Thanks for sharing. Some thoughts:
2. "If you could extend the life of these scooters, if you had more rugged scooters or better anti-vandalism policies stretching the life, then those materials would serve more purposes, cover more miles with the scooter riders and then the per-mile impact would drop."
Right. These things have been in the public for less than a decade. Car manufacturing also changed the horse and cart by adding an engine. Much has changed since 1900, and in modern times it has been changing on a steep curve since. Here, we're taking about a per mile GHG reduction of 50% on day 1 compared to the predominant mode. Better bearings, better designs, better batteries, will come etc.. Meanwhile entire governments are counting on the electrification of cars to take the edge off a giant beast over our shoulder; this mode starts at half that and we don't want to give it a shot? See below.
3. "His team conducted a survey of scooter users in Raleigh and found 49 per cent would have biked or walked if they didn't have access to a scooter; 34 per cent would have used a car or ride-hailing service; 11 per cent would have taken a bus and seven per cent wouldn't have bothered at all."
Of course. I am not sure anyone is suggesting a direct "hm, which one will I take today the car or the scooter" style replacement. Someone regularly driving for a trip over the distance a scooter covers? That's quite odd. In the 7km-5km category a bike is far more realistic and comfortable. In the 7km-15km territory, you'd be looking at an e-bike. In the 1-3km territory is likely where (correct me if I am wrong) the scooters really kick-in. But what's actually missing here is an understanding of trip chaining and how human behaviour works. Its about options.. This is similar to the lifestyle change transportation GHG reduction method in my comment above. What you would actually need to properly study this, imo, is ask whether the transportation habits over time changed for people with access to scooters vs. people who do have access within comparable built environments. Because an e-scooter is a tool in the arsenal. Want to ban escooters based on the fact that they arent quite as good as bikes? Fine. Sure. We can be idealistic. But unless a legislative package includes a ban on cars at the same time, its highly prejudiced.
4. "But the biggest cost, he said, is moving the scooters around. Every day, people have to drive around, pick up dead scooters, bring them to charging stations, and then distribute them around the city."
So the actual biggest environmental factor is moving the scooters around by car, eh? Wow. The hypocrisy of that statement. As though alternatives to automobiles for delivery don't exist. I'll give you one step that would immediately cut out a bug another big chunk: moving them around by cargo bike - or e-cargo bike. Without Googling it, I am gonna wager that companies are already doing this in places with good cycling infrastructure. And part of creating an ecosystem where you are likely to have cargo bikes roaming around, you need to encourage shorter travel distances, more trip chains that include micro-mobility, etc. etc. etc. the same thins an e-scooter helps do. ...Lost in all this is the fact that e-scooters aren't just about sharing. Why would we ever not want someone to own and use one. Bylaws that discourage their use and prevent the sharing companies from expanding also scoop these folks up in their net.