It turns out Thunberg was asked what she thinks of China and India in an interview with The Times of India. Some excerpts:
What is your message for Prime Minister Narendra Modi?
Take this seriously and act. Otherwise in the future you will not be taken seriously. You have such a big responsibility and if you don’t do something, you will be much blamed for this crisis.
Why protest in Sweden and London and not in China which is probably creating the most emissions in the world?
If I get an invitation to China, I will be very happy. Since I don’t fly, I would have to go by train and that takes longer than going to, for example, London, maybe by weeks. So, I would have to start planning in advance.
Is China responsible for a lot of the greenhouse emissions in the world?
Every country is responsible in some part, but there are a lot of factories in China and they manufacture a lot of the stuff that the western world buys.
Do you think India is also contributing a lot to greenhouse emissions?
Of course. According to statistics, India is one of the top countries in the world that emits. India emits a lot since they have a lot of people and they have very dirty coal and so on.
Does the Indian government have a strategy in place to deal with this?
No. I don’t think any country has a strategy to deal with this.
What message would you like to give the Indian public?
We are facing an existential crisis. We need to fully understand the consequences…demand action.
Is there anything you would like to see Indians do specifically, like move to electric cars, solar power?
The most important thing everyone needs to do right now is to read and educate yourself. You will understand what you have to do. I am just a child, just a messenger.
I'll let you be the judge whether what she about China and India said translates into a smiley or frowny face...
On the other hand, the implication from the img that she is entirely unhappy with the US because of its climate record since 2000 is clearly wrong because she didn't have that frowny face when meeting Obama; her frowns were reserved for Trump.
If you want some comment of hers in which she sets apart the rich from the poor countries...
And please note that these figures are global and therefore do not say anything about the aspects of equity, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris Agreement work on a global scale. And that means that richer countries need to get down to zero emissions much faster and then help poorer countries do the same so that people in less fortunate parts of the world can raise their living standards.
So yeah, she thinks everyone should be reducing emissions, the richer nations faster than the poorer ones.
Also interesting perhaps:
Thunberg tweeted Monday that she, along with 15 other children hailing from 12 countries, had filed a legal complaint accusing five countries of inaction on global warming that violated the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey were mentioned in the petition. [...]
The five named countries join 44 others that ratified the convention's power to hear complaints against them; however, the United States and China, which are the biggest culprits among the world's top greenhouse-gas emitters, haven't signed the section of the treaty allowing children to seek justice for infringements.
As a result, China and the US were not included in the complaint.
India has also not signed that additional protocol. But some of the countries named in the suit, like Brazil or Turkey, are both fairly big [population-wise at least] and are developing countries.
As an aside, the left side of the pamphlet that makes the topic of this question mirrors quite well the usual criticism that the Trump administration has levelled at China and India as well as what they are allowed to do under the Paris Agreement, e.g.
President Donald Trump announced he was withdrawing from the agreement, he singled out both nations.
“China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours,” Trump said last Thursday. He added that the Paris agreement “is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the [United States].”
India is a beneficiary of the Green Climate Fund, which helps developing countries adapt practices to mitigate climate change. Trump lashed out at the fund when he announced the U.S. exit from Paris, and he has repeatedly said the United States will not provide the remaining $2 billion the Obama administration pledged. If India loses the financial support helping to fund its projects, there’s reason to be concerned that its climate efforts could be hindered as well.
So yeah, there are concerns that the US exiting the plan, which does involve rich countries paying the poor to reduce their emissions, could also make the poorer countries do (even) less.
As bit more historical context, India actually has soften their position around 2009 (Copenhagen). For a long time [before] they held that they should do practically nothing regarding climate change until they become as developed/emitting (per capita) as the west, e.g.
India then hosted COP-8 in New Delhi from 23 October to 1 November 2002.
During this conference, India rejected pressure on poor nations to step up efforts to
tackle global warming by cutting GHG emissions. The then Prime Minister of India,
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, argued that countries like India still produced only a fraction of
the global GHG emissions and could not afford the costs of cutting them. Opening the
ministerial talks at the Conference, he insisted that poor countries should not be forced
to set targets for reducing GHG emissions and stated: ‘Climate change mitigation will
bring additional strain to the already fragile economies of the developing countries
and will affect our efforts to achieve higher GDP growth rates to eradicate poverty
speedily’ (Gaur, 2003: 286).
In the COP-13 at Bali, India reiterated its position on GHG reduction [...]
Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, in his statement at the General Debate of
the 63rd UN General Assembly, reiterated the well-articulated Indian position when
he confirmed support for multilateral negotiations taking place under the UNFCCC.
However, ‘[t]he outcome must be fair and equitable and recognize the principle that
each citizen of the world has equal entitlement to the global atmospheric space’ (Prime
Minister’s Office, 2008a).
In translation: they are allowed to emit as much GHG per capita as the rich countries. As for what their position morphed into...
Singh (2011) said:
[...] We have to make changes in our
lifestyles, particularly in the developed world, and learn to make do with less. In
developing countries, poverty eradication will have to be linked to the availability of
clean, renewable and affordable energy. [...]
Modi himself added a new component to
India’s policy on climate change while addressing the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) when he said: ‘Too often, our
discussion is reduced to an argument about emission cuts. But, we are more likely
to succeed if we offer affordable solutions, not simply impose choices’ (Ministry of
External Affairs, 2015).
In translation: if clean energy is not affordable enough for us, we stick with "plan A". I haven't followed the declarative stances of China, but a recent FT article (paywalled sorry) goes into some details on China's re-emphasized plans on coal this year, following their economic slowdown.