There may be carbon emitted in creating green energy but green energy is ultimately reducing demand for hydrocarbons, which is better than sequestration. Also you need to factor into the operational life of the green tech. If you do, it's pretty clear pretty fast that it's beneficial to go with green energy options. The argument you're making is a common strawman argument for not investing in green energy.

For all the things you think of when you hear "renewables", that analysis has already been made, and it's overwhelmingly better in every way to ditch fossil fuels.

People have done those cost/benefit analysis for solar, wind, and EVs. They come out a pretty clear winner. We don't really need to keep hounding on this while pretending to be smart.

Now E15 gas, OTOH? Utter trash that should go away.

That's China. Are you making a product in China and need a bunch of screws? The factory down the street makes those. Need a housing? Another factory down the street makes those. An LCD display? Believe it or not, down the street.

localizing and streamlining production

These are two distinct goals, sometimes that work against each other. Localization is often a tradeoff between saving energy on transport and logistics versus economies of scale in production, and the right balance might look different for different things.

The carbon footprint of a banana shipped across the globe is still far less than that of the typical backyard chicken, because the act of raising a chicken at home is so inefficient (including with commercially purchased feed driven home in a passenger car) that it can't compete on energy/carbon footprint.

There are products where going local saves energy, but that's not by any means a universal correlation.