Absolutely nothing that happens anywhere, to anyone, is paid for without selling or burning fossil fuels. Even solar plants reduce the price of electricity, which gives people buying fossil fuel energy the ability to buy more of it.

I don't really think so. I think they're separate issues. If anything, increased warmth, carbon dioxide and water vapor will increase the density of rainforests, ignoring any other emgstive consequences elsewhere around the world. Rainforest conservation and climate change are separate issues, though they overlap in specific ways and circumstances.

Ignoring the source of the funds used for this conservation effort, actively incentivizing rainforest conservation so that real capital is used to that end is a fantastic thing.

So if an acre of rainforest were slated to be "developed" but burning, say, 1 55-gal drum of your favorite hydrocarbon would prevent it, and instead preserve that acre for 5 years, you would be against doing so, because it involves burning fossil fuels? If no, then your statement is untrue.