Replacing traditional cooking methods in developing countries with less energy-intensive and healthier systems would require four billion dollars annually by 2030. A tool that could help mobilize these funds, albeit imperfect at the moment, is carbon credits.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), achieving the 2030 goal will be difficult without carbon markets. The IEA brings together governments, institutions, businesses, and financing organizations for a summit on clean cooking methods in Paris on Tuesday. Why replace these systems?
Roughly 2.3 billion people, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, rely on rudimentary cooking systems, often consisting of three stones around a fire burning wood, charcoal, or dung.
In addition to the smoke, which causes approximately 3.7 million premature deaths annually due to particles emitted into the air, their use is responsible for nearly 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a landmark study published in Nature Climate Change.
Emissions come from combustion as well as deforestation caused by wood gathering in tension areas.
Numerous projects, whether public or private, aim to replace these cooking stoves with more efficient ones, meaning they are more enclosed to dissipate less heat and use less fuel (coal, wood, oil), while reducing harmful smoke; or even with systems powered by greener energy sources (electricity, biogas, bioethanol, pellets).
The cost of one of these mini-stoves is a few tens of dollars, unaffordable for the poorest.
How are carbon credits generated?
Over the past two decades, more than 1,300 such projects, most in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, have generated carbon credits—a credit equivalent to one ton of CO2 removed or prevented from entering the atmosphere through a project—according to the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project database, which lists the vast majority of carbon credit projects worldwide.
Their growth is one of the fastest in the carbon credit market, according to researchers at the University of Berkeley.
Replacing cooking stoves accounts for 5.5% of carbon credits traded globally, totaling 108 million credits and an equal number of supposedly “avoided” CO2 tons. This is equivalent to a quarter of the annual emissions of a country like France.
Companies have purchased and primarily used more than 53 million of these credits to offset their own CO2 emissions, while the remainder is still technically in circulation.
Their average price is a few dollars per ton when experts recommend exceeding $100 to make investments in transition attractive. Some of this money is supposed to return to local populations. Risks of greenwashing?
Three Berkeley researchers examined the methodologies of around fifty projects, including the largest carbon credit providers. Their conclusion is unequivocal: the number of carbon credits issued is nine times higher than the actual number of tons of CO2 “avoided”.
This is due to methodological biases that overestimate CO2 emissions “avoided” by new systems and their regular use by populations, who sometimes continue to prefer their traditional methods.
The IEA states, “It’s not just about mobilizing money; public policies must make it effective to encourage people to use these stoves.”
The Berkeley study recommends following the World Health Organization’s definition of “clean” cooking stoves, which excludes coal, kerosene systems, and certain wood models.
Quantum Commodity Intelligence and the carbon credit rating agency Calyx Global urge caution on this recommendation, arguing that it could exclude populations living in remote rural areas, even though the health benefits for them are significant, beyond just climate goals.