Sure.
There's huge literature on this in terms of how you assign these things. The basic principle that the current treaty comes down to is this: Countries are responsible for the emissions that they control directly, that happen within their territory, because that's a principle of sovereignty. It's hard to account for things when you export LNG to China, for instance. If it displaces coal, there is a net benefit. If it displaces renewables, there is not. It's hard to figure those things out. This was actually one of Jean Chrétien's big things. He wanted to have that system.
The challenge is that every country wants to get credits for the good things they do, such as the low-greenhouse gas stuff, but then they don't want to have to account for perhaps the less-good things they have. This is where, if we were to shift to a system of including downstream emissions, which is one of the proposals, Canada then, as a major oil exporter, for instance, would be responsible for a larger share of global emissions than we are right now, just looking at domestic emissions within Canada.
You have to take the good with the bad when you try to shift these types of things. Right now, basically, governments can control what happens in their territory. That's how the accounting is done, but there are lots of other ways you could do it.