The US would still be the right direction and China and Russia would still be in the wrong direction of the trend.
China: not so clear.
As far as climate goes, what matters is the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The amount in the atmosphere is a function of the history of emissions, not just a function of recent emissions. Here's a chart showing cumulative CO2 emissions 1900-2002: https://timeforchange.org/cumulative-co2-emissions-by-countr...
If we were to figure out that total maximum acceptable CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the climate from warming to much, and divvy that up between countries based on nearly any fair allocation method, how much of their quota each country was using would be something like this:
700% US
650% Germany
600% UK
470% Canada
450% Russia
320% France
260% Japan
220% Italy
30% China
12% India
I believe that this is why most international climate agreements include aid for developing countries. We recognize that even if they put extraordinary effort into it the US, Germany, Russia, etc., would not be able to get down to 100% until long after it was too late, and so we need to convince developing countries to agree to stay well below their fair 100%.
But the way a country normally goes from developing to developed is by exploiting cheap, but environmentally unfriendly, resources. It is only after a country becomes a rich, developed, country that it can afford to exploit clean but expensive technology. If we just ask the developing countries to stay well below their fair 100%, we are in effect asking them to stay poor. They are not going to agree to that.
Hence, developed countries need to pay to build up developing countries to the point where developing countries can become developed countries without needing to exploit cheap but dirty technology.
No, one can't make a decent case of that. China and India have access to radically better renewable energy technology and coal alternatives including very safe nuclear and natural gas.
The US didn't have access to any of that in 1920. Today is not the same as 70 or 100 years ago. The excuse for burning so much coal is considerably debased now.
It'd be like claiming that the USSR/Britain/France/Rome got to wage massive wars of annexation in the past, why doesn't the new superpower - China - also get to do that across all of Asia? Just because X bad thing happened in the past, it doesn't mean countries in the future should get to replicate the mistakes of the past and that it should be acceptable practice (so that they too get their fair share of doing horrible things).
The whole idea of investing hundreds of billions of dollars into renewable energy technology over decades is so we don't replicate the mistakes of the past.
Besides the obviousness of that, China and India should desperately want to avoid those past mistakes, both for strategic reasons and for the basic health of their people. Strategically China has to import huge quantities of coal, it'd be better from a security standpoint if they fulfill their energy demands via domestic renewables and nuclear.
There is no good case to be made that China and India should get to repeat the pollution mistakes of the past, that premise falls apart on every challenge.
The mistake of the past was not that we put CO2 into the atmosphere by using cheap fuels like coal. The mistake was that we did not treat that as a temporary bootstrap phase to build up to where we could switch to cleaner sources.
Such a chart is going to have a glaring omission, and it's the very rapid rise in China's CO2 emissions relative to the rest of the world. I've tried in the past to find much more up-to-date numbers on this, and failed. But it should be clear to anybody that, if you factor in total emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, China is definitely in the top 10 and maybe the top 3.
Arguing that China should get a "by" on emissions runs into the problem that China is now the biggest problem on emissions. In total emissions, China overtook the US as largest around 2005 or so, and now produces twice as much as the second place slot. On a per-capita basis, China is worse than the EU, although not quite as bad as the rich EU countries or the US. And it's not like China doesn't have the ability to produce green energy--the largest solar manufacturers are all Chinese.
One facet of history is that, on an international scale, countries came to displace their predecessors not by emulating their technology but by being at the forefront of newer, better technologies. There really should be no excuse for, nor a need to excuse, inaction.