Not at the cost they are paying. A coal plant is an order of magnitude cheaper than nuclear, and storage of wind energy isn't exactly a solved problem compared to coal / gas.
Every third world country will use the exact path the 1st world used to get to where we are because it is proven reliable, doesn't cause political turmoil (nuclear), and is cheap to implement. If the 1st world wants it to be different then we have to provide the game changing technology. That has not been done.
I understand you were talking about energy. My point is that an argument that boils down to "you did this in the past, so I get to do it now" loses its consistency if the person (or country) making it is so clearly willing to benefit from the fact that they are not industrializing in the 1800s. Clearly they don't plan to do everything the same way England did in the 1800s.
China is industrializing in an era when we have technologies that can increase survival rates and extend lifetimes dramatically, when we have greater awareness of the negative externalities of dirty fossil fuel technology, and we have far greater options for generating energy. This leads to a different set of obligations and opportunities.
I don't think that the "west", or the US in particular, has come close to meeting those obligations. But that's a different issue. My point here is a more narrow one - if you're going to pick and choose which technologies you're going to use, the claim that you get to do this the 1800s way loses almost all its moral force. Instead, this is "if it benefits us to do things the old way, we will remind you that you did it this way and insist that we get to do it that way too. If it benefits us to do things the new way, hey, we're a modern country, why on earth should we be shacked to the crappy old way you used to do things"
No, it boils down to "I did it this way and nothing has come along to replace this way". There is no energy revolution at scale, reliability, and continuous 24x7 (through the night / in the calm) production.
"China is industrializing in an era when we have technologies that can increase survival rates and extend lifetimes dramatically, when we have greater awareness of the negative externalities of dirty fossil fuel technology, and we have far greater options for generating energy. This leads to a different set of obligations and opportunities."
Yet, they still use coal to an excess. It is simple economics. Nuclear has been demonized, and coal is cheap, easy, and well understood. The 1800's way is the 1900's way is the 2000's way. Coal and oil are still the way.
Until someone beats coal and oil on all features, it won't change. It is that way in a lot of human activities.
It's not simple economics, accounting for externalities is really complex and fraught with subjectivity.
What price on early deaths, reductions in labor force and increased medical bills? I've been to China a couple times, the pollution is bad. Any place where hello kitty surgical masks are a fashion item, that should tell you something about the air quality.
This is why China is actually investing a ton in renewables now -- it's not about the US pulling up a ladder behind us (as if we could), it's about what's best for Chinese and for the world.
They are not obligated to use coal for 100 years before moving up the ladder -- heck, they can beat us up it, since they're actually willing to invest in infrastructure and we're not.
This is the saving grace of the situation. China's leadership must be aware of what will happen if they try to meet the energy needs of a billion people through dirty coal.
China's challenges are very different from what England faced in the 1850s. But in that sense, perhaps their path will be similar - they will face unprecedented challenges, and will have to innovate to solve them. And if they do solve them, they will now have a massive first-mover advantage.
Which is why I'm heavily in favour of German subsity of renewable energy, even if we end up paying more for electricity and our companies are broke because China copied the technologies. (I'm from Germany, so yes, I'm paying.)
Just count it as foreign aid, and a good way to get everyone to do what you want. (Could be done better, but it's the best way there is, IMHO.)
Every third world country will use the exact path the 1st world used to get to where we are because it is proven reliable, doesn't cause political turmoil (nuclear), and is cheap to implement. If the 1st world wants it to be different then we have to provide the game changing technology. That has not been done.