The Germany/France ratio of emissions is relevant because the real difference of emissions if much lower than your graph shows (at worse 1.4 instead of 1.7), an

The Germany/France ratio of emissions is relevant because the real difference of emissions if much lower than your graph shows (at worse 1.4 instead of 1.7), and I described (above) why: France has less industry (<=> emissions for stuff is done elsewhere), is less rich (less stuff) and its climate is less cold. It is pertinent because it shows that nuclear power isn't a major factor there. But we both already agree on this (nuclear cannot solve the climate challenge) because you wrote other CO2-emitting sectors "land use and agriculture, heat, industry". I don't think you are anti-renewables, please quote any sentence of mine letting you believe it. I don't think that nuclear is part of a solution, that's my point here, and my arguments are in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24381421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24381421