There seems to be a choice between artificially holding back energy generation due to net zero concerns keeping more people in poverty for longer, or we could p

There seems to be a choice between artificially holding back energy generation due to net zero concerns keeping more people in poverty for longer, or we could pursue fossil fuels and nuclear and lift more people out of poverty now (and presumably hope for a future fix/mitigation for climate impacts). I wonder which would save most lives overall? I would also note that those living in poverty currently don't seem to have a vote on the approach to take.