Neither should anyone deny that there is a need for economic growth
Why shouldn't they? Can you (a) first define what "economic growth" is, and (b) explain why it is necessary? I have never seen an answer to either question that wasn't a circular argument, a non-sequitur, or just willy-waving.
Firstly, I very much like those suggestions from Ducked. As regards political impossibilities, I understand South African mercenaries are the standard solution.
Personally though, I don't think we need to pay anyone to do anything. Everyone seems to assume all this climate change business is going to cost us a shitload of money. I think it's the complete opposite. What we're doing NOW is costing us a shitload of money. Logically, if it wasn't, we'd all be lying on beaches sipping cocktails instead of slaving away at the office. My suggestion, therefore, is to create corporations which can sell a cocktail-sipping lifestyle to poor people. I believe this will work because:
(a) There are about three billion poor people, and that number is growing;
(b) many of them aspire to sip cocktails on beaches (except the Muslims) because that's what rich people do;
(c) many of them live in devastated environments, which is usually at least part of the reason they are poor;
(d) the technology and know-how required to turn devastated environments into productive, zero-carbon economies exists, and is not expensive - especially when you have a deep pool of cheap labour available;
(e) delivering that technology and know-how to poor people means that they will become less poor;
(f) which means they will be able to repay the loans which paid for all that infrastructure, and everyone wins.
There are only a few countries where this would work, initially. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Guyana, Bolivia, Sierra Leone, and (possibly) Indonesia. Most other poor countries are deliberately so and the government has no intention of allowing people to become rich. OTOH, a clear demonstration of a productive "green" economy might swing a few opinions in other countries.
The technology would vary slightly from place to place, but my "killer apps" (I can't believe I just used that phrase
a) revegetation/reforestation with productive species - that is, stuff that can be sold or used, including biofuel for cooking and industry.
b) composting and/or slow pyrolysis of all organic waste for regenerating dead soil.
c) photovoltaics (for electricity) and solar heat collection (for climate control and industrial processes).
d) autonomous electric vehicles powered from the solar grid, for humans and for unmanned transport of stuff, running on very narrow, low-cost roads.
e) bulk rainwater collection for human uses (potable water, for some unfathomable reason, seems to be a big issue in poor countries).
f) rammed-earth residences and low-cost space frames for roofing, designed by the most expensive architects money can buy.
All this kit would be sold or rented, not given away. It would be marketed as exclusive stuff that rich Americans use. Flexible credit terms, of course, would be on offer to "the right customers" (ie., more-or-less anyone). Ongoing charges for electricity, transport, water, rent etc., and income from spin-off businesses (eg., agricultural products and light industry) would then fund expansion.
The tricky part of all that, of course, would be finding a VC with enough cash to roll out credit-funded deployment on a big enough initial scale.