Policy trade-offs between climate mitigation and clean cook-stove access in South Asia

Abstract

Household air pollution from traditional cook stoves presents a greater health hazard than any other environmental factor. Despite government e orts to support clean-burning cooking fuels, over 700 million people in South Asia could still rely on traditional stoves in 2030. This number could rise if climate change mitigation e orts increase energy costs. Here we quantify the costs of support policies to make clean cooking a ordable to all South Asians under four increasingly stringent climate policy scenarios. Our most stringent mitigation scenario increases clean fuel costs 38% in 2030 relative to the baseline, keeping 21% more South Asians on traditional stoves or increasing the minimum support policy cost to achieve universal clean cooking by up to 44%. The extent of this increase depends on how policymakers allocate subsidies between clean fuels and stoves. These additional costs are within the range of financial transfers to South Asia estimated in e orts-sharing scenarios of international climate agreements.

Improving poverty and inequality modelling in climate research

“…Climate change affects poverty through many channels, such as through livelihoods, consumption, assets, health, and productivity 6,7 . Climate mitigation policies can generate income and price shocks, which in some cases can also increase health risks to the poor 8 . Climate mitigation technologies can also generate differential impacts on different income groups, a notable example being the extensive deployment of biomass for energy and its implications for food security 9,10 .…”

“…In order to meet the Paris climate agreement goals of keeping warming below 2•C above preindustrial levels, national pledges to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions need to be ramped up significantly 11 . Such ambitious climate policies may present greater risks to those in poverty 8 . Incorporating these impacts on poverty can make climate economic models more useful for national policymakers to evaluate climate policies and their impacts on social protection goals.…”

Targeted policies can compensate most of the increased sustainability risks in 1.5 °C mitigation scenarios

“…Many studies have explored the linkages between climate change mitigation and individual sustainability objectives. In the integrated assessment model (IAM) literature, streams of work have focused on climate policy in the context of household energy access (Riahi et al 2012, Pachauri et al 2013, Cameron et al 2016. Another series of studies have explored the economic implications of climate change mitigation, including policy costs in the short and long term, technological progress, carbon and energy price development, energy security aspects, and innovation and upscaling (Wilson et al 2013, Jewell et al 2014, Bertram et al 2015, Rogelj et al 2015.…”

How social scientists can help to shape climate policy

“…Gaspowered stoves are much cleaner and safer, but Pachauri and her colleagues have projected that CO 2 -control policies that raise gas costs by 38% could reduce the number of households that can afford to adopt clean cooking by 21% (ref. 5). Governments therefore need to ensure that this transition is affordable -for example, by subsidizing gas stoves to reduce each family's up-front investment.…”