That's strawman, some electricity use is needed because we depend on it for survival and the rest is various levels of nice to have.
But its use has environmental costs and we are in big trouble with climate change. As long as there is fossil made electricity flowing in the grid, marginal changes in demand can be viewed as contributing to its production, because electricity is fungible (modulo transmission considerations).
That's a fat big POV that very few will take seriously. Being carbon neutral absolutely incentivizes green energy. Making up a wall of insurmountable demands that very few people in this world, except hunter gatherers, can possibly meet does not help but hurts efforts towards CO2 reduction.
Carbon neutrality works by subsidizing the costs of reducing carbon emissions at source. Trying to shit on that makes you regressive, not progressive.
Let's not get too emotional about things and keep to the HN guidelines.
I do understand and somewhat agree with the "perfect is the enemy of good" thinking, but it's still good to be aware and keep outselves honest about the difference between them.
The marginal CO2 perspective is in fact an establilished thing in the industry, see eg [1] [2].
Regarding "insurmountable demands", not sure what you're referring to here, the discussion was about whether there are significant indirect co2 & environmental costs to "carbon neutral" electricity as defined by Google, which I argued there are.
But its use has environmental costs and we are in big trouble with climate change. As long as there is fossil made electricity flowing in the grid, marginal changes in demand can be viewed as contributing to its production, because electricity is fungible (modulo transmission considerations).