I made a similar point in the “red/blue button topic”. Just because an article/paper exists, that does not mean that the paper or the claim that it makes is something that is valid or still current. That’s why “peer reviewing” exists, after all and scientific papers overturn other scientific papers all the time.
So, let’s look into it a bit. 
Three things on that article/paper, for the time being:
Point A
It admits that the EVs need to stay on the road for some time in order to offset their larger “production enviromental footprint”.
I quote:
In fact, Paltsev says, it’s difficult to find a comparison in which EVs fare worse than internal combustion. If electric vehicles had a shorter lifespan than gas cars, that would hurt their numbers because they would have fewer low-emissions miles on the road to make up for the carbon-intensive manufacture of their batteries. Yet when the MIT study calculated a comparison in which EVs lasted only 90,000 miles on the road rather than 180,000 miles, they remained 15 percent better than a hybrid and far better than a gas car.
So, at some unmentioned mileage below 90.000 miles the EVs are not better than a hybrid car (most new cars are hybrid now, so we will stay there). Since it is a 15 percent, let’s say 76500 miles, it is MIT so that’s probably american miles, which means 122792 kilometers.
That’s not a small number and quite a few people swap cars before that number appears in the odometer.
Do note that in the original paper there was this assumption:
We assume a nominal lifetime distance traveled
of 180,000 miles for all powertrains. However,
for certain powertrains, such as BEVs and FCEVs,
component lifetimes for batteries and fuel cells
could differ from vehicle lifetime. If certain
components need to be replaced during the
vehicle lifetime, this affects the emissions from
vehicle production.
…but it is very unclear whether this was taken into consideration in the calculation of this type:
However there is a sensitivity analysis later (so, the numbers of the article you posted probably do not contain those figures), feel free to peruse it:
(them quoting Tesla and BYD, while they are testing Toyota and Honda is quite amusing though).
Point B
The article is from 2022, the insights into the future research that is being quoted is from 2019 and today the emissions and fuel consumption of hybrid cars has improved significantly.
Case in point, I quote the article:
The researchers found that, on average, gasoline cars emit more than 350 grams of CO2 per mile driven over their lifetimes. The hybrid and plug-in hybrid versions, meanwhile, scored at around 260 grams per mile of carbon dioxide, while the fully battery-electric vehicle created just 200 grams
However, a lot of simple hybrid cars today, achieve those 200 grams that the BEV in the article achieves. Here are the specs of a comparable mild hybrid car, the Suzuki Vitara 2026:
It says there 120 grams of CO2/kilometer, which is around 192 grams of CO2/american mile and it has a very reasonable fuel consumption and we know here that Suzuki isn’t lying because our state is basing the taxes of those vehicles on carbon emissions and they check (the state might not care much for safety nor the environment, but ain’t going to lose on taxes, you can bet on that 
) the emissions of each vehicle semi-annually.
The batteries of EVs have also grown larger since then, hence their enviromental footprint might have increased also, since the aforementioned new tech is not here yet. The car mentioned in the test (a Honda Clarity) has a very small range of 90 miles. See here:
https://www.edmunds.com/honda/clarity/2019/review/
The Clarity Electric is battery-powered only. Unfortunately, its driving range is a disappointing 89 miles, which is much less than the range of other EVs such as the Chevrolet Bolt and the Nissan Leaf.
Funny enough, if you look in used car sales websites, that car no longer exists.
Wikipedia also says that this was car that:
The all-electric Clarity EV with a 25.5 kWh battery has 143 km (89 mi) of range,[28] and is only available for a three-year lease (US$199/month with US$899 down) for residents of California or Oregon.
So, ironically enough, the cars the research chose never came anywhere near 76500 miles and today only its plug-in hybrid version exists, and the BEV version seems to have gone to scrap/recycling. The best I could find was this which says that those cars where scrapped and had a very short lifespan and someone claims that at least the batteries of the one he had leased went to some solar farm (presumably upstate 
).
@trohde That doesn’t sound very enviromental to me and it turns out that even modern mild hybrid cars do have low emissions equivalent to the number presented in the paper for older BEVs, so the “environment question” is not easily answered.
Point C
Now, you’d think that a very small range means very small batteries, which conveniently means much much less initial enviromental production cost.
However, things are actually worse than that since the paper blunders on:
So, here is what they did. The numbers for those types come from older references (2015 and 2017 see P.S.) and do not correspond to the actual emmisions that were produced by the vehicles of the research!!! 
In case of the BEV, they specify that “BEV manufacturing emissions are based on BEVs with a range of ~265 miles and a lithium cobalt oxide battery with capacity of ~85 kWh” while using a Honda Clarity that doesn’t have those specs!
I googled it and I am not sure that the Clarity even had a “lithium cobalt oxide battery”, Honda simply called them “Advanced lithium-ion batteries with 25.5-kWh capacity” in their official announcements of the car.
Also if you look it up “Quia et el 2017” is all about Chinese EV production cars in 2017 (unlike today where Chinese cars are very popular, the Chinese auto industry EV or otherwise was not top-notch at 2017) while Honda and Toyota are Japanese brands! 
So, the table is at the very least populated with data that have nothing to do with the particular cars themselves. They begin exclaiming how fair the comparison of those two models are, and then go ahead and fill the actual values with generic numbers from other vehicles and other brands.
That doesn’t sound very scientific to me…
P.S.
Just for fun, I went to check what the source for “Emissions from vehicle manufacturing are from a Nealer, Reichmuth, and Anair (2015)” was and what that paper was saying.
Turns out, that as far as I can tell, it is not a peer-reviewed paper, but a report by a group called “unioned of concerned scientists”.
“Heywood and MacKenzie (2015)” is also not a paper, but a report actually focused on even earlier tech cars: “Quantifying efficiency technology improvements in U.S. cars from 1975–2009” 
Now what do “cars from 1975-2009” have to do with the emissions of HEV/PHEV/BEV/FCEV cars in 2019 when that paper was authored, well, please let me know if anyone can come up with the answer to that.
) and manage to find a charger at your destination (and wait for it to charge) or else you won’t be able to return home.
