For a slightly different angle on this issue, see: Liberalisation of Trade inRenewable-Energy Products and Associated Goods: Charcoal, Solar Photovoltaic Systems, and Wind Pumps and Turbines", by yours truly.

These are only my personal opinions.

Remember we 'traded' our technology of gas refining and 'helped' build refineries in under developed countries; we had moved on to lead-free but guess what kind we built?   Uh huh, the leaded gas kind.  

Now that we are making an improved diesel gas and are poised to build the new generation of clean burning diesel engines, guess which technology we are exporting?  

It is this strangling concept of capitalism that is behind this use of outdated technology, hanging on to it long after a cleaner, safer, cheaper, way of accomplishing the same thing is known, and then exporting the 'technology' to the third world that is the problem.  This unconscionable greed that is inseparable from capitalism is behind this concept of free trade.  

Why hang on?  Because of the investment in the supporting distribution system.  Because the government gives tax rebates, offsets, loopholes, adjustments,  all manner and kind of kickbacks to companies in our capitalist economy.  

Does anybody really believe that we in the USA could not have had efficient and cheap solar the the energy companies so desired?  Why not?  Because they haven't made enough money (all the money there is, it seems like) from the existing technology.  Why not sell Africa cheap and efficient solar panels?  Because they first have to build roads (with US companies), strung with electric wires (we would be glad to help) carrying electricity from dams we built (current silting up, evaporating the surface water in massive amounts, draining the rivers that previously nourished plains where farmers lived and worked, and being used to manipulate other water-dependent countries to do their will.)  

All of those steps require much expenditure of funds that go directly into the pockets of the provider, usually us.  Why would we allow countries to avoid a technology that we master and can charge for?  

So, the countries are now stuck with dirty diesel.  Well, the technology exists for clean diesel and has for a long time.  In fact, the diesel engine was developed over what? 60 years ago.  Anybody want to guess why we went the gasoline engine route?  Hint:  it has to do with oil.  

But, at the same time, there are numerous companies selling solar cells and modules to developing countries. Developing countries, as a whole, now represent the fastest-growing market for photovoltaic (PV) based systems.

A big problem in developing countries, in fact, are their own high tariff barriers to solar cells (and solar water heaters). That, and tied-aid arrangements that undercut everybody else's sales. Although the number of developing countries that produce solar cells can be counted on one hand, they are emerging as major manufacturers of modules, as well as the components (inverters, direct-current lamps) used in home and village-scale solar PV systems.

So, don't blame trade per se.

These are only my personal opinions.

Frankly, I'm a big fan of the times business section, especially it's technology reporting, but COME ON!! Dilemma? I find it hard to believe that a foundation with an endowment bigger than some countries' gross domestic product to have to pause about whether or not to get involved with an invested company if said  company is involved in a environmental and/or humanitarian issue that is directly related to what the foundation is trying to end?

And as I remember, the big cheese who the foundation is named after is no rookie in imposing his will on a company or an industry. For once Gates has a great opportunity to use the Dark Side for some major good, while still adhering  within the mandate of helping in global heath.

And Seattle Times, the foundation a pretty meaty organization, I'm sure that they have their own PR department to explain the hardships and complexities of sustainable investing.

grist.org