Okay sure I should be more specific. In actions taken by governments, and in what I can only call “propaganda campaigns”, ie education targeted at young people on the topic. I’m not saying nobody is taking about this, but “mainstream sources” don’t talk about it.
Regarding USA contributing more in the past. Cleaner alternatives had not yet been invented at the time. We are supposed to make up for people of our country in the past, most of whom are not even distantly related to ourselves, using the only mass work saving technology that was available at the time? While people in other places use that same old technology today when they don’t have to? Haha yeah I’m not going to do that, and anyone who bites on that one should not be allowed anywhere near decision making at any level.
On per capita - atmosphere does not speak per capita. Atmosphere speaks in absolutes.
If this is the highest priority issue, which it must be for climate activists who buy the doom scenarios (I’m not saying they are wrong about that), climate activists should be urging we ban trade with nations who aren’t on such and such emissions reduction schedule, which is not to be exceeded by USA along strategically relevant dimensions (for example not to affect the economy negatively beyond how China et al are affected negatively), and to be verified by a UN inspection and analysis team à la nuclear weapons.
I have seen precisely zero climate activists advocate for this, and I’m sure you’re going to throw a laundry list of excuses at me (“well actually economic disentanglement is dangerous, we don’t want war, clearly you don’t understand this if you’re making this argument”, etc). The point isn’t to actually ban trade, the point is to apply sufficient pressure to the others to step down emissions while not harming any party relative to the others.