Now, yes, individual people consume energy, thus forming most of the basis for this "per capita emissions" metric, but, in the alternative timeline where the world got serious about clean energy 20-30 years ago, guess what happens to that metric? It drops in direct correlation with the amount of investment in clean energy.
But, as to the rest of what you write here, the solution, at least in my mind, seems fairly simple, if not easy: developed countries must invest massively and immediately in clean energy and carbon sequestration technologies, as well as properly pricing carbon emissions via carbon taxes so that that negative externality is included in every single consumer decision. Further, developed countries must engage in clean energy technology sharing and development projects throughout the world[2]. We need the entire world to be on the same page, and, China, the US, and Europe need to be leading the way.
So, yes, absolutely, the problem scope vastly exceeds the US (it's global), so, therefore, the solution must be global as well.
---
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
[1]: Perhaps literally all of them. I had to scroll down to about number 75 before I saw one that might not be an energy company, just from the name.
[2]: This solves the "clean energy or a hospital" problem.
This is something I actively fight for. I often state that the US (and west) don't need to be carbon neutral by 2050, but carbon negative now. That's how we unburden the developing world. That's how we pay back for the damage cause mostly by us.
But CCS is still a complicated subject and highly debated within the green communities (just like nuclear is). People think we can get away with just planting trees, but the research and experts don't think that's true (especially since new growth forests are carbon sources (fact that surprises many people) instead of carbon sinks (old growth forests are major sinks btw)). We're going to need a wide breadth of methods to solve this and we shouldn't be taking any off the table as long as the result is that we're carbon negative[0].
[0] The arguments against CCS tend to be that if we have them then the coal and ng companies can still operate. Though this obviously misses the point since we care about the resultant emissions more than the source.
The US remains responsible for a large plurality of the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. China is now the largest emitter, but it's not particularly close to the US yet if you integrate that function over time.
The issue is that we aren't leading the way, despite the best efforts of many of its citizens. But I also don't see anyone else stepping up. I also don't see people considering that the rest of the globe that isn't electrified is making the choice of "clean energy or a hospital." We know what they'll go with every time and we shouldn't blame them.
This is the most complicated problem that humankind has ever faced. We are doing a disservice by over simplifying the problem. We are doing a disservice by turning this into a political "shoulda-coulda" or "but they waste more" game. At the end of the day it doesn't matter, emissions still happen even if one person is more at fault. The worst part? The countries that emit the most will also be able to deal with the crisis more easily, and thus have less incentive to actually solve it.
I'm not saying the US isn't to blame. I'm saying the problem is far more complicated than the US and it's going to take more than them to solve it.