In fact, the EU is in the process of doing this right now, and China is definitely reacting to it (not happy, but it seems like the Chinese government is looking toward expanding their existing policies to cover more industries in an attempt to avoid the EU border adjustment).
Another way to look at it is that given how much the USA has already contributed to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, China would need to continue at their current levels for another 30 or so years before they catch up with us -- and that's with about 4x the population.
I understand that that argument may not be persuasive to some, though, because a lot of the manufacturing and technological development that took place in the USA over that time benefited many countries. And a lot of those emissions took place prior to the wide knowledge of how serious climate change is.
So I'd really say that we should aim for net zero emissions because it's the right thing to do. Everyone has to do it, and it's not going to happen if we all stand around waiting for someone else to go first. There is a pretty massive amount of emissions cutting we could do without much effort at all, and if the rest is spread out over a number of years, the cost will be very small, and will have a lot of benefits to people's health. (Climate change is not the only negative externality of burning fossil fuels by a long shot.)
The place to start is a carbon tax. I highly recommend that everyone who cares about climate change call congress (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/call-your-representative-ab...) and ask them to support a carbon tax.
We need to articulate the future, not wax poetically toward some vague economic abstractions. Unless we can articulate some hopeful answer to this question, nothing consequential will change. People really do not want to live as subsistence farmers.
For one, net zero houses look pretty comfortable:
* https://www.chba.ca/CHBA/BuyingNew/Net-Zero-Homes.aspx
If you go further toward "passive house" you can have 5000 sq. ft. (500 sq. m.) of living area and only need 1500W (a hairdryer) to heat it:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vul4vMFdkA
Residential energy use accounts for roughly 20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States:
* https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122
IMHO there's still plenty of low-hanging fruit in just efficiencies that can be plucked before lifestyle sacrifices would need to be made.
The number of Passivhauser in the US is apparently in the thousands. What would it take to scale this up to 100-1000 times? What would it take to change the status from luxury good to mass adoption?
If it was all upside, the established players, in this case home builders, would have already incorporated it to gain a competitive advantage.
I am guessing there are downsides such as cost of materials, expertise, mold, or something that keeps this from being an economical solution.
Aiming for something that can be net zero is probably more practical: building stringently up to a certain point, and then throw some PV panels to offset whatever expected energy use is remaining.
Per capita emissions for the US: 15.52 tons
Per capita emissions for India: 1.91
US has about eight times the per capita emission of India, double that of China(which makes a lot of things for the US) and somehow India and China are to blame and the US deserves no blame, even given all its riches and having the means to reduce emissions?
I don't see your point refereeing the past emissions of the US as some kind of moral victory against the west, but regardless of what the west does, the math does not work without those countries taking action. We can cut emissions to 0 and that'll likely buy a decade or so with the current growth rate of China. So you're focusing your energy in the wrong place
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...