Scaling up gas and electric cooking in low- and middle-income countries: climate threat or mitigation strategy with co-benefits?

Abstract

Nearly three billion people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) rely on polluting fuels, resulting in millions of avoidable deaths annually. Polluting fuels also emit short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and grid-based electricity are scalable alternatives to polluting fuels but have raised climate and health concerns. Here, we compare emissions and climate impacts of a business-as-usual household cooking fuel trajectory to four large-scale transitions to gas and/or grid electricity in 77 LMICs. We account for upstream and end-use emissions from gas and electric cooking, assuming electrical grids evolve according to the 2022 World Energy Outlook’s ‘Stated Policies’ Scenario. We input the emissions into a reduced-complexity climate model to estimate radiative forcing and temperature changes associated with each scenario. We find full transitions to LPG and/or electricity decrease emissions from both well-mixed GHG and SLCFs, resulting in a roughly 5 millikelvin global temperature reduction by 2040. Transitions to LPG and/or electricity also reduce annual emissions of PM2.5 by over 6 Mt (99%) by 2040, which would substantially lower health risks from household air pollution. Full transitions to LPG or grid electricity in LMICs improve climate impacts over BAU trajectories.

In praise of fossil fuel subsidies (for cooking)‡

“…We estimate total energy consumption from each fuel and then translate these combustion estimates to emissions using standard assumptions about daily energy consumption, fuel-specific combustion emissions, and the fraction of biomass that is renewably harvested (fNRB) using a reduced form of the approach outlined in Floess et al (2023) 10 (see Supplement).…”

“…As compared to using biomass, those that cook with gas experience much lower air pollution exposures ( 8 , 9 ). Cooking with gas also produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than biomass cooking when accounting for unsustainable wood harvesting ( 10 ). However, biomass-reliant households are often too poor to afford near-exclusive LPG use ( 11 ), which is what is needed to substantially reduce air pollution exposures and improve health.…”

“…To do so, we follow common, simple assumptions about daily energy consumption, fuel-specific combustion emissions, and the fraction of biomass that is renewably harvested (fNRB) (and thus does not contribute to net emissions). Broadly we follow a reduced form of the approach outlined in Floess et al (2023) ( 21 ).…”

“…5,6 Arguably, the most viable solution available in the near-term for reducing the harms of inefficient biomass combustion is liquified petroleum gas (LPG), a blend of propane and butane stored in stable, transportable cylinders. As compared to using biomass, those that cook with gas experience much lower air pollution exposures 8,9 and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions when accounting for unsustainable wood harvesting 10 . However, biomass-reliant households are often too poor to afford near-exclusive LPG use 11 , which is required to substantially reduce air pollution exposures and improve health.…”

Cooking Fuel Choice and Wellbeing: A Global Perspective

“…Additionally, women are considered primarily responsible for solid fuel collection and bear associated time implications [19]. The prevalence of poor health outcomes due to polluting fuels is also observed to be highest in low-and middle-income countries, where the use of solid biomass fuel for cooking is more widespread [11,20]. Beyond studies demonstrating the negative impact of polluting cooking fuel use on health, other evolving studies have linked solid biomass cooking fuels to heightened economic costs for households, because of illness and higher medical expenses [21] and worse educational outcomes [22].…”