India emits about 7% of global emissions. The United States emits about 16% [1].
Per capita India emits about 1/9th what the US does.
[1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...
I still think the basic thesis I am driving at holds, instead of cleaning up their act 20 years ago, multinational corporations shipped all of these polluting jobs to nations where it was OK to pollute, acting as a sort of escape valve which allowed them to continue belching carbon into the air and keep their profits high.
US and EU industry are among the cleanest in the world and asking the working class in these places to make more sacrifices is a slap in the face which has been going on for years. The Kyoto Protocol established no carbon targets for developing countries. The Paris Agreement established targets but they were laxer than the targets for developed countries.
This is a decarbonization strategy designed to optimize the profits of multinational corporations. If the working and middle classes don't push back it will continue, but corporate-owned media is ready to put Greta Thunberg on stage at every opportunity and shame you for questioning any part of the party line on climate change.
Whether or not that felt like a luxury at the time is kind of irrelevant from an accounting perspective but important from a political perspective.
That said, for someone in the U.S. to try and pass off responsibility to a country emitting three times less per capita [1] seems borderline absurd to me. And that's not even accounting for the fact that -- as you point out -- much of China's emissions are exported from the U.S and EU. If the U.S. had the cleanest industry and its people had already made significant sacrifices in the name of climate protection we should see that the U.S. has comparatively low per-capita emissions. It clearly doesn't.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...
US is 16.1 metric tons per capita in 2018. The only countries or territories higher than the US are Kazakhstan (16.8), Australia (16.8), Luxembourg (16.9), Oman (17.6), Saudi Arabia (18.6), Estonia (18.6), Gibraltar (21.8), Bahrain (21.8), United Arab Emirates (22.4), Kuwait (23.9), Trinidad and Tobago (26.2), New Caledonia (26.2), Qatar (38.2), Curaçao (52.1), and Palau (58.0).
The EU average is 8.6. China is 8.0. India is 1.9.
I don't see how the US qualifies as among the cleanest.
If you imported 200 million people into the US in poverty conditions and did nothing to improve their situation, then all of a sudden US per capita emissions would look great too.
In the worst case scenario if you attach policy to this metric you might see states gaming it by deciding to make sure their poor people stay that way (probably already on the minds of policy makers in some authoritarian states).
Admittedly I don't have numbers handy, but I think it would be better to look at emissions generated per dollar of economic output, particularly in industries that generate the most emissions. Then you can start inferring judgements about whether it's better for humanity to open a new factory in China or in the USA, and those two states have to compete on cleanliness if they want to grow their economic output. I bet this sort of measurement would paint the US in a much more favorable light than per capita (and the EU even better). If adding the next $100B to the world economy in the US or EU is cleaner than adding it in China, why shouldn't we push for that?
>While Victory Gardens were portrayed as a patriotic duty, 54% of Americans polled said they grew gardens for economic reasons while only 20% mentioned patriotism. (which cites the book Eating for victory : food rationing and the politics of domesticity)
Combined with the produce shows and competitions mentioned, I'd put indirect social pressure and saturation advertisement above the patriotism angle with this in mind. I'd wager that if there was a push to have people grow their own veg again, citing economic reasons, and calling them "freedom gardens" or some such, we could see a similar level of success.
I suspect there's zero chance that this type of sentiment could be harnessed for "Hey, let's offset carbon emissions [of whom the #1 emitter is our chief political rival, China]"
In fact that's the biggest problem with broadening support for decarbonization in general. The largest share of global carbon is emitted by countries like India and China, which billionaires exported thousands of American jobs to, profiting from looser environmental regulations in the process. Of course the average American outside of the SF ivory tower is skeptical about changing his or her own habits to clean up that mess!