Nowhere in the US is even close to having an energy mix where this is not the case. Why take steps backward and pollute more? Shouldn't we be trying to make strides to reduce emissions?
> the average efficiency of gas heating rose slowly to 86% over the last decade, so that carbon emissions from producing 1 kWh of central heating [using natural gas] fell to 215 grams of CO2 in 2019. However, simple [resistance] electric heaters averaged only 207 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh by the end of 2019
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Carbon_emissions_o...
For new buildings the effect is probably even greater, as you are probably going to choose a heat pump (2-5kW heat output for 1kW electrical input) over resistance heating.
The US averages around 400g CO2 per kWh, so yes maybe resistance heating doesn't make sense, but heat pumps for sure do.
Which is why almost no houses in heating-dominated climates use primarily resistance heating.
Solar panels are built in China, powered by coal and slave labor.
My point is there is no such thing as a free lunch, and a lot of "green" tech is very much not-so at this point.
Put another way, what is the alternative you are proposing for the energy source to manufacture the first wind turbine (at cost and can scale)? You might be able to manufacture a couple of wind turbines with some horses and man power but it will never be cost competitive with fossil fuels unfortunately.
Those also produce CO2 (effectively by burning sugar, more or less), and IIRC generally more of it per unit of useful work than a good fossil-fuel-powered engine.
I think hydro and nuclear are the realistic clean options. Solar and wind are not going to fix our problems.