opportunity to wait for EV manufacturing and operation emissions to drop significantly.

I spent some time outlining some formulas to determine the ideal break even points when accounting for multiple factors like vehicle lifespan and rate of efficiency increase but the math got... complicated pretty quickly. And that's before taking into account the non GHG impacts of EV manufacturing.

Suffice to say, it's certainly not as simple as "always drive your ICE into the ground", but it's also not as simple as "everyone should switch ASAP". For many people with relatively efficient ICEs it can very well be worth it to wait maybe 5-10 years for the next generation of batteries to become widespread.

Your study is locked behind a paywall :(

For a fun comparison, I usually run the numbers for our 2004 Audi A2 with biodiesel (HVO100) against the most efficient electric vehicles, based on Swedish grid emissions and then US emissions.

The Audi runs at 4L/100km (real world numbers) x 256g/L (compensated emissions according to Neste) = 1024g/100km

Versus the Hyundai Ioniq 6 (current most efficient EV according to mestmotor in real world testing) with a consumption of 15.5kWh/100km * 41g/kWh (Sweden according to ourworldindata) * 1.15 (charging losses) = 730.8g/100km.

For the US that's 15.5kWh/100km * 369g/kWh *1.15 = 6577.4g/100km.

So compared to a US EV our car runs with a whopping 6th of the real emissions. Assuming the same production impact that your article linked it would take 11tons*10000000grams/(1024-730.8)grams/km = 37517 kilometers