I'll be fascinated to see how this actually works. Based on whose definition one chooses to use, pollution extends to everything related to human existence on earth and beyond.
Allow me to provide an example. Suppose that ALL human-related "pollution" were actually eliminated from China and the Chinese were forced to resort to the horse and buggy for their transportation and freight shipping needs. The problem they face is that horses still produce "pollution". They poop and they fart. Based on any given envirowacko's definition of pollution, horse poop can be considered a pollutant and farts emit methane gas (fineable if your a cattle farmer in New Zealand).
So, I generally scoff at the notion that China will end pollution once and for all. As the genteel among us might say, "It is to laugh".
You seem to be exaggerating a bit.
I never promoting "ending pollution" but rather increasing efficiency.
There are a limited number of resources on the planet - except human ingenuity.
The whole world cannot use resources in the manner the West currently does. There simply is not enough.
The world will also not simply let the West continue its lifestyle while they adopt a more modest one.
The only solution is for the West to modify its resources use patterns. This is an impossible scenario to imagine the West voluntarily reducing its resource consumption. Of course, the alternative is the overuse the resources capacity of the earth. Thus, it is the most impossible likelihood, except for the all of the others.
The nations that start first in efficiency will be the big winners. Ever notice that Germany is the world's leading exporter with 1/5 of the US population? What they export are their very efficient manufactured goods.