There are 8 billion humans on earth. Any one person's consumption habits isn't going to move the needle, unless you're globetrotting on your own large jet plane. It's a lot like voting; my individual vote won't do anything but when millions of people all march in the same direction, it matters.
But I'm not encouraging you to make a decision that makes little financial sense (if anything, I would discourage that). My point is that it's wrong to say only 7% of the problem is too marginal to try to fix; and because the problem is too "big" or now too "expensive" to fix, humanity just has to accept its pending doom.
I'll be dead before severe climate change will come home to roost, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't care about the future generations that will get left holding the bag.
We need affordable BEVs, and from a public policy standpoint, I think it will one day make sense to allow the Chinese to enter western markets IF they aren't cheating.* Autos are expensive enough already and the only thing that restrains prices in a market system is
healthy competition. We're still in the early days where the legacy manufacturers aren't really serious about BEVs, and still consider them luxury products that demand higher prices.
* I don't believe banning them "forever" would be prudent, nor do I support their "dumping below cost" or IP theft business models. I haven't read it yet, but the NYT recently had an article about where China is going:
Stressing science education, China is outpacing other countries in research fields like battery chemistry, crucial to its lead in electric vehicles. From a report: China's domination of electric cars, which is threatening to start a trade war, was born decades ago in university laboratories in...
news.slashdot.org