If you've going to copy and paste your posts from elsewhere on the internet, the least you could do is to remove the "’" from every other line, as it makes things very difficult to read.
A few notes:
That Ontario plant was there long before the Prius was even a twinkle in a designer's eye (like... the early 1900s, to be specific), and provides nickel and other materials to many companies across much of the world. Toyota does buy their nickel from there, but it's not single-handedly responsible for the damage, as many Prius-haters seem very keen to point out.
In addition, the damage of which you speak was done long before the Prius was invented too - as far back as the 1960s. It's just that - unsurprisingly - the anti-Prius lot decided that since the Prius uses nickel in its batteries, it must be responsible for the 1960s-70s destruction. Obviously.
And well done you for picking the figure "1,000 tons" from the internet, but there's plenty of evidence elsewhere on the internet to suggest that Toyota buys a mere 1% of the plant's output. Making this:
...largely irrelevant. You almost certainly have several items in your household that use more nickel than a Toyota battery pack.
While we're on the subject of unresearched rubbish, I'd also take issue with your comment that electricity for EVs "comes from the coal stations anyway".
That depends
entirely on where you live. Where I live, coal makes up
less than a third of the energy mix. And since you give your location as London, the same applies to you. Possibly less, depending on your energy supplier.
A full list is here.
Even in U.S. states like North Dakota, which are almost 100% coal as far as I'm aware, it's a very close-run thing as to which is cleaner between an electric car and a regular gasoline one. There's an interesting discussion on the relative CO2 levels
here.
In California, coal is something like less than 10%, which is less than the state gets from renewables. Natural gas is the main energy source to my knowledge, which isn't perfect, but it's still cleaner than burning gasoline. And in Cali, many early adopters also use solar power anyway, at which point their use of fossil fuels is nominal.
And lets not forget, whatever your burning and in whatever quantity, EVs are physically more efficient than anything with an internal combustion engine. An electric motor is generally more than 90% efficient, where a
good petrol engine is around the 40% mark.
Whatever you're burning to make that electricity, more of it is going to actually moving you down the road. You could be burning litters of puppies and it'd be more efficient.
Regarding everything else,
Sam48 summed it up:
Essentially,
we don't know, but saying that fractions of a percent don't potentially make a difference is a load of tosh. Any change makes some sort of difference, whether it's natural or man made. We're just yet to categorically determine whether the current changes are natural or man made.