It's only 2x if you consider the annual emissions, but the CO2 stays in the atmosphere. If you consider cumulative CO2 emissions, the US was around 3 times as high as China (with data up to 2015)

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

But with more up-to-date data, it could be even 8x

https://goodlife.leeds.ac.uk/related-research/atmospheric-ap...

(Depending if you count cumulative emissions from 1960, earlier or later)

"Cumulative emissions" is the sunk cost fallacy masquerading as an excuse to defer blame onto dead people instead of doing something to address the active problem.

Except that the people arguing against considering cumulative emissions, are precisely those doing the least to address the problem

> Banana republics (which the US continues to uphold and profit from) are using a lot of energy "per capita" but all the wealth from that is stolen so it's senseless to assign that consumption to the nation exporting rather than the nation importing

Ten "facts" or so in that one statement. Would be great if you can cite any one with a modern reference.

Which banana republic with high per capita is US upholding and profiting from? Who is stealing their wealth? Why is that country a banana republic?

US per capita is falling while China's is rising.

https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changi....

> US per capita is falling

Keep in mind that electricity demand in the US is decreasing.

If you reduce your manufacturing, of course it'll reflect positively on emissions. China demonstrates that it's possible to make CO2 emissions decrease even while energy demand keep growing (even if it doesn't grow as much as before)

(As I linked in another comment in this page: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-falls-1-in-q... )

Also giving export trends, have to factor in US increasingly large net exporter of fossil while PRC exporting increasingly renewables.