Assigning blame and guilt is pointless. Just look at how well it has worked to motivate the US to change. That is to say, not at all.
The only thing moving the needle is renewables and nuclear generating power more cheaply than fossil fuels, so it becomes stupid to not switch to them even if you have no regard for the long term health of the environment.
It's not about assigning blame.
Per capita emissions give us a better idea of which groups of people require the largest change in their lifestyle in order to hit net zero. The current numbers suggest that the typical person in the US will have to do a lot more to hit net-zero than the typical person in China. Obviously, you can do better and estimate per capita emissions for each province/state/city or by wealth level. For instance, in many poor countries, most of their emissions come from the top 5-10% of the population. Everyone else emits basically nothing.
On the other hand, the total emissions of a country, absent other information, has little actionable value. It can only be uses to assign blame, so quite useless.
Doesn't matter if the people with the biggest emissions don't personally feel any urgency to change.
That still sounds like assigning blame and a vague call to "change lifestyle", instead of concrete action plans for energy, manufacturing, transportation and agricultural sectors. That is where the bulk of emissions are, not some billionaire's yacht or private jet.