From start to finish, ICE compared to EV, wouldn't the total energy expended and environmental impact just wind up being the same ?
No, why would you think that, I don't understad your reasoning. They are two fundamentally different technologies.
Like saying "what difference does it make if I eat lettuce, or lasagne, both are food so must be the same!"
To produce and use ICE fuel, you have to extract it from the earth, put it through expensive refining processes, put in additives and so forth, deal with the waste products, ship the fuel around in big ships which themselves burn even dirtier fuel distribute it to retail locations in tanker trucks, fill up vehicles, and burn it producing various rather unpleasant emissions.
To produce and use EV fuel, you have to harvest energy much of which is available in on human scales infinite and clean forms, the main one of which being literally light from a star, feed it through wires, plug in your vehicle to charge some batteries, and convert it into kinetic energy and eventually to heat.
Yes I didn't account for manufacturing of the battery and power stations... or the car, refineries, drilling rigs, ships, emissions control, climate impact, loss of food producing land to biofuels...
This "it's all the same" is a classic, and ridiculous trope of the anti-ev-at-any-cost crowd, "but but but where does your electricity come!" or "but but but making batteries has evironmental impact!" or "but but but what are you going to do when the batteries are worn out!".
It is complete nonsense.