I think that if done properly, those who have gone down the path (if they could lay their agendas and finger pointing for failed policy aside) could contribute a great deal of valuable information. Acting in one's self interests isn't inherently bad--it drives and makes the market efficient in most situations. In some cases (national defense, pollution, asymmetric information, etc.) this doesn't work--the market fails somewhat. Pollution's an externality; the price of the thing made doesn't reflect the "bad" caused to others by the pollution--thus, there's economic justification for government involvement. This pollution has a very real long term cost to people's health and a country's economy (it's just convincing someone of this that's hard). Same as for safer working conditions--it's actually in the country's best interests to foster this (although they may not know this at present know this). China's industry is actually alot like the U.S. steel industry was early to mid 20th century.
Our problem in the U.S. is we regulate without bounds and rationality, and believe that if we write something down on paper it'll magically solve a problem or put electricity in the lines. This isn't true. I remember in college, when we'd look at regulating based on technology, we were keen to just throw out "solutions" not considering the opportunity costs. You reach a point of diminishing returns and dramatically increasing costs -- if reducing the last 10% of the soot costs 10,000 x more it isn't a good deal because you could use that money elsewhere for something much more important. This is why America hasn't built any new refineries in the last 30+ years--between the EPA and the litigation, it's not worth it. We have all kinds of coal and oil we can't burn (even though technology lets us burn it "clean enough") -- diesel's expensive here because our refineries are cutting back on the mandated low sulfur for U.S. consumption and cranking out the high sulfur, shipping it to Asia, and pocketing the $--how screwed up is that for an energy policy ? Our legislatures ban light bulbs vice build reactors (growth of our nuclear program was killed by the stroke of Jimmy Carter's pen, and we haven't had the fortitude to restart it despite needing the energy). We hold resources in reserve and let the dollar be used against us by those who don't.
I think we could pass along our knowledge (both the successes and the failures) and this is worthwhile--this level of polution control works--this much is too much (i.e. isn't worth it for the extra cost). Build a refinery over here (away from a watershed and people), and install x type of pollution control equipment, and keep the tanks above ground. This won't cost much more but will pay dividends in the long run. Consolodate your coal plants--this saves you money because it's more efficient. Put these neat scrubbers that'll pull out the NOx and SO2; not only will the air be clean, but you can get nitric and sulfuric acid to use in your industries from this process (thus having economic gain with less pollution which benefits everyone--win-win). This particular war can be won, but it might require the strategery of the late WT Sherman to accomplish--if you're not
willing to do that, you might re-think starting the war. When you build your new breeder reactor, build it inherently safe (i.e. it shuts down when it begins to overheat), don't use liquid sodium, consider using the thorium cycle (vs. plutonium) and, unlike Chernobyl, install a decent containment system.
For anyone to listen, doing this requires an absolutely pragmatic (works/doesn't work), politics free analysis of things we've done in the western world, and a critical analysis of how and why they've succeeded or failed (divorced from how much we "wanted" them to succeed). It demands the messenger be someone of credibility, integrety and benevolence, free from agenda. Given our current culture of finger pointing and "is-is" here, politicians like this are hard to come by. But I think it possible that, with the right persons, an impact could be made in China and developing Asia not to make the same mistakes we did (and to use what has worked as well). It would have to be "their idea" of course
Cheers.