You have to measure per capita. That means greenhouse gases per person.

China has a huge population. So it's more reasonable for them to emit more gas given population size.

If we want to be pedantic, the tiny middle eastern oil rich cities are the biggest emitters per capita but their impact is small given the small population. Australia also beats the US but they are also much smaller then the US.

In terms of any reasonable impact measurement the world stands to gain the most if the US cuts down usage. Hence why I chose the US as the number one emitter. We stand to benefit if China cuts down too but they are at roughly half our emissions per capita meaning such cuts will be viciously closer to the bone if you know what I mean.

Why would one have to measure per capita? The Earth isn’t measuring per capita, crap in the atmosphere is crap in the atmosphere, nature does no discerning how much of it came from one person vs a larger group.

I understand the spiritual idea of trying to measure per capita, but I think for something as severe as climate change, the only relevant metric is the absolute one.

Why would you measure per country? Countries don't actually exist. You think measuring it by artificial borders drawn by the imagination makes sense? No it doesn't. It makes less sense then per Capita.

Following your line of logic, Antarctica emits the least greenhouse gases of any country or continent. Per Capita doesn't matter so whatever Antarctica does, they're doing it right.. nothing to do with the fact that the country is practically empty.

It's not spiritual at all. The realistic measure is per Capita. If you aren't measuring it this way... and I say this to be factual and with no intention to offend .. but if a person isn't measuring it this way when they have awareness of the per Capita factor then that person is concretely (not spiritually) stupid.

You are not definitely not stupid. For something as severe as climate change the per Capita measurement matters absolutely.