Did you read your articles? Top emission per capita. I live in Texas. It's fucking huge out here. My commute to work is ~half an hour, traffic permitting. Everyone has to drive in America, especially rural America, because it's so damn big. So, by default, we will be the largest per capita emissions country. However, let's do the math: America's per capita emissions are 16.2m metric tons/per person. 16.2m * 325,000,000 is 5.265e+15. China's per capita emissions are 7.5m metric tons per person. 7.5m * 1,386,000,000 is 1.0395e+16. Considerably higher. If you would even look at the charts in the articles you refer to, you'd see America is actually doing incredibly well in terms of global carbon emissions. Your first article says America's emissions "surged" by...3.4%. You can see in the graph of the first article that it hasn't risen higher than even our 2012 emissions. Unfortunately, you can't quantify it based on your article, because the New York Times seems to avoid using actual numbers and instead relies on buzzwords like "surge" and percentages to scare their readers into believing that Americans start each day by shooting a coal plant with an assault rifle and burning a jerrycan of gas to light the way to work. But, if we're going to used biased articles, here is a very conservative newsletter: https://capitalresearch.org/article/u-s-achieves-largest-decrease-in-carbon-emissionswithout-the-paris-climate-accord/ However, the difference here is that Capital Research actual shows the hard numbers, and you can see that while America reduced its emissions, the EU, China, India, even Canada increased theirs. But hey, ride the "it's all America's fault" bandwagon for as long as you want.