P.S. The USA could achieve this. Many nations (e.g. Belgium) could not.

I once calculated how much it would take for the USA to offset its emissions. It would need to double logging operations but sequester (bury) half of what was logged in a way that itself generated no new CO2 emissions. The amount of land required assuming 30 year trees being logged is about 16% of the total area or about 20% of the lower 48 states. That's roughly a 50% increase on current forested land. Or alternatively, about 1/3 of current farmland would need to be converted to forest. That last statistic is probably only possible if everyone went vegetarian, but there are probably many bits of non-agricultural land that could be used. Actually sequestering that much timber would be hard to achieve. Granted, making everyone have their laptops made from birch and wear clogs would use a bit, it would still be an issue.

Nuclear: ~5–12 g COe/kWh

Wind (Onshore): ~11–26 g COe/kWh

Solar PV: ~85 g COe/kWh (mean)

Natural Gas: ~486–499 g COe/kWh

Coal: ~888–1,001 g COe/kWh

That looks like nuclear is the way to go but the issues are the time lag and availability of fuel and cost. If it takes 25 years to get a nuclear plant up and running and it lasts for ~60 (some last longer, but many don't) then assuming coal is the fill in, then the average over that period is (1/85)*(25x900+60x13) = 273. Solar is trickier to calculate as it would need a replacement halfway through that period but that's likely to be more efficient and have a lower CO2 footprint so I am assuming that this cancels out, roughly, then it's (1/85)*(5x900+80x85) = 132. If you assume 10 years to build it's 180g. Even with mid-life replacements, it's still lower over 85 years than nuclear. Overall, though, it's about a system so there might be storage involved, etc. and always-on power has an economic and social benefit. Onshore wind will do better as g/CO2 are only a bit above nuclear, but offshore is between onshore wind and solar

We don't have to do either/or - we can replace with both in parallel. How much depends somewhat on cost and finance as well as other factors.

The arithmetic is different if you are replacing natural gas. Someone else can calculate that.

And this is why no one has inside toilets because it would involve changing lifestyle.

France has a low level of CO2 per kWh but achieved it through massive amounts of government spending and central control and the price to the consumer is subsidised. And even now, Germany is still coping with reunification effects. But what was possible for a particular price from 1970-85 (the period of expansion of French nuclear) isn't necessarily so easy now as the costs for construction have increased and that level of state control and investment in a Western nation is unlikely. Look at the UK - 12 sites permitted but only two being built and well behind schedule and overcost, or new French reactors - ditto.

You are several decades late in your reference.

Indeed, oil fractions can be very useful chemical feedstocks. Some can be replaced by other means but not easily or not without other impacts. So why burn it all if you can find other ways to move from A to B? It also preserves if for moving from A to B where alternatives are not possible? You aren't going to be able to power a vintage B-17 bomber with batteries.

As noted, lightbulbs aren't scented. They don't make a pleasing sputtering sound in the wind. You can't get the wax off a lightbulb as a stress toy, use it to seal a letter to the king or reenact parts of Fifty Shades of Grey. Therefore, lightbulbs are terrible things.

Bulbs aren't an absolute replacement for candles as you don't (as far as I know) get scented LED bulbs. Therefore, I presume, you just use candles, right?

It's the sort of argument fluffernutter has used repeatedly, even as range has come to the point you can do that, unless your cabin has no electricity. Electricity would probably be helpful anyway, so add some solar panels - unless it's inside the arctic circle and it's winter, problem solved unless it's broken. But then you are beginning to have special cases that affect 93 people and their pet moose. In which case, let them have an ICEV.

Range is already more like 500km. And what if someone devises a battery trailer for Northern Canada that increases range from 500km to 1000km?

Yes, improvement isn't assured, but it is likely and has been pretty continuously demonstrated for EVs, just as it was for ICEVs.

10 minutes every 2 weeks even when you do your 1000km non stop trips?

These are breaks of a length and frequency you should be taking anyway.

Use diapers instead?