Ideally you would enable some other type of stove. They may lack the infrastructure for natural gas or propane, of course. But I'm sure heating can be accomplished without chopping down trees at all. Through solar, for instance.
In a perfect world, yes.
But this is the problem with conservation work in poor countries. 1.7% of US energy generation comes from solar [1], so going to Madagascar and saying "hey, you should be using solar instead of chopping down trees" rings a little hollow.
Should they also be forced to go through all the innovations and advances developed countries have in order to utilize them?
It seems to me it's perfectly OK to tell smaller countries times have changed get with the program, but we have to do it in a compassionate and understanding fashion as the OP mentioned.
If you’re Madagascar, you’re SOL.
You might argue that subsidies create an industry of overproduction that’ll eventually crash the market, but that’s definitely not the initial state.
Just as if you’re a gas station and the government gives you a subsidy for every litre you sell, you’ll use some of that subsidy to pay more and sell for less in your local market and still have higher margins than your competitor.
Solar in a country with poor infrastructure means distributed generation becomes possible. Most places in the US have robust power grids, but even then conservation and point generation is the cheapest way to add marginal capacity!
That should be a guiding star of policy. Electricity is an almost magical force that opens doors.
IMO people are people. I’m fortunate to live in the US and be able to have the education and opportunity to use my abilities in a productive way. My grandfather was probably smarter than me in IQ terms, but drove a garbage truck and shoveled coal to support his family. (He taught himself calculus on that truck to help my uncle study.)
There are millions of people like my grandpa. If we figure out how to elevate them to their potential, we all benefit.