> So that they can be replaced with cleaner power or just to bribe people into staying poor?

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.