[embee]

I agree with Ruffy above, the use of battery vehicles in the right environment makes huge sense. However there is also a good argument for not getting rid of fossil fuel IC engines in certain applications, at least not as some blanket prohibition anyway.
The heavy goods transport business is a good candidate to continue with the diesel engine for some time to come. A Tesla battery weighs in at 500kg, a battery for a 40+tonne LGV would be in the region of 4tonnes to get a decent range, which means a loss of potential payload and thus increased number of vehicles (in theory). Also the charging power requirement for a truck park overnight would be monumental, you're into significant proportions of a power station output to charge a few dozen trucks in 8hrs. A large truck diesel being used on long-haul trips is pretty efficient (CO2 per tonne.mile), and the national generating efficiency would have to be improved very substantially to make significant gains in CO2, so why not just accept the use of diesel for LGVs for the forseeable future and concentrate on other more cost effective areas. Ban diesels from urban areas and use electric delivery locally, no issues there.
Again on the CO2 count, it's all well and good doing the sums for the UK, Scandinavia or France for example where we have relatively low CO2 electricity generation, but places like China, India, even Germany/Poland, have pretty high CO2/kWh electricity generation while still using coal, so they aren't saving CO2 with BEVs. It might well save toxic pollution in cities however, where it really is a horrendous problem, like Beijing etc.
The choice of energy source for vehicles really is only a matter of practicality, starting from scratch you probably wouldn't think that burning HC in a vehicle is a particularly smart idea, all that heat and fluids to deal with. Electricity is so much simpler if you can sort the storage/supply of energy to the vehicle (dodgems anyone?).