Energy Access for Development

Pachauri, Shonali; Brew-Hammond, Abeeku; Barnes, Douglas F.; Bouille, Daniel; Gitonga, Stephen; Modi, Vijay; Prasad, Gisela; Rath, Amitav; Zerriffi, Hisham; Dafrallah, Touria; Heruela, C. S.; Kemausuor, Francis; Kowsari, Reza; Nagai, Yasuhiro; Rijal, Kamal; Takada, Minoru; Wamukonya, Njeri; Sathaye, Jayant

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511793677.025

Cited by 57 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Global Energy Assessment estimates that in 2005 ∼2.8 billion people, mostly in the poorest countries, relied on solid fuels such as biomass, charcoal, and coal for cooking and other household energy needs (155). India and China together account for about half the global population that uses solid fuels for cooking (27% and 25%, respectively), closely followed by sub-Saharan Africa (21%) (215).…”

Section: Patterns Of Household Fuel Usementioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, ∼2.8 billion people lack access to clean fuels for cooking, and ∼1.6 billion people lack access to electricity (155). For these people, as for impoverished people in wealthy nations who cannot afford heating or air conditioning, adequate access to clean energy is a more pressing health need than is energy conservation (although energyefficiency improvements will often lower overall energy costs).…”

Section: Energy Efficiency Conservation and Cobenefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Energy and Human Health

Smith

Frumkin

Balakrishnan

et al. 2013

Annu. Rev. Public Health

238

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy use is central to human society and provides many health benefits. But each source of energy entails some health risks. This article reviews the health impacts of each major source of energy, focusing on those with major implications for the burden of disease globally. The biggest health impacts accrue to the harvesting and burning of solid fuels, coal and biomass, mainly in the form of occupational health risks and household and general ambient air pollution. Lack of access to clean fuels and electricity in the world's poor households is a particularly serious risk for health. Although energy efficiency brings many benefits, it also entails some health risks, as do renewable energy systems, if not managed carefully. We do not review health impacts of climate change itself, which are due mostly to climate-altering pollutants from energy systems, but do discuss the potential for achieving near-term health cobenefits by reducing certain climate-related emissions.

show abstract

Section: Patterns Of Household Fuel Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Energy Efficiency Conservation and Cobenefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy and Human Health

Smith

Frumkin

Balakrishnan

et al. 2013

Annu. Rev. Public Health

238

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Household air pollution (HAP) emitted from solid fuel combustion contributed to an estimated 2.9 million premature deaths and 81.1 million disabilityadjusted life-years in 2013. 2 It is also an important contributor to emissions of climate-forcing pollutants.…”

Section: ■ Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health and Climate-Relevant Pollutant Concentrations from a Carbon-Finance Approved Cookstove Intervention in Rural India

Aung

Jain²,

Shunmugavelu³

et al. 2016

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to introduce more efficient stoves increasingly leverage carbon-finance to scale up dissemination of interventions. We conducted a randomized intervention study to evaluate a Clean Development Mechanism approved stove replacement impact on fuelwood usage, and climate and health-relevant air pollutants. We randomly assigned 187 households to either receive the intervention or to continue using traditional stoves. Measurements of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and absorbance were conducted in cooking areas, village center and at upwind background site. There were minor and overlapping seasonal differences (post- minus preintervention change) between control and intervention groups for median (95% CI) fuel use (-0.60 (-1.02, -0.22) vs -0.52 (-1.07, 0.00) kg day(-1)), and 24 h absorbance (35 (18, 60) vs 36 (22, 50) × 10(-6) m(-1)); for 24 h PM2.5, there was a higher (139 (61,229) vs 73(-6, 156) μg m(-3))) increase in control compared to intervention homes between the two seasons. Forty percent of the intervention homes continued using traditional stoves. For intervention homes, absorbance-to-mass ratios suggest a higher proportion of black carbon in PM2.5 emitted from intervention compared with traditional stoves. Absent of field-based evaluation, stove interventions may be pursued that fail to realize expected carbon reductions or anticipated health and climate cobenefits.

show abstract

“…For instance, an estimated 3 billion people worldwide rely on highly polluting and unhealthy traditional solid fuels for household cooking and heating (128), and shifting their energy sources to electricity and clean fuels could strongly influence building-related emissions reductions and provide significant socioeconomic development outcomes (129).…”

Section: Demand-side Options For Multiple-objectives-based Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Technology: Demand-Side Solutions for Climate Change Mitigation

Creutzig

Fernandez

Haberl³

et al. 2016

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

255

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assessment literature on climate change solutions to date has emphasized technologies and options based on cost-effectiveness analysis. However, many solutions to climate change mitigation misalign with such analytical frameworks. Here, we examine demand-side solutions, a crucial class of mitigation options that go beyond technological specification and costbenefit analysis. To do so, we synthesize demand-side mitigation options in the urban, building, transport, and agricultural sectors. We also highlight the specific nature of demand-side solutions in the context of development. We then discuss key analytical considerations to integrate demand-side options into overarching assessments on mitigation. Such a framework would include infrastructure solutions that interact with endogenous preference formation. Both hard infrastructures, such as the built environment, and soft infrastructures, such as habits and norms, shape behavior and as a consequence offer significant potential for reducing overall energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. We conclude that systemic infrastructural and behavioral change will likely be a necessary component of a transition to a low-carbon society.

show abstract

Energy Access for Development

Cited by 57 publications

References 57 publications

Energy and Human Health

Energy and Human Health

Health and Climate-Relevant Pollutant Concentrations from a Carbon-Finance Approved Cookstove Intervention in Rural India

Beyond Technology: Demand-Side Solutions for Climate Change Mitigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About