Pollution is a commonly-used example of a negative externality [0], or a way to shift business costs onto a third party.

In the parent example, the implication is that rather than investing money in reducing pollution, that money can instead by returned to the investors as dividends, and the global public must bear the impact of the unmitigated soot emissions.

The "wealth transfer" in this case is represented by the costs absorbed by the public (in terms of increased healthcare costs, endangered coastal real estate, disaster relief costs, etc which may result from pollution and/or anthropogenic climate change) being transferred to the investors/owners/operators of the polluting companies in the form of reduced spending on mitigation technology.

That was my interpretation of the parent's meaning, at least. At the time I posted this comment, there were three different interpretations of the same comment, which is very interesting.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative

I took the parent comment to be making the assumption that politically attractive options for responding to emissions and climate change tend to be "market-based" solutions or activities that are picking winners between industries (say solar manufacturers and installers vs. coal plant workers). If there is a choice where there is a "winner" with money on the line there will also be lobbying money put toward that effort and so consensus building is easier.

There isn't necessarily anything nefarious about this, just that it may be incapable of dealing with the enormity of climate climate and also, as OP intimates, there may be a class of solutions that are better/cheaper/more efficient from a policy perspective, but that don't have anyone positioned to gain financially from them and so are harder to garner support for.

I took it to mean that a different form of carbon (diamond) is more suitable for wealth transfer than soot.