Any idea how much nuclear power has contributed to this discrepancy?

I.e., if the US had the same per capita nuclear power generation as France, what would the numbers look like?

I'd guess transportation plays a bigger role, but not sure.

US emissions are ~29% transportation and ~27% electricty generation [1]. The US uses ~13x as much oil [2].

Natural Gas isn't particularly dirty. Coal and petroleum only make up 24% of power generation in the US [3]. Fossil fuels make up ~9% of electricity production in France [4].

[1] https://images.app.goo.gl/9YFsuN9vjkiiZnek9

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consu...

[3] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-....

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France#:...).

>Natural Gas isn't particularly dirty

Just a small nit but the OP was referencing CO2. Natural gas is cleaner than other fossil fuels. “Clean” != low carbon (although it’s lower than other fossil fuels)

I would expect our spread out nature to contribute to that a lot. We drive a lot (and often environmentally unfriendly vehicles). Our food chain also involves shipping food substantial distances (not sure how true that is of Europe).

I wonder how much efficiency and resiliency are competing interests in the supply chain. From one perspective, consolidation creates a more efficient system due to economies of scale. On the other hand, distributed systems tend to be more reliable, but less efficient

Sprawl takes a lot of resources to sustain