You replied pointing out that electricity and transportation are not the only sources of emissions -- not sure if it was intended as a rebuttal because OP didn't say they were. I noted that electrical heating can generally substitute fossil heating, that the developed world isn't undergoing deforestation, and that agriculture is a much smaller source of developed-world emissions compared with fossil combustion. Neither I nor OP said or implied that "just inventing our way to replace the current grid with green sources is sufficient for meeting the climate budget."
We're obviously going to blow past the "safe" 2-degree-rise-by-end-of-century cumulative emissions target. In the long term, if complex civilizations survive, I expect large scale atmospheric carbon removal efforts (enhanced silicate weathering and similar). Otherwise feedback processes and anthropogenic emissions apart from fossil combustion are probably going to amplify ~4 degrees of end-of-century warming to more like 7-9 degrees of warming by end-of-millennium. After that it'd take ~100k years to restore the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration status quo by natural sinking mechanisms alone.
And even if we get to that point we still would not be carbon-neutral due to the remaining sectors. And possibly due to new natural sources (permafrost) we're already locked into due to the warming that is already in progress.
So the point is that just inventing our way to replace the current grid with green sources is insufficient for meeting the climate budget within a few decades.