Your article is pretty terrible, frankly. I have over 120,000 hard miles on one of those lithium batteries, and I still have over 90% of my original capacity. The batteries are continually improving, but frankly, they are now at a price point, energy density, and expected operating life that exceeds internal combustion components and -- more importantly -- the expectations of the average consumer. And we haven't even broached the topic of second-life batteries that are no longer acceptable for automotive use but are very effective for grid-tied energy storage that relieves peaks and stress on the power grid.
The carbon footprint is a bit of a distraction, too. Though EVs have a lower GHG emissions over their operating life (yes, they have "long tail pipes" but ICE vehicles have "longer tail pipes"), the GHG emissions isn't the key environmental advantage EVs have over ICE vehicles. That's actually criterion pollutants. Whether particulate matter, CO, NOx, or whatever other carcinogen or toxin you can think of, EVs emit less. A LOT less.
The transition time is really just making an excuse for laziness. How is it the most compelling EV brand is outselling everyone using 10+ year old technology (e.g., those laptop batteries you were referring to)? It's because they took what already existed and applied capital and effort. What Tesla is doing isn't magic sauce, and every major automaker could match what Tesla is doing. Why don't they? They have no incentive to do so, and in fact, they're still receiving a lot of incentives to do the opposite. Trillions of dollars is being fed into the fossil fuel industry globally, and as a result billions are being poured into infrastructure and support for fossil fuels. Turning off the free money would speed up your transition time exponentially.
Which leads to your point about not enough choices. I actually agree. There aren't enough vehicle choices right now. I have two 20 year old EV pickups sitting on my driveway right now, and what would they require to be a competent EV by today's standards? A new battery. Maybe some cabling and programming. That's it. We don't have the choices we should have as consumers for the same reason the transition is taking so long: Laziness and a lack of profitability.
And that brings me to what is likely your most interesting point. Who should pay? The obvious answer for the energy itself is: EV owners should pay for the energy they consume. When it comes to the actual public charging infrastructure, that's a different question. I'm actually in the minority in the EV community where I look at public chargers the same way as I look at range extenders in plug-in hybrid electrics. They are a necessary evil that I don't think will be required long term. The reason I am in the minority in the EV community is because a number of people believe that we should all be fine with small batteries, short range, and fast charging. That might work for city folk, but it doesn't work for most other people. As battery technology and self-charging technology (e.g., PV solar panels) improve, EVs will become nearly autonomous from the public charging infrastructure.
So, in my opinion, in the short term, EV owners should help fund the public charging infrastructure by buying more battery capacity than they need to get through their day-to-day routine. This alleviates pressure on the public charging infrastructure, and it reduces the funding required for the public charging needed to spur EV adoption (again, though, those subsidies are still a drop in the bucket compared to the tax dollars spent propping up the fossil fuel industry). Mid and long term, business owners need to be paying for publicly accessible charging. Whether that be the automakers themselves who want to incentivize sales or retail and service businesses that benefit directly from the increased traffic that their publicly accessible chargers will draw (coffee shops, convenience stores, grocery stores, hotels, motels, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.).
