Thing is, this is based on theoretical models which are most certainly based on perfectly running, brand new vehicles of each type. In the real world, poorly maintained ICE vehicles rule the road, and would almost certainly result in higher carbon emissions than stated above.

EVs are a different story. First off, they are much easier to maintain (basically keep your tires inflated properly) than regular ICE vehicles. Second, they result in one source of emissions, not each vehicle being its own source, making for easier regulation, treatment, carbon sequestrations, etc... Third, in the US each consumer can select their power provider. Choose a renewable (wind, hydro) provider and pay a few cents more per KWH, but contribute NOTHING to the CO2 problem.

So don't use this kind of unrealistic graph to dismiss EVs in favor of even the most fuel efficient ICE. When Tesla releases their $40K sedan in 2 years, do whatever you can to buy one and show the big automakers that they better get off their complacent fat asses (yes Toyota too).

Yep, and as battery tech becomes better (mostly because of the R&D of the electronics sector - laptops, cell phones, PDAs, etc), EVs will improve. I've read some quite interesting things about how nano-scale battery catalysts can soon help (some are already on the market in DeWalt (?) cordless drills) make batteries better (I read that in a Nature article, but details are fuzzy).

By the time EVs have a range of 400 miles per charge, and they can charge 1500 times before significant battery performance loss, that's 1500 x 400 = 600,000 miles. Even at half that, conservatively, that's more than most ICEs, and then the batteries are just recycled. Neat.

Some things to consider:

1. The study assumes that all of the materials except those parts that specifically determine if the vehicle is gasoline or electric-powered are identical. I hope that an EV manufacturer would know that many EV consumers won't want petrochemical foams in their seats, nor perhaps as MUCH material as goes into very large ICE vehicles.

2. It is not clear from the review if the researchers assume that the "life cycles" of the various vehicles are identical. Presumably a vehicle without the hot, exposed chassis and drivetrain of an ICE or hybrid vehicle will be less succeptible to corrosion and other mechanical difficulties, and could therefore have a longer life to make use of the initial energy investment (though this consideration does not significantly affect the energy involved in battery production).

3. This is a bit of apples an oranges, but the relative usefulness and usage patterns of these vehicles should be a consideration as well. I currently own a standard ICE vehicle, but I also own a bicycle. I drive my car perhaps once or twice a week, and suffer some inconveniences for it. On the one hand, this means that my ICE footprint is relatively lower than the chart would suggest, because the CO2 output in production was low, and I'm not using much gasoline. If I had an EV, however, I would probably drive it far more often, at least insofar as road congestion is not a factor. I would have the convenience of immediate, swift, safe, dry, and warm/cool transportation at any time and at a rather low cost on a per-mile basis (battery replacement being too distant and removed an environmental and financial cost to be considered on a trip-by-trip basis). So, how would you use each of these types of vehicles, and how would that affect the relative benefits of each type?