Whichever way you look at it it is still environmental damage so is not truly green! I did notice that you were selective in only using part of my post and omitting; However I guess we have to start something but "green" energy will probably never supply even 30% of the nation's needs within our lifetimes.
I used the quote that offends my sense of balance, in so far you have made this same statement in other threads, and where it has been discussed extensively and extensive evidence to the contrary has been given and carried the balance of the point.
Every human endeavour creates some form of environmental impact. So its not about renewables having zero impact, it's about which has the least impact, and teh only sane way to consider teh issue is to look at whole life impacts.
In the context of energy usage, the biggest and simplest solution would be to use less, but its impractical to take that to its obvious extreme of not using any, so we need to find and use systems that use less energy and produce less environmental impact.
You continue to post remarks that seem to dismiss the efforts and successes of schemes that genuinely do reduce the environmental impact. These are not figures plucked out of the air, they are matters that have been very seriously reviewed in a truly scientific way and do confirm that Watt for Watt wind, solar and wave/tidal do produce far less whole life environmental impact than any fossil fuel system past or present and probably future.
The ability of "green" or renewables energy to meet the UK's power demands, the Governments own publication-
shows on page 12 that renewables are presently (2021) are very close to 30% and are about the same a fossil fuels, with nuclear taking about 20%
There have been occasions in recent years where the renewables in conjunction with nuclear have meant that no fossil fuel electrical production was needed.