I think we're mostly on the same page. Many large cities in the US now have plans to get to net zero. The blueprint is pretty straightforward -- it's pretty much 1/3 buildings (including industry), 1/3 transportation, and 1/3 electricity generation. Everything else is a rounding error. Reducing the number of car trips is worth about 2-3x the CO2 savings vs. transitioning to EVs. Much easier to do in big cities. I wish someone would come up with a good carshare system (possibly if we figure out autonomous vehicles) so that the average person no longer needs to own their own car. That could result in a significant reduction in car manufacturing.
Assuming we're aiming for 2050 net zero, then if all new cars are EVs by the 2030-2035 range (which we're on pace for), then the ICE vehicles will be pretty much gone in the US by 2050. China is way ahead of us in that 25% of their new car sales are EVs already. China is also way ahead of us in solar. It helps that these transitions follow exponential curves.
The mining and waste stuff feels like whataboutism that comes straight out of the playbook of the oil companies. It's nontrivial but it's not big enough of a deal to stop the transition. The recycling market will clearly emerge as more EVs age out and there is more supply of used batteries available. Remember when China stopped accepting our recyclables about 5 years ago? That problem has been largely solved already.
I agree on carbon capture, this will probably be for big single source emission sources like concrete manufacturing. If we get good at carbon capture (for cheap), it represents a potential pathway to getting negative CO2 emissions which would be useful if we shoot up to 2.5 or 3 C and need to quickly get back down to 1-1.5 C. Fortunately the climate responds quickly to emissions reductions.