I'm not sure if these are the best data to use but can we go with this? 1990: http://cait2.wri.org/historical/Country%20GHG%20Emissions?indicator[]=Total%20GHG

I'm not sure if these are the best data to use but can we go with this? 1990: http://cait2.wri.org/historical/Country%20GHG%20Emissions?indicator[]=Total%20GHG%20Emissions%20Excluding%20Land-Use%20Change%20and%20Forestry&indicator[]=Total%20GHG%20Emissions%20Including%20Land-Use%20Change%20and%20Forestry&year[]=2015&sortIdx=NaN&chartType=geo http://cait2.wri.org/historical/Country%20GHG%20Emissions?in... (Mt CO2 emissions direct / with land-use) U.S.: 5,866 / 5,550 China: 3,154 / 2,833 India: 1,188 / 1,142 Brazil: 556 / 1,447 World: 23,541 / 33,823 2013: http://cait2.wri.org/historical/Country%20GHG%20Emissions?indicator[]=Total%20GHG%20Emissions%20Excluding%20Land-Use%20Change%20and%20Forestry&indicator[]=Total%20GHG%20Emissions%20Including%20Land-Use%20Change%20and%20Forestry&year[]=2013&sortIdx=NaN&chartType=geo http://cait2.wri.org/historical/Country%20GHG%20Emissions?in... U.S.: 6,279 / 6,213 China: 11,735 / 11,422 India: 2,909 / 3,031 Brazil: 1,017 / 1,317 World: 48,257 / 46,445 Of course the U.S. is worst per capita, both then and now, but the U.S. could have cut emissions to zero in 1990 and CO2 emissions would be higher now than they were then. How could a 1990s U.S. put substantially more pressure on other countries to curb hydrocarbon use when their economies were (and many still are) "developing"?