> Paying poor countries to not build coal plants.
So that they can be replaced with cleaner power or just to bribe people into staying poor?
> Blowing up infrastructure.
So that people starve to death?
So that they can be replaced with cleaner power or just to bribe people into staying poor?
> Blowing up infrastructure.
So that people starve to death?
This is a straightforward wealth-transfer. It is up to the recipient to decide how they want to use it, but it should be noted this is attached to a statement to not build coal plants. Given the obvious correlation between energy production and economic productivity this should work out ok as well as delivering a long-overdue balancing of power among economically disparate peoples. The last effect is why I know this will not happen until it is too late (probably already).
> So that people starve to death?
That's coming regardless. Nonetheless, strategic targeting should avoid this.
There's always the wealth-transfer option if you object to the ethics of property destruction!
The other options are even more homicidal/genocidal/apocalyptic for our civilization—you just aren't obligated to think about it today.