This doesn't need to be charity either; the maintenance cost of renewables can be much lower than the cost of fossil fuels, so they can end up cheaper over the long-term (obviously dependent on the situation). Hence it can be a straighforward loan/investment to set up this renewable tech. When talking about national policy, there are also factors like reducing dependence on oil imports, which can make renewables even more attractive.
We are not getting of fossil fuels anytime soon.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil?fbc...
You're just describing a feedback cycle: the more we transition to renewables, the less fossil fuels will go into wind turbines and solar cells.
From your link:
> Large trucks bring steel and other raw materials to the site, earth-moving equipment beats a path to otherwise inaccessible high ground, large cranes erect the structures, and all these machines burn diesel fuel. So do the freight trains and cargo ships that convey the materials needed for the production of cement, steel, and plastics.
In other words, we should transition our vehicles to renewable power. Electric motors are already preferable when it comes to heavy machinery (bucket-wheel excavators and conveyor bridges, the largest machines ever made, being the most extreme examples). Wind/solar farms generate electricity, so they can start charging batteries or electrolysing water to hydrogen as soon as the first turbines/panels are installed; they'll eventually need hefty grid connections, so installing those early-on can also power the construction.
Managing an electric/hydrogen construction site is mostly logistics rather than engineering: we don't need new battery tech or fuel cell membranes when vehicles are operating on a single site, centrally coordinated, centrally owned/rented, etc. Battery swaps make more sense when a single entity controls all the batteries (no fear of losing a good battery for a worn-out dud). Even if you want to be incredibly pessimistic about battery/hydrogen usage: with a bit more coordination and training, construction vehicles could just be wired!
Similarly, electric trains are a thing; electric and hydrogen trucks are already available and getting better; we can sail cargo ships, for a price (time + money).
The only place which seems to require new science and engineering in all this is steel and concrete production, but (a) there are a bunch of companies bringing improvements to market already, and (b) that's no reason to avoid all the other improvements. Again, worst-case pessimism: we might need to plug excess renewables into some vastly-inefficient air capture system to offset jet aircraft, rockets (except hydrogen burners), concrete and steel; that's still easier than trying to offset all those things plus electricity and land transport and shipping and construction etc.
The only direct barriers are economic; and those are indirectly political.
That takes time. Meanwhile coal plants and concrete manufacture will continue as the developing countries grow. Even China has to operate a lot of coal plants to meet its current energy needs. Global C02 emissions likely won't peak for several years, before starting to decline.
Maybe the more developed countries should build or invest in power plants from renewable sources, or maybe nuclear, in less developed countries.
Ever seen what goes into building a windmill?
https://spectrum.ieee.org/to-get-wind-power-you-need-oil?fbc...
We are not even theoretically close to getting off oil, gas or coal.
So you need to address currently polluting countries as well, because they are very much an important part of the problem. This set partly overlaps with the set of developed countries, partly not.
It's only a real concern if you are very insistant about calling China and India "developing" countries.
I'm guessing this would require a change at the WTO level however, making it relatively unlikely.
OTOH renewable energy sources are getting economically competitive so development doesn't have to mean more carbon. For instance, wind power already accounts for 20% of Brazil's energy generation (and most of it was built recently with private capital, as the government has been broke for a few decades already).
If businesses in developed countries had to simply pay the cost of cleanup when importing from countries without their own laws in place, it would still be a massive improvement.
Carbon credits will be enforced with coercion, just as the petrodollar has been. At the end of the day they are both schemes where technocrats print permission slips to consume energy.
Putting aside the fear mongering rationalizations for both schemes, I hope posters here can appreciate the inherent moral hazards.