But no, it's probably just coal's fault.
Edit: I'm not saying that it's not a factor but it's one in a vast array. A country that can unnaturally and immorally suppress its workers and environmental goals will always manage to produce for less money.
The real problem is we let things get this way. We ignored allowed open trade. We don't fix it by going back to coal, we fix it by forcing China —and its spiritual successors— off it.
That honor falls on the climate conferences and our "scientific policy stance".
That's very heroic of them. Seems pretty upsetting that the masses are too ignorant to understand this.
The masses are too ignorant to understand this ? Well, yes. The masses, of course, never try to understand anything at all.
But therefore my question : what will climate activists do when their policies have destroyed the planet (while "trying to save the planet" - heh) ? Will they go live somewhere else ?
Unfortunately, developed nations are mostly powered by oil with significant nuclear power added. China isn't. China is powered by coal. Coal produces something like 10x more CO2 per unit of energy (kWh) compared to oil, and about 200x more than nuclear. So climate change accords have systematically worsened CO2 output rather than improving it, while destroying already severely damaged manufacturing industries in the developed world.
With predictable results: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC (climate accords were signed in 1992, 2011 and 2015)
The answer to your question is to lower further damage to industries in the US and Europe and thereby will both improve the economics of the situation and actually lower CO2 output.
So your question is about as fair as asking why climate activists keep destroying the world and what their long term plan is.
(e.g. Here are how the people "improving" climate actually act: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/03/paris-un-global-warming-su... - Claiming that these people actually care and agree that changing our ways to make things better for the environment is ... well, let's just say I see some arguments against that viewpoint)