These people are fucking insane. They want to make sure this argument remains about fairness. And they're so insane THINK what you're arguing for is that some chinaman making 1$ an hour is meant to have an even lower standard of living than the already rich western country and then come up with moronic drivel like >>11128636
, failing to realize that you explicitly said global emissions and splitting the country would also do absolutely fuck all about that either.
They refuse to have an argument that's grounded in actual reality, which is obviously, blatantly, what you were making the case for. The most they will do is say "ok yeah sure even if all western countries were nuked tomorrow the emissions are too high, but more pressure will me exerted and everything will just turn out ok".
It's not like there's an actual plan whatsoever though, nor will there be. Western nations will keep bankrupting themselves with plans to try to lower their emissions, in a way that could only possibly hope to make sense in the context of an organized effort with a specific goal in mind, one that would actually work, unlike the fucking paris agreement.
So you know what will happen? You know what the future looks like? Worldwide emissions WILL keep going up, the world will quickly start getting poorer and poorer on average, in real terms, it will get warmer and crappier, and in spite of this the population will probably reach 15 billion. The ONLY way catastrophic climate change will be prevented will be some serious worldwide effort at geoengineering the planet, most likely with a bunch of undesirable side effects.
If it's not stopped, because the west wants to be the chump of the tragedy of the commons, they'll be left with absolutely nothing to fight the consequences of climate change they'll be left worse off than if they just decided to keep enriching themselves and using that money to prepare for the worse.