[leonidasrup]

Per region CO2 emissions don't matter, CO2 is a largely non-reactive gas, which is rapidly mixed throughout the entire troposphere in less than a year.

https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FAQ6_2.pd...

It's the total CO2 amount in atmosphere that determines radiative forcing.

The IPCC summarized the current scientific consensus about radiative forcing changes as follows: "Human-caused radiative forcing of 2.72 W/m2 in 2019 relative to 1750 has warmed the climate system. This warming is mainly due to increased GHG concentrations, partly reduced by cooling due to increased aerosol concentrations"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

[myrmidon]

Regional emissions do matter for the conclusions you draw.

All high-income countries already trend down in emissions.

Global emissions are rising because poorer countries that were basically almost "no emission"/capita in the past are still catching up (but that catch-up is less steep than in the past because green energy is available from the get-go).

Conclusions would be: Emission reductions in rich countries need to be aaccelerated, and helping poor countries peak at a lower level would probably be prudent (but good luck selling such policies to alt-right voters).

"Renewable are not helping" is not a sensible conclusion.

[leonidasrup]

We can compare many metrics: CO₂ emissions per capita for different regions, cumulative CO₂ emissions, share of global cumulative CO₂ emissions.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

Conclusions would be: it's not that renewables are not helping, it's renewables are not helping enough. We need global emissions tax. The European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a step in the right direction, but still a very small step because it covers only production of few carbon-intensive goods imported to Europe.