I agree with your posting.
Thus, I would say electric vehicles, powered my mechanisms as close to direct solar and nuclear energy as is possible, safe, globally-deployable, and economical, in that order of evaluation.
Every other vehicle type seems to have too high a carbon-cost for the results attained (e.g., our individual and group convenience in our way of life, our thriving, our sustainment, our survival in an increasingly crowded world). This high cost comes from eventually having to clean up our production bi-products, or else begin to irreparably damage many species on a planetary scale, including our own, and perhaps perish.
I would describe it as follows. Count the number of "conversion" steps from the natural source (e.g., sun, wind, soil, sea, volcanic/geo-thermal, geologic hydrocarbon, nuclear forces) to the delivery of the results we value (e.g., free vehicle mileage with no maintenance), calculate the collection cost (i.e., collecting, storing, loading into production mechanism such as vehicle) per use, calculate the collection infrastructure/manufacturing and maintenance costs, calculate the greenhouse gas remediation costs (e.g., carbon costs). Plug those into a formula, and see which source/collection/conversion/production/remediation life cycle scenario has the highest overall value to the planet (not to the person, nation, industry, or our species). Note that the greenhouse-gas remediation cost will probably be a dominant factor in determining this value of planetary energy consumption for planetary production.
I would speculate that this formula would show solar and nuclear to be the most efficient energy sources overall, with these also having the least likelihood of disrupting the planetary balance between our needs for production and the planet's need to sustain and enrich itself and us.