Climate action, measuring exactly this, has China as doing "OK" and India as doing "great" when their comulative projected 鈥漣ncrease" by 2030 will be similar than all present emissions by USA and EU.
This is the ideology being pushed at the moment.
1 China 6.4 2 United States 15.0 3 India 1.6
2.5 times China and almost 10 times India. Countries that are already rich enough to invest heavily in pushing renewable energy and nuclear energy need to aid countries trying to get people out of poverty. You can't do that by providing direct energy cause that is not how energy works. So you do it by allowing emissions to these countries while reducing your own to fall given that you already use so much more per capita.
You want to see hypocrisy? How about the US's hypocrisy in stopping solar subsidies to build local solar industries? This discussions is not about who is entitled to more emissions. It is about a pragmatic approach to reducing emissions. While you dish out "facts", also care to read about policy and arguments.
The point is simple: you want to pretend your are saving the planet by allowing China and India to increase their emissions, more than USA and EU will ever be able to cut them (even if they cut it to zero).
Explain how that can possible save the planet please.
#1 馃嚚馃嚦 China 9,839 27.2%
#2 馃嚭馃嚫 United States 5,269 14.6%
#3 馃嚠馃嚦 India 2,467 6.8%
India's total emissions are a fraction of US and China's. You are guilty of the same hyperbole you claim to be fighting from the other side.
"Per capita" is not a narrative. It is a measure of how much room there is to reduce emissions while maintaining quality of life. It's not like you can just go to war with India and China and clear this up. You can't bring them to the negotiation table claiming moral superiority.
What you are suggesting is not a strategy for efficiently negotiating our way out of this deep hole, but rather a dictatorial approach which can only be enforced by a dictatorial regime across the world.
As developing nations build up the energy base, it'll be easier and cheaper to do it with renewables than with fossil fuels. That changes the equation tremendously.
No, those are not factual. It's a strawman.