Because the grid is not 100% renewable, and even renewables have some carbon cost. That line of thought is what crypto bros and AI idiots often use to justify wasting energy. It's always better to reduce our energy consumption.

Renewable energy also requires mining, processing, production, waste management... It's still a waste to use energy as if it is free, it never is and never can be, all energy usage has a footprint on the planet.

Norwegians and Icelanders need to stop showing off all their hydro and low population density.

Most countires won't be able to scale up their electricity generation by like 20-50% or so (to accomodate a large switch of transportation energy) without burning a lot more fossil fuel. Or building many large nuclear plants. Or damming up and flooding several large valleys. Fossil fuel is still the cheapest fastest and easiest way to scale up electricity generation - and ramping up the duty cycle of existing power stations is the easiest in the short term.

Maybe if each EV came with enough additional solar and batteries to offset their electricity consumption (especially at peak). This'd increase the costs a fair bit but it'd make them much better for net greenhouse gas emissions.

Note that even in an era of fairly rapidly increasing renewables - from 1980s to now - the overall share of renewables in global electricity generation has not increased much, 25-30% ish last time I looked.

This is because new demand has always come along to offset the new renewable electricity generation. This will continue with electrification of transport, heating, plus all this ai and server farms and stuff, add in general population growth and economic development - I don't believe the world is going to be able to grow renewables anywhere near fast enough to keep up with all that. Not without some cold fusion type technology leap.

Come on nobody is that dense. You have to be trolling