[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by Catfish

With ecars alone, it is just that you do not see the exhaust since it is beyond the horizon, in form of coal or other power plants.

While this is technically correct, the same has to be taken into account with combustion engines. When you fill your tank from a pump at the filling station the petrol/gas/diesel already has produced emissions - about 30% of the amount the burning will produce, so usually a combustion engine’s car has a 30% higher emission rate than usually counted. If you count that for electric cars you have to count it for others as well.
Refining and cracking crude oil requires a lot of energy.

The energy loss by electric line resistance over long distances is high

Correct - but crude oil and its products need to be transported as well.

as well the rare earths for the batteries and solar cells are gained by abusing child labour in Africa.

This is misleading in many ways.
1) Critics of electric vehicles usually have no problems with rare materials production for other products, making them hypocrites.
2) Unless you want to return to hand ranks to start your engine combustion engines require a sizeable amount of rare earth metals as well - the startup engine (Anlasser) is an electric motor with a permanent magnet, usually neodymium based.
3) Lithium Cobaltate (III) based accumulators are already considered third rate. Current generation Lithium accumulators already require far less rare earth metals, and it’s very likely that the next generation of Lithium accumulators won’t require any typical rare earth materials anymore. Things will be even more interesting once sodium- or aluminium based accumulators hit the market.

Add this to the total energy bill to create an electric car with its plastic body (made of oil products) this whole thing is a waste of energy and not sustainable.

Correct, but once again it’s a problem that all cars share - so this is an argument against cars in general. In that regard cars don’t have a future in general (and that’s what really needs to be discussed).

Hydrogen would be better, but again the energy needed to produce it has to come from somewhere, and it is unsustainable..

Hydrogen has a very low density, and a car simply won’t be able to transport enough of it to achieve an acceptable range. Even if pressurised up to 700bar the amount won’t be anywhere near enough (and 700bar are a real technical problem, your average gas bottle is built for 200bar max. Making 700bar gas bottles shock resistant enough to survive your average accident impact while maintaining an acceptable overall mass of the vehicle is simply not possible).