Almost all developed countries are reducing emissions.
But these reductions are at least cancelled out by increases in developing countries.
India now have the 3rd biggest total level of emissions (equivalent to the entire EU+UK); Brazil are 6th; Indonesia 8th. The additional problem with Brazil's emissions are that the biggest single emissions cause is burning rainforest to clear for agriculture. All are on an upwards trajectory.
None have any solid commitment to reduce or even freeze current levels - indeed, the government noises are more likely to be a defiant 'don't you in the West dare to lecture us' than acceptance that we all need to work to reduce overall GHG emissions.
India also has 1.3 billion people. The entire EU+UK population is nowhere near that. This is a population and wealth issue as much as it is an emissions issue.
On a per capita basis, India is way down the list. So are Brazil (213 million people), China (1.4 billion people), Bangladesh (165 million people), Pakistan (221 million people), Indonesia (273 million people), and Nigeria (206 million people).
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/If you want to look at GDP per capita and living standards, all those countries are going to be low. Bangladesh produces 0.47 tons per capita of CO2 emissions (US produces 15.5, UK 5.6). Bangladesh has a GDP per capita 1/10 the US and 1/8 the UK. India is going to be similar. Costa Rica, an example of a eco-conscious, eco-tourism driven country mentioned above, produces way more Co2 per capita basis than a country like Bangladesh (Costa Rica has 5 million people; Bangladesh, in an area 3x Costa Rica, has more than 30x the population). Costa Rica's GDP per capita is also 4x Bangladesh's.
The problem is, the majority of the most-populated countries around the world are not developed. Many of them have far lower living standards and are far less industrialized. Their rapid growth in emissions is expected. China's CO2 emissions trajectory has been skyward (and will probably continue to be so despite a massive amount of investment in renewables and public transit), but that's also coincided with hundreds of millions of people being lifted out of poverty.
The fact is, when the developed countries of the world industrialized and alleviated much of its own population from poverty and increased living standards, it never had to make the tradeoff of environmental impact vs. economic growth. Now, the same developed countries are telling others, countries that are far poorer, what to do in this case.
The globe is connected anyway. Canada and Australia have ridiculously high CO2 output per capita because a huge chunk of their economic activity is energy-related, which often ends up in places like China. But a large chunk of the industrial activity in China also ends up back in the hands western consumers (and isn't calculated as such) as well as other Southeast Asian countries (China moving to a more service-based economy and Chinese companies building factories in Vietnam).
So who needs to cut their emissions? It's a global issue that everyone would need to work together in, but you can see why developing countries don't like lectures. They see developed countries' citizens driving cars everywhere, traveling multiple times a year, flying internationally, eating a lot of steak, and generally living great lives. Yet, it's also on the developing countries' shoulders to slow their rise to reach these standards? The answer is actually yes, but it's a fairness issue. How does India reach the living standards of the UK without increasing emissions? Or are you saying they can't? "For the sake of the planet." But that didn't stop the UK or the US in the 50s or 80s or the 1800s. Didn't see Reagan and Thatcher say, "hang on, let's pump the brakes on capitalism for more sustainable practices." But now that non-developed countries are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, it's all unsustainable. (I mean, it's true, but you can see why they'd be annoyed).
It's difficult because of the system we have around the globe. If we cut back on consumption, it only angers the masses. Not only would they be restricted in what they can consume, they'd also suffer economic consequences, both in employment as well as retirement savings/etc. Sacrifices have to be made. Imagine telling someone that's 55-years old in America right now, that growth and consumption needs to slow down. That they can't partake in activities that are bad for the planet (like taking a cruise). Or that the slowdown in economic activity will reduce their hard-earned retirement savings by a significant amount. But hey, we're reducing CO2 emissions and even if you live in a tiny apartment with no car and no travel, you're still better off than people in poor developing countries. We're in this together, right? Good luck selling that message.
At the same time, that won't help developing countries either. It's hard to develop if economic activity slows down globally. Places like China and India will stagnate in growth and that's bad from a poverty/living standards perspective. People talk about Africa's young population, resources, and development with hope. But that's harder to achieve if we just cut back economic activity.
The thing is, if developing countries can grow but use more environmental-friendly means (you can't use the technologies today that 1870 Britain used), that's the best humanity might be able to hope for. There aren't major climate-deniers in governments of China or India as far as I know, and both countries invest heavily in green energy. China's got something like 99% of all EV buses in the world and a huge chunk of the rail/subway development in the 21st century has been in China. The cost of getting a regular car in a major city can be prohibitive anyhow. India can take the same path, as can Bangladesh and others. Nigeria's been dependent on oil, but maybe it can also shift (it wants to be tech hub). At the same time, every set of factories that spring up today should be more efficient than those in the past.
But the fact that the vast majority of the population around the world have significantly lower living standards or are far less industrialized and commercialized will mean that developing countries need economic growth, and that's going to have an impact on emissions. They have to do it more sustainably, but will it be enough? Who knows.
But lectures from developed countries are not going to fix it. The fact that Australian and American voters routinely vote in politicians that deny the impact of climate change will also not be lost on developing countries. Nor the fact that many developed countries (even green groups) have anti-nuclear factions.
Put it this way, if you're the leader of one of these developing countries, how do you grow your economy? After all, while you may be judged on green policies, you'll also be judged on how you improve people's lives. If a fossil fuel plant is the cheapest more reliable way to power a major city/county/state and is the best way to attract businesses and industry in the short term, would you honestly say "no thanks, I'll wait for renewables to be more viable."
Technology will be a major focus, but that still needs to be balanced with development. Unless developed countries are willing to share the wealth. I mean, average people in developed countries paying significantly more taxes to help poor countries set up sustainable energy grids for free would be nice. Let's see how that polls.
