Nice lack of scale for the vertical axis,; obviously way above 0.

(This is not to ignore the other problems related to fracking – methane leaks, air and water pollution, health effects.)

The figure that is equivalent to your second graph is in Chapter 5, Fig 5.5. showing fossil CO2 emissions for 1970-2010. For the USA, it shows the little dip after 2007 and an uptick again in 2010.

Relevant is also Fig. 5.2. which shows the greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. including CH4, N2O etc.) in CO2-equivalent. Unfortunately it doesn’t show individual regions but lumps all OECD-90 countries in one graph. Fig 5.14 is similar but shows territory-based and consumption-based emissions separately (i.e. wheter the indirect emissions of stuff consumed in Europe but produced in China is counted for Europe or China).

Fig 14.3. in Chapter 14 shows the changes of GHGs for different regions 1990-2010. No reduction in any region except EIT (Economies in Transition, i.e. Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union).

“From 1990 to 2008 CO2 emissions in developed countries (defined as countries with emission-reduction commitments in the Kyoto Protocol, Annex B) have stabilized, but emissions in developing countries (non-Annex B) have doubled. Some studies suggest that the stabilization of emissions in developed countries was partially because of growing imports from developing countries…
Most developed countries have increased their consumption-based emissions faster than their territorial emissions…
Our results indicate that international trade is a significant factor in explaining the change in emissions in many countries, from both a production and consumption perspective.”
Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/19/1006388108.abstract

“We find that in 2006, 36% of anthropogenic sulfur dioxide, 27% of nitrogen oxides, 22% of carbon monoxide, and 17% of black carbon emitted in China were associated with production of goods for export. For each of these pollutants, about 21% of export-related Chinese emissions were attributed to China-to-US export.”
China’s international trade and air pollution in the United States
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/01/16/1312860111

“Cuts in carbon emissions by developed countries since 1990 have been cancelled out many times over by increases in imported goods from developing countries such as China, according to the most comprehensive global figures ever compiled.
…emissions released during production of goods are assigned to the country where production takes place, rather than where goods are consumed.
Campaigners say this allows rich countries unfairly to claim they are reducing or stabilising their emissions when they may be simply sending them offshore – relying increasingly on goods imported from emerging economies that do not have binding emissions targets under Kyoto.
According to standard data, developed countries can claim to have reduced their collective emissions by almost 2% between 1990 and 2008. But once the carbon cost of imports have been added to each country, and exports subtracted – the true change has been an increase of 7%. If Russia and Ukraine – which cut their CO2 emissions rapidly in the 1990s due to economic collapse – are excluded, the rise is 12%…
Much of the increase in emissions in the developed world is due to the US, which promised a 7% cut under Kyoto but then did not to ratify the protocol. Emissions within its borders increased by 17% between 1990 and 2008 – and by 25% when imports and exports are factored in.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/25/carbon-cuts-developed-countries- cancelled

See also:
U.S. Trade Deals From the 90’s Set Up China as a Pollution Haven
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140306/us-trade-deals-90s-set-china-pollution-haven

If rising production costs in developing countries result in transferring production back to developed countries, that too will affect emissions statistics.

However, in reality gas power is not much better (or even worse) for climate than coal if you include the effects of methane (CH4), which is leaked from pipelines etc. Gas power only seems good for climate if you only consider CO2. Methane has a much greater global warming potential – essentially each molecule of CH4 contributes as much warming as 70 molecules of CO2.

If you take this into account, gas power is only better if the total gas leakage is less than about 4%; if the leakage is higher, then the leaked CH4 affects the climate more than the saved CO2.

How much gas leakage is there? This is difficult to measure, but estimates are a few percent, and it also seems that the leakage from fracking operations is considerably higher than it was assumed (see Caulton et al, PNAS 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1316546111).

So we may have reduced CO2, but we have increased CH4. In terms of total greenhouse gas emissions, we haven’t really reduced emissions (certainly not as much as the CO2 curve might suggest) or may even have increased total emissions.