[JeffSnazz]

> 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.

[Clubber]

You should probably stop reading whatever it is you're reading. Your thought process on this matter is bordering on zealotry. You just suggested destroying infrastructure, which you acknowledge will starve thousands of people to prevent climate change. When questioned on that, your response is that they will die anyway.

[JeffSnazz]

"How to Blow Up a Pipeline" by Andreas Malm, published by Verso Press in 2021, ISBN 1-839-76025-7

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.