People should be allowed to make/buy sportscars with combustion engine. These alone don't move the needle of carbon emissions. Make trucks and average peoples car 100% electric and that's it.
Koenigsegg with their hybrid powertrains makes that argument now and then and points out the parts of the perf spectrum/application space better served by the ICE due to the energy density of the fuel and what it does for weight.
In this context an EV sports car could actually have the worse CO2 footprint due to the high upfront costs during battery manufacturing and the low number of miles driven/short lifetime of a vehicle like this. It may never hit the "break-even" vs. a synthetic fuel powered ICE sports car, unlike your standard commuter car which - given good cell chemistries, reasonable battery size, a production location with a good energy mix and proximity to the location of use to avoid shipping emissions, all of which seem to be improving - can hit this reasonably easily now within average vehicle lifetimes.
I'm no expert on these arguments and it depends a lot on monitoring entire supply chains and monitoring use (e.g. the aviation industry does a lot of PR with SAFs and in reality they make hardly a dent there right now), but as an engineer I do find the "let's do the actual math and see what makes sense" mindset a good one.
My point is that the trick of narrowing the category under the consideration, and claiming (truthfully) that this category’s impact on emissions is trivial, is a trick that can be applied to anything, not only sport cars.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_shipp...