The Netherlands still produces 64% more CO2 per capita compared to France, despite having only 45% higher GDP per capita. And France has way more dirty industry, if we looked purely at power generation they would look even better.
This is what significant investment in nuclear does. Even the countries that invested the most in renewables can't beat it, yet. I'm very curious to see how long it will take the renewable-only countries to catch up, especially considering that emissions accumulate.
Many great points. Thank you to reply. I have read a few times calling the UK the "Saudi Arabia of Wind". I must say: They have a metric-ton of great sites, both onshore and offshore for wind. That said, great sites don't automatically become energy production sites unless they get funded, approved, and built.
> France has way more dirty industry
I'm not here nitpick, but do you have source? I know, this one is very hard to debate. On a per capita basis, the ports of Rotterdam and IJmuiden must have a staggering amount of polluting industry (steel, chemical, etc.) And, while Antwerp (Belgium) port isn't in Netherlands, it is literally right on the border. From Google maps sky-view, you can many, many chemical plants in the area. To be clear for all readers: I'm not here to point the finger specifically at NL/BE as being any worse than other highly developed nations.
Unfortunately no, and maybe I should have phrased that with a little more doubt. Still, I think it's very likely true, given the sheer size difference between the two (geographically), and the fact that France has a massive auto industry, while the Netherlands does not.
This is what significant investment in nuclear does. Even the countries that invested the most in renewables can't beat it, yet. I'm very curious to see how long it will take the renewable-only countries to catch up, especially considering that emissions accumulate.