How you count carbon matters: implications of differing cookstove carbon credit methodologies for climate and development cobenefits.

The opportunity to apply for carbon credits for cookstove projects creates a source of funding that can be leveraged to promote the "win-win" environmental and development benefits of improved cookstoves. Yet, as in most environment-development efforts, unacknowledged trade-offs exist under the all-encompassing "win-win" claims. This study therefore compares different scenarios for calculating cookstove carbon credits, including comparing different types of stoves using different fuels, different methodologies and theoretical scenarios to account for a range of climate-relevant emissions. The results of the study highlight the following: 1) impacts of different assumptions made within carbon credit methodologies, 2) discussion around potential trade-offs in such projects, and 3) considerations needed to truly promote sustainable development. The Gold Standard methodology was more comprehensive in its accounting and generally calculated more carbon credits per scenario than the Clean Development Mechanism methodology. Including black carbon in calculations would be more reflective of climate-relevant stove emissions and greatly increase the number of credits calculated. As health and other development benefits are not inherently included in carbon credit calculations, to achieve "win-win" outcomes, deliberate decisions about project design need to be made to ensure objectives are met and not simply assumed.

[1]  M. Brauer,et al.  Woodsmoke Health Effects: A Review , 2007, Inhalation toxicology.

[2]  Nigel Bruce,et al.  Applying global cost-benefit analysis methods to indoor air pollution mitigation interventions in Nepal, Kenya and Sudan: Insights and challenges , 2011 .

[3]  Milind Kandlikar,et al.  Health and climate benefits of cookstove replacement options , 2011 .

[4]  K. Hamilton,et al.  Developing Dimension: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2012 , 2012 .

[5]  Kirk R. Smith,et al.  GREENHOUSE IMPLICATIONS OF HOUSEHOLD STOVES: An Analysis for India , 2000 .

[6]  P. Kareiva,et al.  An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Ben Pearson.  Market failure: why the Clean Development Mechanism won't promote clean development , 2007 .

[8]  M. Jacobson.  Control of fossil‐fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming , 2002 .

[9]  Karen Holm Olsen,et al.  The clean development mechanism’s contribution to sustainable development: a review of the literature , 2007 .

[10]  Improved stove programs need robust methods to estimate carbon offsets , 2010 .

[11]  Omar Masera,et al.  Arresting the Killer in the Kitchen: The Promises and Pitfalls of Commercializing Improved Cookstoves , 2009 .

[12]  Daniel Krewski,et al.  Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: health implications of short-lived greenhouse pollutants , 2009, The Lancet.

[13]  Eduardo Canuz,et al.  Quantitative metrics of stove adoption using Stove Use Monitors (SUMs). , 2013, Biomass & bioenergy.

[14]  D. Streets,et al.  A technology‐based global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion , 2004 .

[15]  Christiana Figueres,et al.  Sectoral CDM: Opening the CDM to the Yet Unrealized Goal of Sustainable Development1 , 2012 .

[16]  A. Bumpus,et al.  How can the current CDM deliver sustainable development , 2010 .

[17]  Hisham Zerriffi,et al.  Three dimensional energy profile , 2011 .

[18]  Hisham Zerriffi,et al.  Innovative business models for the scale-up of energy access efforts for the poorest , 2011 .

[19]  Subhrendu K. Pattanayak,et al.  Benefits and Costs of Improved Cookstoves: Assessing the Implications of Variability in Health, Forest and Climate Impacts , 2012, PloS one.

[20]  Alan D. Lopez,et al.  A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 , 2012, The Lancet.

[21]  H. Zerriffi,et al.  Three dimensional energy profile : A conceptual framework for assessing household energy use , 2011 .

[22]  Tami C Bond,et al.  Can reducing black carbon emissions counteract global warming? , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  V. Ramanathan,et al.  Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon , 2008 .

[24]  Rufus Edwards,et al.  In-field greenhouse gas emissions from cookstoves in rural Mexican households , 2008 .

[25]  Meredith Welch-Devine,et al.  Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being , 2011 .

[26]  A. Bumpus.  The Matter of Carbon: Understanding the Materiality of tCO2e in Carbon Offsets , 2011 .

[27]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Determinants of Household Energy Consumption in India , 2010 .

[28]  Vilas R. Kalamkar,et al.  A comprehensive review on biomass cookstoves and a systematic approach for modern cookstove design , 2014 .

[29]  M. Kandlikar,et al.  A perspective paper on black carbon mitigation as a response to climate change. , 2009 .

[30]  Gireesh Shrimali,et al.  Improved stoves in India: A study of sustainable business models , 2011 .

[31]  Hadi Dowlatabadi,et al.  A black-carbon mitigation wedge , 2009 .

[32]  Philip Mann,et al.  Win-Win Scenarios at the Climate-Development Interface: Challenges and Opportunities for Cookstove Replacement Programs Through Carbon Finance , 2010 .

[33]  Daniel M Kammen,et al.  Greenhouse gas implications of household energy technology in Kenya. , 2003, Environmental science & technology.

[34]  Kirk R. Smith,et al.  Co-benefits of climate mitigation and health protection in energy systems: scoping methods. , 2008, Annual review of public health.

[35]  Torben K. Mideksa,et al.  Costs and global impacts of black carbon abatement strategies , 2009 .

[36]  O. Masera,et al.  Energy performance of wood-burning cookstoves in Michoacan, Mexico. , 2008 .

[37]  Sumi Mehta,et al.  Assessing Household Solid Fuel Use: Multiple Implications for the Millennium Development Goals , 2006, Environmental health perspectives.

[38]  Rufus Edwards,et al.  An assessment of programs to promote improved household stoves in China , 2004 .

[39]  G. Hutton.  Evaluation of the costs and benefits of household energy and health interventions at global and regional levels Summary , 2006 .

[40]  Milind Kandlikar,et al.  Climate impacts of air quality policy: switching to a natural gas-fueled public transportation system in New Delhi. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[41]  B. DeAngelo,et al.  Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment , 2013 .

[42]  Yongliang Ma,et al.  Greenhouse Gases and other Airborne Pollutants from Household Stoves in China: a Database for Emission Factors , 2000 .

[43]  Sumi Mehta,et al.  The health benefits of interventions to reduce indoor air pollution from solid fuel use: a cost-effectiveness analysis , 2004 .

[44]  Wolfgang Sterk,et al.  Enhancing the clean development mechanism through sectoral approaches: definitions, applications and ways forward , 2006 .

[45]  J. Jetter,et al.  Solid-fuel household cook stoves: characterization of performance and emissions. , 2009 .

[46]  Moritz A. Drupp,et al.  Does the Gold Standard label hold its promise in delivering higher Sustainable Development benefits? A multi-criteria comparison of CDM projects , 2011 .

[47]  Tami C. Bond,et al.  A laboratory comparison of the global warming impact of five major types of biomass cooking stoves , 2008 .