Nuclear power.

One of the interesting things demonstrated there is that you really don't want to be generating most of your electricity from imported oil during a global oil shock.

Can't be everything. Electrical power is like 20-35% or so of total power used in most countries. I just checked some statistics of the Umweltbundesamt, the German ~environment protection office. The electrical fraction is suprisingly low! Though it's supposed to increase because most renewable energy production is electric.

My guess is nuclear energy, more efficient cars, better insulated houses, and less heavy industry.

You have the cause and effect backwards. German homes are electric heated at a rate of around 5%[1], French at around 30%[2] (page 7).

As electricity prices are lowered (e.g. by state investment in nuclear) various things that use fossil fuels will shift over to electric.

1. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/heating-40-millio...

2. https://heatpumpingtechnologies.org/annex46/wp-content/uploa...

3. https://strom-report.com/electricity-prices-europe/

If you have a price competitive modular rapidly approved and scaled meltdown proof plant design that can be built in a couple years.

Unfortunately, that does not exist in nuclear power. As in, not a single one of those requirements is fulfilled by any commercial design.

> These figures reflect ‘production-based’ emissions, so do not correct for traded goods.

moving manufacturing overseas

This^^^

I'm tired of: "The EU doesn't emit as much as China does". Let's account for all the garbage we let China produce and then look at the numbers again.

Everyone knows how environmentally friendly shipping everything 8000 miles is. Climate policy just makes stuff nicer for people who live in rich countries because the pollution is further away from their personal bubble.

The great enemy of supply side environment regulation is simple arbitrage with overseas manufacturing to the lowest common denominator of controls

Which sadly is usually absolutely no controls

> moving manufacturing overseas

At least per the available data from 1990, France has lowered its consumption-based CO₂ emissions in absolute terms:

* https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-emissions...

And given the population has also risen since 1990:

* https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population?time=1990..lat...

even if total emissions had stayed the same, per capita numbers would have gone down.

The same if often said of the US, and it is not true either:

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/no-the-us-didnt-outsource-our-...

Anything that starts with "no..xyz" is always bullshit IMO written for an audience of morons.

Too bad neither Europe nor the US seems capable of building reactors at reasonable cost. Even China which is building reactors the fastest is only projected to have nuclear account for single digit percentages of its electric consumption for decades.

Wasn’t there news not long ago that China has been building solar power (peak capacity) with an equivalent power of five nuclear power plants per week? Even accounting for much lower cumulative output, this is far more than they have in the pipeline for nuclear power.

Most countries investing in nuclear do so in part to fund a domestic nuclear industry so that they can at least partly privatize the cost of a nuclear arms program. Nuclear is too expensive to be competitive without governmental support.

China is building whatever energy sources it can. In amount it can. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...

Germany saved approximately the same 5t/year/capita since then. It went from 14t in the late seventies to about 8t today. Carbon/GDP is pretty much the same for both countries since the mid 90s.

If you add UK, Germany and Denmark to the graph, they all look broadly similar, so I'm guessing "EU style regulations".

Nukes