Why does more natural gas have to be part of the answer?
A better solution would be to interconnect larger grids and to build new transmission infrastructure. Africa is a good example of this going wrong. Instead of interconnecting the continent, the west is focused on off-grid solutions, things that don't scale well.
Considering it will still take decades for renewables to be rolled out and cheap enough to replace wood and coal, it makes sense to use gas transitionally.
The fact that this isn't discussed in green movements is insane. It literally would reduce carbon emissions faster. It shows how the green movement is more ideological than pragmatic.
I'll stop you right there because the major producers of greenhouse gasses aren't third world countries. Historically, the majority of greenhouse gasses emitted comes from industrialized nations.
> can be switched to gas cheaply and easily
I highly doubt that. Gas distribution requires a fine grained pipeline infrastructure which needs constant maintenance. That's a massive upfront cost in developing countries and new economies like India where the domestic market lacks such infrastructure in many places. Not to mention challenges regarding security and geography.
Given the respective individual income level in those countries, it's far cheaper to source energy locally from wood, manure and - above all - coal.
Moreover, the big issue isn't what new economies like India aren't emitting today. But what they are very much willing to emit in the near future in order to raise overall living standards to a level comparable with the West.
At this point, wagging fingers what they should or shouldn't do is a non-sequitur since Western nations carry a historical responsibility for their own industrial pasts.
In the documentary "Before the Flood", this dillemma is being made abundantly clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia5fMomBXbE
That doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle emissions in third world countries.
There's a stark difference between having the facts right, and having enough credibility to be believed by everyone else that you're right.
Many developing countries are near the equator and can take advantage of solar. The distributed nature of solar is also a benefit for countries that lack infrastructure. Why not start with a cleaner solution? Countries in Africa and South America can increase their use of hydroelectric power as well.
Bottom line: the amount of CO₂ emitted by "third world" countries is miniscule and it is only a distraction to point to it.
In 2020 the US alone emitted about as much CO₂ as all of Africa, India, and South America together:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...
(India: 2.44 billion tonnes, Africa: 1.33 billion tonnes, South America: 994.16 million tonnes, total: 4.76 billion tonnes; US: 4.71 billion tonnes).
That's just the US, not counting the rest of North America, Europe, the rest of Asia and China, some of which may count more as "third world" than others, it's up to debate.