@drsimevans This figure is not normalized over the overall amount of investment.
While it shows that north America definitely is foraging fossil fuel, the comparison doesn't appear too fair.

To make it clear, I'm just complaining about the data in the graph, not about the analysis or the conclusions.
I don't know the actual figures, but I'll give an example to explain how this graph might fail to depict the situation, to make it simple I'll assume fossil fuel is only used in power production.
If North America was the largest power producer in the world and other countries imported energy from them, it would be normal to expect their investment in fossil fuel to be higher. Now, would it be fair to imply that they are the consumers of such fossil fuel? Indeed the consumers are the importers of such electricity and this would not appear in such a graph.
Now, let's say this is not the case and no significant export exists. This graph still fails to describe who is investing money in alternatives to fossil fuels. If North America was the lead country in renewable energies this would not appear in the graph. They might have a 70% renewable production and being very near to full conversion, however their production might be so high that the investment in fossil fuel would still appear huge.

Indeed this is a very simple and naive example, there are many sectors of economy at play. North America is a large economy and they do export a lot, so I believe this problems to be present in the analysis and probably with a major effect on the conclusions.

This doesn't mean I think north America is doing great, they're doing basically nothing of value in this area as far as I know. They could and they should do much more.