Are green energy turbines really green energy producers?

I'm all for green energy. I have a 39-panel array of solar energy that dropped my power bill to 3% of its monthly charge, by annual average before I had therm mounted on my roof. So, the money I'm saving is obvious. However, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, and even nuclear energy turbines are not completely "green" as long as they use petroleum to lubricate their moving parts and to fabricate their plastic parts. And this is the condition of every turbine on earth. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that someone will start marketing AlGoreGooeyJuice before we reach AOC's deadline, now less than ten years out.

Until AlGore's juice is a product, green energy turbines are not green, any more than an electric car that must still use petroleum to lubricate its moving parts and to fabricate its plastic parts. Again, tell me I'm wrong.

So, how green is green? Looking awfully crude to me.

Oils are naturally occurring organic substances and therefore renewable.

Nonetheless,the greater need is the reduction of carbon emissions.

The evolution of renewable technology is what it is, so it's no good expecting overnight solutions. For now we have to accept that green systems will inevitably have to include some less green components.

The earth is bombarded with free energy from the Sun on a daily basis so perhaps our greater efforts should be aimed therein.

Is it? How about the fact that, by geologic record, there have been periods in earth's existence of greater CO2 in the atmosphere than now.

"The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now." https://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

There are several other sources wth the same conclusion. So, if not man, what other sources of CO2 were spewing, then? And still may be contributing? Climate science is 200 years old, at best. And yet, it claims the science is "in." Physics, astronomy, geology, etc, are thousands of years in existence. Thaey don't claim "in." Why does climate? BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN AGENDA. You money, mostly.

Yes, it is. But what, pay tell, is used to convert it to electrical energy? Petroleum. I have 39 solar panels on my roof. There's a lot of plastic up there. There's a production line of raw materials produced by..., and machines that are lubricated by..., a production plant powered by.... and production workers wearing clothes woven with... petroleum. Right now, turn a complete 360, and tell me that wherever you look, you do not see product that follows the previous sentence's list of petroleum involvement. All that is going to be net zeroed in ten years? A wish balloon, my friend, of the fullest order.

The geological record is what it is and pre-human climate events are not relevant to either today or tomorrow, in the context of human society and how humanity will have to adapt to cope with climate change and also how society may or may not have to change in the future.

As far as we humans are concerned the bottom line is us and our survival as a species. Whether or not the Earth's climate fluctuated in the past or will do so in the future is of no other significance.

7.6 billion people with a devil may care attitude to their environment is absolutely fine as far an old nihilist like me is concerned. I would be long gone before the shit really hit the fan.