The correct metric is per capita emissions from fossil fuels, which for India is 13% of the US permissions. Even if you use per country instead of the correct per capita India comes out way ahead of the US with total emissions 55% of the US emissions.
China's per capita emissions are 61% of the US.
More importantly China has a long term plan to get to carbon neutrality and they have the political structure to give them a good chance of achieving that.
The US on the other hand has a decent chance of electing a President in a few months who thinks climate change is a scam and wind turbines cause cancer and whose party wants to get rid of most government programs that promote non-fossil fuel energy and boost promotion of fossil fuels.
If we're going about this from pure physics, climate change isn't about "per capita" nor political scaremongering and demagoguery, it's about absolute carbon emitted.
You have to account on a per capita basis, or else your comparisons will make no sense at all.
Would you consider it reasonable to compare total emissions by Monaco and India? How about total emissions between your household and the entire continent of Europe? Of course you wouldn't.
China's per capita emissions are 61% of the US.
More importantly China has a long term plan to get to carbon neutrality and they have the political structure to give them a good chance of achieving that.
The US on the other hand has a decent chance of electing a President in a few months who thinks climate change is a scam and wind turbines cause cancer and whose party wants to get rid of most government programs that promote non-fossil fuel energy and boost promotion of fossil fuels.