Coming straight from "unless 100% of people abstain 100% I'm not calling it change"-folks. There's significant shifts in both of these issues. Meat more so, or leading ahead compared to cars, but the fact that some people aren't going to drop one or either doesn't change anything about that.

So maybe efforts to reduce the impact of those kinds of things aren’t necessarily wasted.

Not only are they not wasted, they are absolutely necessary. What's important to understand is, however, that large parts of the negative impact of cars aren't affected by EVs at all. It's not just internal combustion engine exhaust pollution, it's the waste of space, gigatons of asphalt for roads and parking, microplastics from rubber tires driven endless miles by a billion people, traffic congestions and the never-ending demand for another lane to fix them, ""cities"" sprawling out so far that everything is too far to get to by any means other than driving, pedestrian (if such a thing even still exists in your neck of the woods) safety, noise, socioeconomic factors such as the high upkeep costs vs low-income population who are reliant on a car in a car dependant world, ...

We have to transition to EVs either way, but it's not going to fix anything meaningful. And that's just the neutral outlook, a real danger we're facing is that through car manufacturers' greenwashing that is already in full swing, we coax ourselves to a good eco conscience over our no-emissions cars and continue growing the dependency, which would eventually increase the impact. The only real way of reducing the impact is by reducing cars and car dependency where it's possible. And people are, very slowly, waking up to the fact that this is more often the case than they were led to believe by lobby driven media and politics of the last 60 years.