Protections that safeguard the amount, health, and diversity of species and ecosystems.

Icon

Improve Nonmotorized Transportation

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Transportation
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift to Alternatives
Image
Many people in a crosswalk viewed from above
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define Improve Nonmotorized Transportation as increasing any form of travel that does not use a motor or engine. In theory, this includes a huge range of transportation modes, including horses, cross-country skis, sailboats, hand-operated rickshaws, and animal-drawn carriages. In practice, pedestrian travel and cycling account for most nonmotorized utilitarian passenger travel.

Income & work,Health
Nature protection,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Improve Nonmotorized Transportation is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Walking and cycling reduce GHG emissions, promote health, and require minimal infrastructure.
Overview

Travel shifted from motorized to nonmotorized transportation saves GHG emissions – mostly CO₂, but also small amounts of nitrous oxide and methane (Center for Sustainable Systems, 2023) – that a fossil fuel-powered car would otherwise emit. 

We divided nonmotorized transportation into three subcategories: 1) pedestrian travel, including walking and the use of mobility aids such as wheelchairs; 2) private bicycles owned by the user, meaning that they are typically used for both the outgoing and return legs of a trip; and 3) shared bicycles, which are sometimes used for only one leg of a trip and so have to be repositioned by other means.

Pedestrian travel

Pedestrian travel (including both walking and travel using mobility aids such as wheelchairs) has the advantage of being something that most people can do and often does not require special equipment or dedicated infrastructure (although some infrastructure, such as sidewalks, can be helpful). Pedestrian travel is 81.7% of global urban nonmotorized pkm. 

Private bicycles

Private bicycles cost money and require maintenance but enable travel at much faster speeds and therefore longer distances. Private bicycles are 13% of global urban nonmotorized pkm.

Shared bicycles 

Shared bicycles eliminate the financial overhead of bicycle ownership, but usually only permit travel within specific urban areas and sometimes between established docking stations. Shared bicycles are 5.1% of global urban nonmotorized pkm. 

Note that we did not include electric bicycles in this analysis. Electric bicycles are analyzed as a separate solution.

While improving nonmotorized transportation can be a valuable climate solution virtually anywhere, we limit our analysis to cities due to the high number of relatively short-distance trips and the abundance of available data compared with rural locations.

The fuel for cycling and pedestrian travel is the food the traveler eats. When the traveler metabolizes the food, they produce CO₂. Some studies factor the GHG emissions produced by the added metabolism required by nonmotorized transportation into its climate impact because of the emissions that come from the food system (Mizdrak et al., 2020). This is controversial, however, because it is unclear whether pedestrians and cyclists have a higher calorie intake than people who travel in other ways (Noussan et al., 2022). Furthermore, additional food eaten to fuel physical labor is not typically counted in life-cycle analyses. This analysis, therefore, does not consider the upstream climate impacts of food calories that fuel cycling, pedestrian travel, driving, or any other activity.

AAA. (2024). AAA’s Your driving costs – AAA Exchange. Link to source: https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/aaas-your-driving-costs/

Adamos, G., Nathanail, E., Theodoridou, P., & Tsolaki, T. (2020). Investigating the effects of active travel in health and quality of life. Transport and Telecommunication Journal, 21(3), 221–230. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2020-0018

Blondiau, T., van Zeebroeck, B., & Haubold, H. (2016). Economic benefits of increased cycling. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 2306–2313. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.247

Bonilla-Alicea, R. J., Watson, B. C., Shen, Z., Tamayo, L., & Telenko, C. (2020). Life cycle assessment to quantify the impact of technology improvements in bike-sharing systems. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 24(1), 138–148. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12860

Bopp, M., Sims, D., & Piatkowski, D. (2018). Benefits and risks of bicycling. 21–44. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812642-4.00002-7

Brand, C., Dons, E., Anaya-Boig, E., Avila-Palencia, I., Clark, A., de Nazelle, A., Gascon, M., Gaupp-Berghausen, M., Gerike, R., Götschi, T., Iacorossi, F., Kahlmeier, S., Laeremans, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Pablo Orjuela, J., Racioppi, F., Raser, E., Rojas-Rueda, D., Standaert, A., … Int Panis, L. (2021). The climate change mitigation effects of daily active travel in cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 93, 102764. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102764

Burnham, A., Gohlke, D., Rush, L., Stephens, T., Zhou, Y., Delucci, M. A., Birky, A., Hunter, C., Lin, Z., Ou, S., Xie, F., Proctor, C., Wiryadinata, S., Liu, N., & Boloor, M. (2021). Comprehensive total cost of ownership quantifications for vehicles with different size classes and powertrains (ANL/ESD-21/4). Argonne National Laoratory. Link to source: https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf

Center for Sustainable Systems. (2023). Personal transportation factsheet (CSS01-07). University of Michigan. Link to source: https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/mobility/personal-transportation-factsheet

Christensen, L., & Vázquez, N. S. (2013). Post-harmonised european national travel surveys. Proceedings from the Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg University, 20(1), Article 1. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.td.v1i1.5701

CityTransit Data. (2025). A global analysis of transit data. CityTransit Data. Link to source: https://citytransit.uitp.org/ 

DeMaio, P. (2009). Bike-sharing: History, impacts, models of provision, and future. Journal of Public Transportation, 12(4), 41–56. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.12.4.3

Department for Transport. (2024). Department for transport statistics NTS 0101: Trips, distance travelled, and time taken: England, 1972 onwards [Dataset]. Link to source: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMGE2YTQ5YTMtMDkwNC00MjBmLWFkNjUtMjBjZjUzZWU0ZjNmIiwidCI6IjI4Yjc4MmZiLTQxZTEtNDhlYS1iZmMzLWFkNzU1OGNlNzEzNiIsImMiOjh9

European Commission. (2019). Handbook on the external costs of transport. European Commission. Link to source: https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/03/CE_Delft_4K83_Handbook_on_the_external_costs_of_transport_Final.pdf

Federal Highway Administration. (2022). Summary of travel trends: 2022 National Household Travel Survey. US Department of Transportation. Link to source: https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2022/pub/2022_NHTS_Summary_Travel_Trends.pdf

Fishman, E., & Schepers, P. (2016). Global bike share: What the data tells us about road safety. Journal of Safety Research, 56, 41–45. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.11.007 

Flanagan, E., Lachapelle, U., & El-Geneidy, A. (2016). Riding tandem: Does cycling infrastructure investment mirror gentrification and privilege in Portland, OR and Chicago, IL? Research in Transportation Economics, 60, 14–24. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2016.07.027

Glazener, A., & Khreis, H. (2019). Transforming our cities: Best practices towards clean air and active transportation. Current Environmental Health Reports, 6(1), 22–37. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-019-0228-1

Gössling, S., Neger, C., Steiger, R., & Bell, R. (2023). Weather, climate change, and transport: A review. Natural Hazards, 118(2), 1341–1360. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06054-2

Gössling, S., Choi, A., Dekker, K., & Metzler, D. (2019). The social cost of automobility, cycling and walking in the European Union. Ecological Economics, 158, 65–74. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.016

Günther, M., & Krems, J. (2022). The liveable city—How effective planning for infrastructure and personal mobility can improve people’s experiences of urban life. 13th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2022). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002372

International Transport Forum. (2020). Good to go? Assessing the environmental performance of new mobility (Corporate Partnership Board). OECD. Link to source: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/environmental-performance-new-mobility.pdf

International Transport Forum. (2021). ITF Transport Outlook 2021. OECD. Link to source: https://www.itf-oecd.org/itf-transport-outlook-2021 

Hymel, K. M., Small, K. A., & Dender, K. V. (2010). Induced demand and rebound effects in road transport. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44(10), 1220–1241. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2010.02.007

IPCC. (2023). Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation—IPCC. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/renewable-energy-sources-and-climate-change-mitigation/

Litman, T. (2011). Environmental reviews & case studies: Why and how to reduce the amount of land paved for roads and parking facilities. Environmental Practice, 13(1), 38–46. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046610000530

Litman, T. (2024). Evaluating active transport benefits and costs: Guide to valuing walking and cycling improvements and encouragement programs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Link to source: https://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf

Mailloux, N. A., Henegan, C. P., Lsoto, D., Patterson, K. P., West, P. C., Foley, J. A., & Patz, J. A. (2021). Climate solutions double as health interventions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(24), Article 24. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413339

Mizdrak, A., Cobiac, L. J., Cleghorn, C. L., Woodward, A., & Blakely, T. (2020). Fuelling walking and cycling: Human powered locomotion is associated with non-negligible greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 1. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66170-y

Montoya-Torres, J., Akizu-Gardoki, O., & Iturrondobeitia, M. (2023). Measuring life-cycle carbon emissions of private transportation in urban and rural settings. Sustainable Cities and Society, 96, 104658. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104658

Mueller, N., Rojas-Rueda, D., Cole-Hunter, T., de Nazelle, A., Dons, E., Gerike, R., Götschi, T., Int Panis, L., Kahlmeier, S., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2015). Health impact assessment of active transportation: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 76, 103–114. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.04.010

Münzel, T., Molitor, M., Kuntic, M., Hahad, O., Röösli, M., Engelmann, N., Basner, M., Daiber, A., & Sørensen, M. (2024). Transportation noise pollution and cardiovascular health. Circulation Research, 134(9), 1113–1135. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.123.323584

de Nazelle, A., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Antó, J., Brauer, M., Briggs, D., Charlotte Braun-Fahrlander, C., Cavill, N., Cooper, A., Desqueyroux, H., Fruin, S., Hoek, G., Panis, L., Janssen, N., Jerrett, M., Joffe, M., Andersen, Z., van Kempen, E., Kingham, S., Kubesch, N., Leyden, K., Marshall, J., Matamala, J., Mellios, G., Mendez, M., Nassif, H., Ogilvie, D., Peiró, R., Pérez, K., Rabl, A., Ragettli, M., Rodríguez, D., Rojas, D., Ruiz, P., Sallis, J., Terwoert, J., Toussaint, J., Tuomisto, J., Zuurbier, M., & Lebret, E. (2011). Improving health through policies that promote active travel: A review of evidence to support integrated health impact assessment. Environment International, 37(4), 767-777. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.02.003 

Noussan, M., Campisi, E., & Jarre, M. (2022). Carbon intensity of passenger transport modes: A review of emission factors, their variability and the main drivers. Sustainability, 14(17), Article 17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710652

Prieto-Curiel, R., & Ospina, J. P. (2024). The ABC of mobility. Environment International, 185, 108541. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108541

Pro Cycling Coaching. (2025). Bike Time Calculator: How Long Does It Take to Bike Any Distance. Link to source: https://www.procyclingcoaching.com/resources/bike-time-calculator 

Rodriguez Mendez, Q., Fuss, S., Lück, S., & Creutzig, F. (2024). Assessing global urban CO2 removal. Nature Cities, 1(6), 413–423. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00069-x

Roser, M. (2024). Data review: How many people die from air pollution? Our World in Data. Link to source: https://ourworldindata.org/data-review-air-pollution-deaths

Seum, S., Schulz, A., & Phleps, P. (2020). The future of driving in the BRICS countries (study update 2019). Institute for Mobility Research. Link to source: https://elib.dlr.de/135710/1/2019_ifmo_BRICS_reloaded_en1.pdf

Shindell, D. T., Lee, Y., & Faluvegi, G. (2016). Climate and health impacts of US emissions reductions consistent with 2 °C. Nature Climate Change, 6(5), 503–507. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2935

Staatsen, B., Nijland, H., Kempen, E., van Hollander, A., de Franssen, A., & Kamp, I. (2004). Assessment of health impacts and policy options in relation to transport-related noise exposures (815120002).

State of Colorado. (2016). Economic and health benefits of cycling and walking. Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade.. ttps://choosecolorado.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Economic-and-Health-Benefits-of-Bicycling-and-Walking-in-Colorado-4.pdf

Statistics Netherlands. (2024). Mobility; per person, personal characteristics, modes of travel and regions [webpage]. Statistics Netherlands. Link to source: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/figures/detail/84709ENG

TNMT. (2021). The environmental impact of today’s transport types. TNMT. Link to source: https://tnmt.com/infographics/carbon-emissions-by-transport-type/

Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2010). Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel behaviour research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 65–74. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.006

Verma, S., Dwivedi, G., & Verma, P. (2022). Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in comparison to combustion engine vehicles: A review. Materials Today: Proceedings, 49, 217–222. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.666

Volker, J. M. B., & Handy, S. (2021). Economic impacts on local businesses of investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure: A review of the evidence. Transport Reviews, 41(4), 401–431. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1912849

WHO. (2023). Despite notable progress, road safety remains urgent global issue. Link to source: https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2023-despite-notable-progress-road-safety-remains-urgent-global-issue

Xia, T., Zhang, Y., Crabb, S., & Shah, P. (2013). Cobenefits of replacing car trips with alternative transportation: A review of evidence and methodological issues. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2013(1), 797312. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/797312

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Cameron Roberts, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel , Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Heather Jones, Ph.D.

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D. 

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.
Effectiveness

Nonmotorized transportation can save 115.6 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm, compared with fossil fuel–powered cars (Table 1). This makes it a highly effective climate solution. Every trip shifted from a fossil fuel–powered car to cycling or pedestrian travel avoids most, if not all, of the GHG emissions associated with car travel. Nonmotorized transportation effectiveness is calculated by taking the share of each mode and multiplying it by its effectiveness, and adding this value from all three modes. 

Cars produce 116 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm (International Transport Forum, 2020; IPCC, 2023; Montoya-Torres et al., 2023; TNMT, 2021; Verma et al., 2022). Note that this value does not correspond directly to the estimates arrived at in most of these references because it is common practice to include embodied and upstream emissions in life-cycle calculations. Because we do not include embodied and upstream emissions (which are accounted for in other solutions), our estimate for the current emissions from the global vehicle fleet comes from an original calculation using values from these sources and arrives at a lower figure than they do.

Pedestrian travel and private bicycles have negligible direct emissions (Bonilla-Alicea et al., 2020; Brand et al., 2021; International Transport Forum, 2020; Noussan et al., 2022; TNMT, 2021). This means people avoid all direct GHG emissions from driving fossil fuel–powered cars when they use nonmotorized transportation instead. Thus, shifting from cars to nonmotorized transportation saves 116 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm, not including indirect emissions, such as those from manufacturing the equipment and infrastructure necessary for those forms of mobility. Life-cycle emissions from cycling are approximately 12 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm, most of which come from manufacturing bicycles (Bonilla-Alicea et al., 2019; Brand et al., 2021; ITF, 2020; Montoya-Torres et al., 2023; Noussan et al., 2020; TNMT, 2021), while emissions from pedestrian travel are negligible (TNMT, 2021). These life-cycle emissions are not quantified for this analysis, but may be addressed by other solutions in the industrial sector.

Shared bicycles provide fewer emissions savings than privately owned bicycles do. Shared bicycle schemes have direct GHG emissions of 7.49 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm, about 109 fewer than the average fossil fuel-powered car. Because people sometimes use shared bicycles for one-way trips, the bike-sharing system can become unbalanced, with fewer bicycles in places where people start their journeys and more bicycles in places where people end them. This is fixed by driving the shared bicycles from places with surplus to places with shortage, which increases emissions. The total increase in emissions caused by this can be mitigated through measures such as using electric vehicles to reposition the bikes or incentivizing riders to reposition the bicycles themselves without the use of a vehicle. 

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /million pkm, 100-yr basis

Nonmotorized transportation
25th percentile 99.33
Mean 118.8
Median (50th percentile) 115.6
75th percentile 136.9
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Driving a fossil fuel–powered car has private costs (i.e., those that accrue to the motorist themselves) of US$0.25/pkm and public costs (for roads, lights, traffic enforcement, etc.) of US$0.11/pkm. It generates public revenues of US$0.03/pkm from taxes, fees, fines, etc. (AAA, 2024; Burnham et al., 2021; Gössling et al., 2019). This means that its net cost to the passenger is US$0.32/pkm. Cars also have externality costs, such as the cost of health care due to road injuries or air pollution (Litman, 2024). We do not factor these externalities into our cost analysis.

Nonmotorized transportation (costs weighted by mode share) has private costs of US$0.08/pkm and public costs US$0.04/pkm. It produces no revenues to the user. It has a net cost of US$0.12/pkm and saves US$0.21/pkm compared with car travel. This equals a savings of US$1,771/t CO₂‑eq (Table 2).

Pedestrian travel has private costs of US$0.09/pkm (mostly for shoes) and public costs of US$0.1/pkm (for sidewalks, staircases, bridges, etc.). It produces no new revenues. It has a net cost of US$0.10/pkm and saves US$0.23/pkm compared to car travel (Gössling et al., 2019; Litman, 2024). 

Private bicycles have private costs of US$0.06/pkm (for the cost of the bicycle itself, as well as repairs, clothing, etc.) and public costs of US$0.002/pkm (for bike lanes and other infrastructure). They produce no new revenues. They have net costs of US$0.07/pkm and save US$0.26/pkm compared to car travel (Gössling et al., 2019; Litman, 2024). These costs are cheaper than those of pedestrian travel on a per-pkm basis because, while a bicycle costs more than a pair of shoes, it can also travel much farther.

Shared bicycle systems have different cost structures. They can be very expensive (US$9.00/km in London), free (Buenos Aires) and very inexpensive (less than US$0.00 in Tehran) based on what operators charge users. Rides are usually priced by time rather than distance (DeMaio, 2009). Calculations were made as to distance covered by time to arrive at a price per km (CityTransit Data, 2025; Fishman & Schepers, 2016; Pro Cycling Coaching, 2025). Assuming that this roughly covered operating costs, it means that these systems cost US$0.22/pkm more than car travel.

An important consideration for each of these is that we must divide the cost of a bicycle, car, pair of shoes, or piece of infrastructure (road, bike lane, sidewalk) by the pkm of travel it supports over its lifespan. This means that nonmotorized transportation, which is cheaper but slower than cars, can have less of a cost advantage per pkm than might seem intuitive, and is part of the reason why cycling is cheaper per pkm than pedestrian travel. In addition, all of these estimates are based on very limited data and research and should be treated as approximate. Lastly, per-pkm infrastructural costs of cycling and pedestrian travel will decrease as cyclists and pedestrians use the infrastructure more intensively.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Nonmotorized transportation
Median -1,771
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Walking and cycling are mature technologies, so the concept of a learning rate is not applicable.

There is also limited opportunity for cost reductions in cycling or pedestrian infrastructure built using construction techniques very similar to those used in the road industry. However, while learning effects might not do much to reduce the costs of nonmotorized transportation infrastructure, they could do a great deal to improve its effectiveness. Safe cycling infrastructure, in particular, has improved considerably over the past few decades. This could continue into the future as best practices are further improved.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Improve Nonmotorized Transportation is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Increases to the modal share of nonmotorized transportation only have the benefits discussed here if they replace travel by car. Replacing public transit travel with travel using nonmotorized transportation will have a much smaller climate benefit. The climate benefit of nonmotorized mobility will also diminish if the average emissions of the global car fleet shrink, for example, due to the wider adoption of electric vehicles. 

There are also uncertainties around trip length. A small number of long trips taken by car will not be replaceable by nonmotorized transportation. Replacing the average trip by car with cycling or pedestrian travel will, in many cases, require that trip to be shortened (for example, by placing businesses closer to people’s homes). If this is not possible, increased adoption of nonmotorized transportation will apply to only some trips, reducing the impact on both emissions and costs.

Weather and climate pose significant challenges and risks for nonmotorized transportation. Extreme heat or cold, wind, rain, or storms can make people reluctant to travel without the protection of a vehicle and, in some cases, can make doing so unsafe (Gössling et al., 2023). This will reduce the adoption of nonmotorized transportation in some places, although it can be mitigated through measures such as providing information and subsidies for proper clothing, removing or grooming snow on bicycle paths, and providing indoor/covered paths that allow pedestrians to travel through a city without exposure to the elements.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Analysts most frequently report adoption of nonmotorized transportation as a percentage modal share of all trips taken in a city. Cities around the world have radically different modal shares of bicycle and pedestrian trips. Cities in LMICs often have a high nonmotorized modal share because many people cannot afford cars. Cities in high-income countries are often difficult to navigate without a car, resulting in low modal shares for nonmotorized transportation (Prieto-Curiel & Ospina, 2024). 

Prieto-Curiel and Ospina (2024) estimated that northern North America (the United States and Canada) had the lowest modal share of nonmotorized transportation, at 3.5%. Western Europe reached 29% modal share, while Western and Eastern Africa reached 42.9% and 46%, respectively.

Converting these numbers into vehicle-kilometers traveled on a national level for various countries requires assumptions. A population-weighted average of data available from the United States and several Western European countries finds that people take approximately three 13.2 km trips per day, totaling 39.7 km of daily travel with considerable variation between countries (Christensen & Vázquez, 2013; Department for Transport, 2024; Federal Highway Administration, 2022; Statistics Netherlands, 2024). For example, English people in 2022 traveled an average of 25.5 km/day, while Americans in 2020 traveled 53.5 km/day. The value we use in our analysis comes from a population-weighted average that excludes data from 2020 and 2021 to exclude data skewed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Because the United States has by far the highest population of the countries for which we found data, it skews the average much higher than many of the European countries. World data (ITF, 2021) reports that nonmotorized transportation is 14.4% of all urban pkm.

We assumed that in urban environments, each trip taken by nonmotorized transportation corresponds to one fewer car trip of this average length. This implies that nonmotorized transportation currently shifts approximately 5.6 trillion pkm from cars (Table 3). However, it should be noted that this figure includes low-income countries, where some residents have less access to private vehicles.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2024) adoption level.

Unit: million pkm/yr*

25th percentile 826,600
Mean 5,556,000
Median (50th percentile) 3,723,000
75th percentile 9,652,000

*These data are extrapolated from a range of individual city estimates from 2010 to 2020 (Prieto-Curiel and Ospina, 2024) and world data (ITF, 2021).

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

In all cities for which appropriate data exist, nonmotorized transportation showed a growth rate of 0.45% of all passenger trips per year (Prieto-Curiel & Ospina, 2024). This amounts to 49 billion pkm (Table 4) according to our estimation procedure outlined above. In some cities, adoption has grown much more quickly. For example, Hanover, Germany, achieved an average growth of 7.8%/yr in 2011–2017, which amounts to approximately 593 million additional pkm traveled by bicycle every year during that time. However, the rate of adoption is extremely variable. The 25th percentile of estimates shows a global decline in nonmotorized transportation to the tune of 135 billion fewer pkm shifted to nonmotorized modes every year.

Adoption rates of nonmotorized transportation vary widely within a country and between different years within the same city (Prieto-Curiel & Ospina, 2024).

Many people, particularly in LMICs, walk or cycle because they have limited access to a vehicle. When countries become wealthier, travel often shifts from nonmotorized transportation to cars (Seum et al., 2020). If transportation policy in these countries prioritizes car-free mobility, high levels of nonmotorized transportation adoption could potentially be preserved even as living standards increase.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. 2023–2024 adoption trend.

Unit: million pkm/yr

25th percentile -134,700
Mean 29,570
Median (50th percentile) 49,400
75th percentile 296,900
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

We estimated that 20.2% of all trips in cities worldwide, or approximately 5.6 trillion pkm/yr, are traveled by nonmotorized transportation, while 66.2%, or approximately 18.2 trillion pkm/yr, are traveled by fossil fuel–powered car. This suggests that switching all urban trips currently taken by car to nonmotorized transportation would lead to a nonmotorized modal share of 86.4% in cities globally, or 19.7 trillion pkm/yr (Table 5).

This calculation uses the same assumptions discussed under Current Adoption above. In this case, however, our assumption that every nonmotorized trip is shifted from a car trip of the same length requires further justification. We are not assuming that very long car trips, trips on highways, etc., are replaced directly by bicycle or pedestrian trips. Instead, we assume that shorter nonmotorized trips can substitute for longer car trips with appropriate investment in better urban planning and infrastructure. So, for example, a 10 km drive to a large grocery store could be replaced by a 1 km walk to a neighborhood grocery store. 

This would require replanning many cities so they better accommodate shorter trips. It would also require improving options for people with disabilities or those carrying heavy loads. And it would face climatic and topographic constraints. Furthermore, it is unlikely that all car traffic would ever be substituted by any single alternative mode. Other sustainable modes, particularly public transit, are likely to play a role.

It is also possible for rural trips to be undertaken by nonmotorized transportation. Indeed, this is already very common in low-and middle-income countries. However, rural data are sparse, and discerning how many trips could be shifted to nonmotorized travel in these areas is highly speculative. Therefore, we omit rural areas from our analysis.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Median (50th percentile) 19,690,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

To estimate the upper bound of feasible adoption, we assumed that urban trips taken by fossil fuel–powered cars can be shifted to nonmotorized transportation until the latter accounts for 65% of trips (the current highest modal share of nonmotorized transportation in any city with a population of more than one million) or until car travel decreases to 7% of trips (the current lowest modal share of fossil fuel–powered cars in any city with a population of more than one million). This corresponds to a total achievable nonmotorized transportation modal share of 16.3 trillion pkm/yr (Table 6).

To set the lower bound, we do the same calculation as above, but for each individual region, adding up all the resultant modal shifts to get a global figure. So, for example, every East Asian city might reach the nonmotorized transportation modal share of Singapore (23% of trips), while every northern European city might reach that of Copenhagen, Denmark (41% of trips). This corresponds to a total achievable nonmotorized transportation modal share of 12.4 trillion pkm/yr.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Current adoption 5,556,000
Achievable – low 12,369,000
Achievable – high 16,340,000
Potential adoption 19,690,000
Left Text Column Width

If all cycling and pedestrian trips undertaken today would otherwise have happened by car, they are currently displacing approximately 0.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr emissions (Table 7). This is an overestimate, however, since this figure includes data from places where most people have low access to cars.

Walking and private bicycles have a different effectiveness than shared bicycles. To calculate the climate impacts of different levels of adoption, we applied the effectiveness in the share of each mode of nonmotorized transportation. Walking and private bicycling are 94.4% of nonmotorized pkm and shared bicycling is 5.3%. This gives nonmotorized transportation effectiveness at reducing emissions 115.6 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm.

On the lower end, if every city achieved a pedestrian and cycling modal share equivalent to the least-motorized city in its region, it would save 1.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. On the higher end, if every city shifted enough passenger car traffic to achieve a car modal share as low as Hong Kong, China, it would save 1.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. If all trips taken by car were shifted onto nonmotorized transportation (an unrealistic scenario), it would save 2.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.642
Achievable – low 1.430
Achievable – high 1.889
Adoption ceiling 2.276
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Health and Air Quality

Air pollution kills approximately 7 million people yearly (Roser, 2024). By reducing vehicle emissions, nonmotorized transportation can alleviate related air pollution (Mailloux et al., 2021) and thereby reduce premature deaths. For example, cutting U.S. transportation emissions by 75% by 2030 could prevent 14,000 premature deaths annually due to decreased exposure to PM2.5 and ozone (Shindell et al., 2016). 

Nonmotorized transportation has other health and safety benefits (Blondiau et al., 2016; European Commission, 2019; Glazener & Khreis, 2019; Gössling et al., 2023; Mueller et al., 2015; State of Colorado, 2016; Xia et al., 2013). Switching from driving to walking or cycling boosts health by promoting physical activity and decreasing risks of cardiovascular issues, diabetes, and mental disorders (Mailloux et al., 2021).

Noise pollution from motorized vehicles has significant impacts on cardiovascular health, mental health, and sleep disturbances, contributing to 1.6 million lost healthy life years in 2004 and up to 1,100 deaths attributable to hypertension in Europe in 2024 (Staatsen et al., 2004; Munzel et al., 2024). Enhancing nonmotorized transportation can reduce the health impacts of traffic noise (de Nazelle et al., 2011).

Finally, nonmotorized transportation improves quality of life. It increases opportunities for human connection, integrates physical activity and fun into daily commutes, and increases the autonomy of less mobile groups such as children and elders. Cities with high modal shares for nonmotorized transportation generally have high quality of life (Adamos et al., 2020; Günther & Krems, 2022; Glazener and Khreis, 2019).

The use of nonmotorized transportation can reduce car crashes, which kill around 1.2 million people annually (WHO, 2023).

Income and Work

Nonmotorized transportation infrastructure tends to be good for local businesses. Cyclists and pedestrians are more likely to stop at businesses they pass and therefore spend more money locally, creating more jobs (Volker & Handy, 2021). 

Nature Protection

In 2011, roads and associated infrastructure accounted for 10–30% of land in residential areas and 50–70% of land in commercial areas (Litman, 2011). Transforming these lands into green spaces could provide additional habitats and reduce biodiversity loss while increasing the protection of land, soil, and water resources (European Commission, 2019).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Some literature suggested that nonmotorized transportation can lead to gentrification because bike lanes and pleasant walkable streets can increase property values, driving people who used to live in a neighborhood into other places that might still be car-dependent (Flanagan et al., 2016). This risk can be addressed by ensuring that nonmotorized transportation infrastructure is built in an equitable way, connecting different neighborhoods regardless of their social and economic status. Increasing the number of neighborhoods accessible without a car will mean that people do not have to pay a premium to live in those neighborhoods. This will avoid making accessibility without a car a privilege that only the wealthy can afford.

Cycling in a city with lots of traffic and poor cycling infrastructure puts cyclists at risk of injury from collisions with cars. This risk, however, comes mainly from the presence of cars on roads. Reducing the number of cars on the road by shifting trips to other modes can improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians (Bopp et al., 2018).

The positive impacts that nonmotorized transportation have on traffic congestion could be self-defeating if not managed well. This is because less congestion will make driving more appealing, which can, in turn, lead to additional induced demand, increasing car use and congestion (Hymel et al., 2010).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Nonmotorized transportation can help passengers access public transit systems, train stations, and carpool pickup points. This is important because research suggests that the key to a low-carbon mobility system is to reduce the need for people to own cars (Van Acker & Witlox, 2010).

left_text_column_width

Electric bicycles use the same infrastructure as nonmotorized transportation – especially conventional bicycles. Building bike lanes, bike paths, mixed-use paths, and similar infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians can also help with the uptake of electric bicycles. This is even more true for shared electric bicycles, which can and often do use the same sharing systems as shared conventional bicycles.

left_text_column_width

One way to encourage the adoption of electric cars is through electric car–sharing services, in which people can access a communal electric car when they need it. This has the additional benefit of reducing the need for car ownership, which is closely correlated with car use (Van Acker and Witlox, 2010). Good nonmotorized transportation infrastructure can make it easier for users of these services to access shared vehicles parked at central locations.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Electric cars, hybrid cars, electric scooters and motorcycles, and nonmotorized transportation compete for the same pool of total pkm. Increased use of nonmotorized transportation could reduce kilometers traveled using electric and hybrid cars and electric scooters and motorcycles.

left_text_column_width
Consensus

Consensus of effectiveness in decarbonizing the transportation sector: High

The large reductions in emissions that come from shifting passenger transportation from fossil fuel-powered cars to nonmotorized modes are not controversial. There is some disagreement, however, over how many pkm traveled by car can be realistically shifted to nonmotorized transportation.

Brand et al. (2021) compared the GHG emissions of active transportation with those of cars. They concluded that “locking in, investing in and promoting active travel should be a cornerstone of sustainability strategies, policies and planning.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2023) sixth assessment report mentioned nonmotorized transportation as a solution in its transportation chapter. The authors expressed high confidence in the potential of these transportation modes to reduce emissions and recommended policy and infrastructural measures to support them.

Litman’s (2024) study of the costs and benefits of active transportation summarized the direct financial costs as well as externalities associated with pedestrian and bicycle travel compared with travel by fossil fuel–powered car. Litman noted that “active transport can provide relatively large energy savings if it substitutes for short urban trips that have high emission rates per mile due to cold starts (engines are inefficient during the first few minutes of operation) and congestion. As a result, each 1% shift from automobile to active travel typically reduces fuel consumption 2–4%.”

This research is, unfortunately, heavily biased toward richer countries, especially in Europe and North America, even though nonmotorized transportation plays a very important role in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The research on this topic is also biased toward cities, even though nonmotorized transportation can be a valuable means of mobility in rural areas. 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 19 reviews and meta-analyses and 14 original studies reflecting current evidence from 84 countries, primarily the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

million passenger kilometers (million pkm)

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
099.33115.6
units/yr
Current 5.556×10⁶ 01.236×10⁷1.634×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.642 1.431.889
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-1,771
Gradual

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

Production of equipment (such as bicycles) and infrastructure (such as sidewalks) creates some emissions, but these are small when divided by the total distance traveled by pedestrians and cyclists. On a per-pkm basis, this makes little difference in the emissions saved by nonmotorized transportation. 

left_text_column_width
% population
0–20
20–40
40–60
60–80
> 80

Percentage of city population living near protected bikeways, 2023

Proximity to related infrastructure, such as protected bikeways, facilitates the safe and convenient use of nonmotorized modes of transportation.

Reich, D. T. & Braga, K. (2024). Atlas of Sustainable City Transport [Data set]. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Retrieved June 2, 2025 from atlas.itdp.org

% population
0–20
20–40
40–60
60–80
> 80

Percentage of city population living near protected bikeways, 2023

Proximity to related infrastructure, such as protected bikeways, facilitates the safe and convenient use of nonmotorized modes of transportation.

Reich, D. T. & Braga, K. (2024). Atlas of Sustainable City Transport [Data set]. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Retrieved June 2, 2025 from atlas.itdp.org

Maps Introduction

Nonmotorized transportation effectiveness is high across all geographic regions, though the built environment, safety, and socio-cultural norms heavily shape its adoption and impact. Key determinants of effectiveness include the extent of safe and connected infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, bike lanes, protected intersections), land-use patterns supporting short trips, and public policies prioritizing nonmotorized transportation.

Overall, effectiveness depends on adoption. In many cities across Europe and Asia, walking and cycling remain integral to daily travel. Cities like Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Tokyo have successfully integrated nonmotorized modes into their broader transport systems through dedicated infrastructure and supportive urban design. In contrast, cities in North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of Latin America often lack safe, accessible infrastructure, which limits adoption.

Socioeconomic factors, including income levels, urban design, and perceptions of status, also influence the adoption of nonmotorized transport. In wealthier regions, cycling may be viewed as a lifestyle choice or an environmental statement, whereas in lower-income settings, it may be perceived as a necessity or even a sign of economic disadvantage, influencing user behavior and policy support (Seum et al., 2020).

Although shared bicycles have a lower effectiveness than walking or private bicycles, they are much more effective than cars. Increasing the number of shared bicycle systems in any geographic area can increase adoption and, therefore, make them more effective. This is particularly effective in lower-income areas where owning a private bicycle might be cost-prohibitive (Litman, 2024). Increasing shared systems in less urban and more suburban areas can be more effective, as they often replace trips made by car (Brand et al., 2021).

Nonmotorized modes are generally resilient and functional in a wide range of climates. Extreme weather conditions, including high heat, heavy rainfall, or snow, can reduce walking and cycling, although these can be mitigated through appropriate infrastructure (e.g., shaded or covered walkways, snow clearing, bike shelters).

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Nonmotorized Transportation
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Reduce the associated time, distance, risk, and risk perception of nonmotorized transportation.
  • Improve infrastructure such as sidewalks, footpaths, and bike lanes.
  • Implement traffic-calming methods such as speed bumps.
  • Increase residential and commercial density.
  • Use a citizen-centered approach when designing infrastructure.
  • Enact infrastructure standards for nonmotorized transportation, such as curb ramp designs, and train contractors to implement them.
  • Establish public bike-sharing programs.
  • Create dedicated coordinating bodies across government agencies, businesses, and the public to develop nonmotorized infrastructure.
  • Disincentivize car ownership through reduced access, increases in parking fares, taxes, or other means. 

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Share your experiences, tips, and reasons for choosing your modes of transportation.
  • Participate in local bike groups, public events, and volunteer opportunities.
  • Advocate to local officials for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations for improvements.
  • Encourage local businesses to create employee incentives.
  • Create “bike buses” or “walking buses” for the community and local schools.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Ensure your business is accessible via nonmotorized transportation.
  • Advocate for better infrastructure for nonmotorized transportation.
  • Educate customers about the local infrastructure.
  • Partner with other businesses to encourage employees to cycle or walk.
  • Encourage employees to walk or cycle to and from work as their circumstances allow.
  • Create educational materials for employees on commuting best practices.
  • Offer employees pre-tax commuter benefits to include reimbursement for nonmotorized travel expenses.
  • Organize staff bike rides to increase familiarity and comfort with bicycling.
  • Install adequate bike storage, such as locking posts.
  • Emphasize walking and biking as part of company-wide sustainability initiatives and communicate how walking and biking support broader GHG emission reduction efforts.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Ensure your office is accessible to nonmotorized transportation.
  • Advocate for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations where improvements can be made.
  • Encourage local businesses to create employee incentives.
  • Create “bike buses” or “walking buses” for the community and/or local schools.
  • Offer free classes on subjects such as bike maintenance, local bike routes, or what to know before purchasing a bike.
  • Host or support community participation in local infrastructure design.
  • Join public-private partnerships to encourage biking and walking, emphasizing the health and savings benefits.

Further information:

Investors
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Deploy capital to efforts that improve bicycle and walking comfort, convenience, access, and safety.
  • Invest in public or private bike-sharing systems.
  • Invest in local supply chains for bicycles and other forms of nonmotorized transportation.
  • Seek investment opportunities that reduce material and maintenance costs for bicycles.
  • Finance bicycle purchases via low-interest loans.
  • Consider investments in nonmotorized transportation start-ups.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Award grants to local organizations advocating for improved walking and bicycle infrastructure.
  • Build capacity for walking and bicycle infrastructure design and construction.
  • Support organizations that distribute, refurbish, and/or donate bikes in your community.
  • Facilitate access to bicycle maintenance and supplies.
  • Host or support community education or participation efforts.
  • Donate fixtures such as street lights, guardrails, and road signs.
  • Educate the public and policymakers on the benefits and best practices of nonmotorized transportation.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Focus messages on key decision factors for nonmotorized commuters, such as the associated health benefits and importance of fitness, climate and environmental benefits, weather forecasts, and traffic information.
  • Highlight principles of safe urban design and point out dangerous areas.
  • Share information on local bike and walking routes, general bike maintenance tips, items to consider when purchasing a bike, and related educational information.
  • Collaborate with schools on bicycle instruction, including safe riding habits and maintenance.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Examine and improve elements of infrastructure design.
  • Improve circularity, repairability, and ease of disassembly for bikes.
  • Increase the physical carrying capacities (storage) for walkers and bicyclists to facilitate shopping and transporting children, pets, and materials.
  • Identify and encourage the deployment of messaging that enhances nonmotorized transportation use.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Use nonmotorized transportation.
  • Share your experiences, tips, and reasons for choosing nonmotorized transportation.
  • Participate in local bike groups, public events, and volunteer opportunities.
  • Advocate to local officials for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations where improvements can be made.
  • Encourage local businesses to create employee incentives for using nonmotorized transportation.
  • Create “bike buses” or “walking buses” for the community and local schools.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in decarbonizing the transport sector: High

The large reductions in emissions that come from shifting passenger transportation from fossil fuel-powered cars to nonmotorized modes are not controversial. There is some disagreement, however, over how many pkm traveled by car can be realistically shifted to nonmotorized transportation.

Brand et al. (2021) compared the GHG emissions of active transportation with those of cars. They concluded that “locking in, investing in and promoting active travel should be a cornerstone of sustainability strategies, policies and planning.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2023) sixth assessment report mentioned nonmotorized transportation as a solution in its transportation chapter. The authors expressed high confidence in the potential of these transportation modes to reduce emissions and recommended policy and infrastructural measures to support them.

Litman’s (2024) study of the costs and benefits of active transportation summarized the direct financial costs as well as externalities associated with pedestrian and bicycle travel compared with travel by fossil fuel–powered car. Litman noted that “active transport can provide relatively large energy savings if it substitutes for short urban trips that have high emission rates per mile due to cold starts (engines are inefficient during the first few minutes of operation) and congestion. As a result, each 1% shift from automobile to active travel typically reduces fuel consumption 2–4%.”

This research is, unfortunately, heavily biased toward richer countries, especially in Europe and North America, even though nonmotorized transportation plays a very important role in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The research on this topic is also biased toward cities, even though nonmotorized transportation can be a valuable means of mobility in rural areas. 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 19 reviews and meta-analyses and 14 original studies reflecting current evidence from 84 countries, primarily the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Deploy Offshore Wind Turbines

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Production
Image
Offshore wind turbines
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Offshore wind turbines are ocean-based machines that harness natural wind to generate electricity. These turbines use the relatively strong winds over the water to rotate their blades, which power a generator to make electricity. The electricity travels through underwater cables to reach the land. There are two main types: fixed-bottom turbines, which are attached to the seabed in shallow waters (typically up to 60 meters deep), and floating turbines, which sit on platforms anchored in deeper waters. Offshore wind farms can produce more electricity than land-based wind farms because ocean winds are usually stronger and steadier than winds on land.

Deploying additional offshore wind turbines reduces CO₂ emissions by increasing the availability of renewable energy sources to meet electricity demand, therefore reducing dependence on fossil fuel-based sources in the overall electricity grid mix.

Income & work,Health
Nature protection,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Offshore Wind is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It offers immense clean energy potential but faces challenges of high costs and competing uses of the seas.
Overview

An estimated 23% of global GHG emissions (100-yr basis) comes from electricity generation (Clarke et al., 2022); in 2022, more than 60% of global electricity generation came from fossil fuel–based energy sources (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024a).

Offshore wind turbines generate electricity by converting the energy from rotating turbine blades into electrical energy. The main components of offshore wind turbines include rotor blades, a tower to raise the rotor above the water, a nacelle hub that houses the generator and other key components, and a foundation that stabilizes the structure in the water. Offshore wind farms require additional infrastructure to transport generated energy through undersea cables to transformers and power substations before electricity can be supplied to consumers (Figure 1). To optimize performance, offshore turbines often use advanced control systems (e.g., yaw, pitch, and safety sensors).

Figure 1. Simplified schematic of an offshore wind power system, showing electricity flow from wind turbines through array cables, offshore and onshore substations, and transmission and distribution infrastructure to end users.

Schematic diagram of an offshore wind power system.

Source: Ørsted (n.d.) 

Offshore wind turbines are often placed far from the coast to avoid causing noise pollution or taking up space on land. Foundations can be fixed to the seafloor (fixed-bottom) or floating depending on water depth and other characteristics, such as seabed topography and operational logistics (Afridi et al., 2024). Most offshore wind turbines operating in 2023 were fixed-bottom and limited to seafloor depths around 50 meters. Floating wind farms access wind resources over deeper waters, up to 1,000 meters (de La Beaumelle et al., 2023). 

Wind speeds over water are generally higher and more consistent than over land, which allows for more reliable and increased electricity generation. Potential power generated from offshore wind turbines is directly proportional to the swept area of the rotor blades and the wind speed cubed; a doubling of wind speed corresponds to an eightfold increase in power (U.S. Energy Information Administration [U.S. EIA], 2024). The maximum electrical power a turbine can generate is its capacity in MW. The average installed offshore wind turbine rating grew from 7.7 MW in 2022 to 9.7 MW in 2023 (McCoy et al., 2024), with the total global installed capacity reaching 75.2 gigawatts (GW) in 2023 (Global Wind Energy Council [GWEC], 2024).

The global weighted average capacity factor for offshore wind turbines has reached 41% (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], 2024c) – an increase from 38% a decade earlier – driven by advancements in turbine efficiency, hub height, rotor diameter, and siting optimization. Our analysis assumed an offshore wind turbine capacity factor of 41% (IRENA, 2024c). Offshore wind capacity varies across regions due to differences in policy support, coastal geography, water depths, and infrastructure readiness. Electric power output can be converted to energy generated by multiplying capacity by the time interval and the capacity factor. For annual generation, we multiply by 8,760 hours for one year.

The main siting considerations for offshore wind farms are distance from shore and water depth, but energy output can also be impacted by atmospheric wind conditions as well as the configuration of turbines within a wind farm (de La Beaumelle et al., 2023; IRENA, 2024c). Protected areas are also excluded during siting.

Since wind is a clean and renewable resource, offshore wind turbines do not contribute to GHG emissions or air pollution while generating energy. There are emissions associated with the manufacturing and transportation of turbine components. For this assessment, we did not quantify emissions during the construction of offshore wind farms; these emissions can be addressed with industry-sector solution assessments. Increased deployment of offshore wind turbines contributes to reduced CO₂ emissions when it reduces the need for electricity generation from fossil fuels.

Adeyeye, K., Ijumba, N., & Colton, J. (2020). Exploring the environmental and economic impacts of wind energy: A cost-benefit perspective. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 27(8), 718–731. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1768171 

Afridi, S. K., Koondhar, M. A., Jamali, M. I., Alaas, Z. M., Alsharif, M. H., Kim, M. K., Mahariq, I., Touti, E., Aoudia, M., & Ahmed, M. M. R. (2024). Winds of progress: An in-depth exploration of offshore, floating, and onshore wind turbines as cornerstones for sustainable energy generation and environmental stewardship. IEEE Access, 12, 66147–66166. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3397243 

Akhtar, N., Geyer, B., Rockel, B., Sommer, P. S., & Schrum, C. (2021). Accelerating deployment of offshore wind energy alter wind climate and reduce future power generation potentials. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 11826. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91283-3 

Akhtar, N., Geyer, B., & Schrum, C. (2024). Larger wind turbines as a solution to reduce environmental impacts. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 6608. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56731-w 

Alsaleh, A., & Sattler, M. (2019). Comprehensive life cycle assessment of large wind turbines in the US. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 21(4), 887–903. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01678-0 

Atilgan Turkmen, B., & Germirli Babuna, F. (2024). Life cycle environmental impacts of wind turbines: A path to sustainability with challenges. Sustainability, 16(13), Article 5365. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/SU16135365 

Beiter, P., Cooperman, A., Lantz, E., Stehly, T., Shields, M., Wiser, R., Telsnig, T., Kitzing, L., Berkhout, V., & Kikuchi, Y. (2021). Wind power costs driven by innovation and experience with further reductions on the horizon. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 10(5), Article e398. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/WENE.398 

Bills, G. (2021). Turbine lifetime limits require a reality check | News+ | IJGlobal. Link to source: https://www.ijglobal.com/articles/157132/turbine-lifetime-limits-require-a-reality-check 

Bosch, J., Staffell, I., & Hawkes, A. D. (2018). Temporally explicit and spatially resolved global offshore wind energy potentials. Energy, 163, 766–781. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.08.153 

Buonocore, J. J., Luckow, P., Fisher, J., Kempton, W., & Levy, J. I. (2016). Health and climate benefits of offshore wind facilities in the Mid-Atlantic United States. Environmental Research Letters, 11(7), Article 074019. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074019 

Clarke, L., Wei, Y.-M., De La Vega Navarro, A., Garg, A., Hahmann, A. N., Khennas, S., Azevedo, I. M. L., Löschel, A., Singh, A. K., Steg, L., Strbac, G., & Wada, K. (2022). Energy Systems. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 613–746). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.008

de La Beaumelle, N. A., Blok, K., de Chalendar, J. A., Clarke, L., Hahmann, A. N., Huster, J., Nemet, G. F., Suri, D., Wild, T. B., & Azevedo, I. M. L. (2023). The global technical, economic, and feasible potential of renewable electricity. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 48, 419–449. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-091140 

Degraer, S., Carey, D. A., Coolen, J. W. P., Hutchison, Z. L., Kerckhof, F., Rumes, B., & Vanaverbeke, J. (2020). Offshore wind farm artificial reefs affect ecosystem structure and functioning: A synthesis. Oceanography, 33(4), 48–57. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2020.405 

E2. (2023). California’s offshore wind opportunity. Link to source: https://e2.org/reports/ca-offshore-wind-opportunity-2022/ 

Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (n.d.). Offshore wind technical potential | Analysis and maps; Link to source: https://www.esmap.org/esmap_offshorewind_techpotential_analysis_maps 

Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (2019). Going global: Expanding offshore wind to emerging markets. World Bank Group. Link to source: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/716891572457609829/Going-Global-Expanding-Offshore-Wind-To-Emerging-Markets 

Galparsoro, I., Menchaca, I., Garmendia, J. M., Borja, Á., Maldonado, A. D., Iglesias, G., & Bald, J. (2022). Reviewing the ecological impacts of offshore wind farms. npj Ocean Sustainability, 1, Article 1. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-022-00003-5 

Global Wind Energy Council. (2024). Global offshore wind report 2024.  Link to source: https://26973329.fs1.hubspotusercontent-eu1.net/hubfs/26973329/2.%20Reports/Global%20Offshore%20Wind%20Report/GOWR24.pdf 

Global Wind Energy Council. (2025). Global offshore wind report 2025. Link to source: https://26973329.fs1.hubspotusercontent-eu1.net/hubfs/26973329/2.%20Reports/Global%20Offshore%20Wind%20Report/GOWR25.pdf 

Global Wind Energy Council, & Global Wind Organization. (2021). Global wind workforce outlook 2021–2025. Link to source: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5ce6247122f44f2bd5edebbe/60b534c0e5ca5c6c4c4705b0_GWWO%20v4.pdf 

Gonyo, S. B., Fleming, C. S., Freitag, A., & Goedeke, T. L. (2021). Resident perceptions of local offshore wind energy development: Modeling efforts to improve participatory processes. Energy Policy, 149, Article 112068; Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2020.112068

Haggett, C. (2011). Understanding public responses to offshore wind power. Energy Policy, 39(2), 503–510. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2010.10.014 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (The Core Writing Team, H. Lee, & J. Romero, Eds.) [Synthesis report]. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_FullVolume.pdf 

International Energy Agency. (2019). Offshore wind outlook 2019. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/offshore-wind-outlook-2019 

International Energy Agency. (2024a). World energy balances—Data product. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-balances 

International Energy Agency. (2024b). World energy outlook 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024 

International Energy Agency, & Nuclear Energy Agency. (2020). Projected costs of generating electricity – 2020 edition [Report]. OECD Publishing. Link to source: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-12/egc-2020_2020-12-09_18-26-46_781.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024a). Floating offshore wind outlook. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Jul/IRENA_G7_Floating_offshore_wind_outlook_2024.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024b). Renewable energy statistics 2024. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Jul/IRENA_Renewable_Energy_Statistics_2024.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024c). Renewable power generation costs in 2023. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Sep/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2023 

International Renewable Energy Agency, & Global Wind Energy Council. (2023). Enabling frameworks for offshore wind scale up: Innovations in permitting. Link to source: https://www.energycentral.com/renewables/post/irena-enabling-frameworks-offshore-wind-scale---innovations-permitting-vZRn6mKeZ1hBX0n 

Jansen, M., Staffell, I., Kitzing, L., Quoilin, S., Wiggelinkhuizen, E., Bulder, B., Riepin, I., & Müsgens, F. (2020). Offshore wind competitiveness in mature markets without subsidy. Nature Energy, 5(8), 614–622. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0661-2 

Kaldellis, J. K., & Apostolou, D. (2017). Life cycle energy and carbon footprint of offshore wind energy. Comparison with onshore counterpart. Renewable Energy, 108, 72–84. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2017.02.039 

Lazard. (2023, April). LCOE+ [PowerPoint slides]. Link to source: https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

Letcher, T. M. (Ed.). (2023). Wind energy engineering : A handbook for onshore and offshore wind turbines (2nd ed.). Academic Press. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780323993531/wind-energy-engineering 

Lopez, A., Green, R., Williams, T., Lantz, E., Buster, G., & Roberts, B. (2022). Offshore wind energy technical potential for the contiguous United States [Report]. Link to source: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/83650.pdf 

McCoy, A., Musial, W., Hammond, R., Mulas Hernando, D., Duffy, P., Beiter, P., Pérez, P., Baranowski, R., Reber, G., & Spitsen, P. (2024). Offshore wind market report: 2024 edition (NREL/TP-5000-90525) [Technical report]. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/90525.pdf 

Mello, G., Ferreira Dias, M., & Robaina, M. (2020). Wind farms life cycle assessment review: CO2 emissions and climate change. Energy Reports, 6, 214–219. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2020.11.104 

Millstein, D., O’Shaughnessy, E., & Wiser, R. (2024). Climate and air quality benefits of wind and solar generation in the United States from 2019 to 2022. Cell Reports Sustainability, 1(6), Article 100105. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CRSUS.2024.100105 

Nagababu, G., Srinivas, B. A., Kachhwaha, S. S., Puppala, H., & Kumar, S. V. V. A. (2023). Can offshore wind energy help to attain carbon neutrality amid climate change? A GIS-MCDM based analysis to unravel the facts using CORDEX-SA. Renewable Energy, 219, Article 119400; Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2023.119400 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (n.d.). Offshore wind energy: Assessing impacts to marine life. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. Retrieved August 6, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/offshore-wind-energy/assessing-impacts-to-marine-life 

Ørsted (n.d.) How does offshore wind power work? Retrieved July 8, 2025, from Link to source: https://orsted.com/en/what-we-do/renewable-energy-solutions/offshore-wind/technology

Peach, S. (2021, June 30). What’s the carbon footprint of a wind turbine? Yale Climate Connections. Link to source: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/06/whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-wind-turbine/ 

Qiu, M., Zigler, C. M., & Selin, N. E. (2022). Impacts of wind power on air quality, premature mortality, and exposure disparities in the United States. Science Advances, 8(48), Article eabn8762. Link to source: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn8762 

Ren, Z., Zhang, S., Liu, H., Pu, L., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Wu, M., & Chen, Z. (2025). The environmental and public health benefits of offshore wind power deployment in China. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(1), 315–327. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c06125 

Rubin, E. S., Azevedo, I. M. L., Jaramillo, P., & Yeh, S. (2015). A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies. Energy Policy, 86, 198–218. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2015.06.011 

Schlömer, S., Bruckner, T., Fulton, L., Hertwich, E., McKinnon, A., Perczyk, D., Roy, J., Schaeffer, R., Sims, R., Smith, P., & Wiser, R. (2014). Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, & J. C. Minx (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf 

Shawhan, D., Robson, S., & Russell, E. (2025). Offshore wind power examined: Effects, benefits, and costs of offshore wind farms along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (Working Paper No. 24-17). Resources for the Future. Link to source: https://media.rff.org/documents/WP_24-17_2.25_Update.pdf 

Shields, M., Beiter, P., & Nunemaker, J. (2022). A systematic framework for projecting the future cost of offshore wind energy (NREL/TP-5000-81819) [Technical report]. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/81819.pdf 

Stefek, J., Constant, C., Clark, C., Tinnesand, H., Christol, C., & Baranowski, R. (2022). U.S. offshore wind workforce assessment (NREL/TP-5000-81798) [Technical report]. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/81798.pdf 

TNO, & BLIX Consultancy. (2021). Pathways to potential cost reductions for offshore wind energy [Technical report]. Link to source: https://topsectorenergie.nl/documents/332/20210125_RAP_Pathways_to_potential_cost_reduction_offshore_wind_energy_F03.pdf 

Tumse, S., Bilgili, M., Yildirim, A., & Sahin, B. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Global Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Characteristics and Potentials. Sustainability, 16(15), Article 6614. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/SU16156614 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023). Levelized costs of new generation resources in the annual energy outlook 2023. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2024, June 12). Wind explained: Where wind power is harnessed. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php

Wilhelmsson, D., Malm, T., & Öhman, M. C. (2006). The influence of offshore windpower on demersal fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63(5), 775–784. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ICESJMS.2006.02.001 

Wiser, R., Rand, J., Seel, J., Beiter, P., Baker, E., Lantz, E., & Gilman, P. (2021). Expert elicitation survey predicts 37% to 49% declines in wind energy costs by 2050. Nature Energy, 6(5), 555–565. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00810-z 

World Bank Group. (2021). Key factors for successful development of offshore wind in emerging markets. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program, World Bank Group. Link to source: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/343861632842395836/pdf/Key-Factors-for-Successful-Development-of-Offshore-Wind-in-Emerging-Markets.pdf 

World Economic Forum. (2025). Nature positive: Role of the offshore wind sector [Insight report]. Link to source: https://www.weforum.org/publications/nature-positive-transitions-sectors/offshore-wind-sector/ 

World Forum Offshore Wind. (2024). Global offshore wind report 2023. Link to source: https://wfo-global.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/WFO-Report-2024Q1.pdf 

Yuan, W., Feng, J.-C., Zhang, S., Sun, L., Cai, Y., Yang, Z., & Sheng, S. (2023). Floating wind power in deep-sea area: Life cycle assessment of environmental impacts. Advances in Applied Energy, 9, Article 100122. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADAPEN.2023.100122 

Zhou, F., Tu, X., & Wang, Q. (2022). Research on offshore wind power system based on Internet of Things technology. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 17, 645–650. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/IJLCT/CTAC049 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Michael Dioha, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

Internal Reviewers

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Amanda Smith, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Based on data provided by the IEA, global emissions from electricity generation accounted for an estimated 530 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh (540 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh, 20-yr basis). To convert from MWh to MW, we used the global weighted average capacity factor for offshore wind turbines of 41% (IRENA, 2024c). We estimated offshore wind turbines to reduce 1,900 t CO₂‑eq /MW (1,900 t CO₂‑eq /MW, 20-yr basis) of installed capacity annually (Table 1).

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /MW installed capacity/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 1900
Left Text Column Width

To estimate the effectiveness of offshore wind turbines, we assumed that electricity generated by newly installed offshore wind displaces an equivalent MWh of the global electricity grid mix. Then, the reduction in emissions from additional offshore wind capacity was equal to emissions (per MWh) from the 2023 global electricity grid mix as per the IEA World Energy Balances (IEA, 2024a). We then used the offshore wind capacity factor to convert to annual emissions per MW of installed capacity.

During operation, offshore wind turbines do not emit GHGs, so we assumed zero emissions per MW of installed capacity. However, emissions arise during the manufacturing of components, transportation, installation, maintenance, and decommissioning (Atilgan Turkmen & Germirli Babuna, 2024; Kaldellis & Apostolou, 2017; Mello et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2023). Life-cycle analyses estimate that lifetime GHG emissions of offshore wind turbines are approximately 25.76 g CO₂‑eq /kWh of electricity generated (Yuan et al., 2023).

In our analysis, we focused solely on emissions produced during electricity generation, so carbon payback time and embodied life-cycle emissions were not included in our estimates of effectiveness or climate impacts. 

left_text_column_width
Cost

We estimated a mean levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for offshore wind turbines of US$96/MWh based on three industry reports (IEA, 2024b; IRENA, 2024c; Nuclear Energy Agency & IEA, 2020). LCOE is a widely used metric that allows for cost comparison across generation technologies, incorporating installed capital costs, operation and maintenance, project lifespan, and energy output. Between 2010–2023, the global weighted average LCOE for offshore wind fell by 63%, from US$203/MWh to US$75/MWh, reflecting improvements in turbine size, supply chains, and regulatory support (IRENA, 2024c). 

Regional costs vary significantly. Denmark had the lowest LCOE in 2023 at US$48/MWh due to favorable siting conditions and grid cost exemptions. The UK and Germany achieved the largest LCOE reductions since 2010, of 73% and 67%, respectively (IRENA, 2024c). In contrast, recent U.S. estimates exceed US$120/MWh for unsubsidized projects (McCoy et al., 2024), reflecting higher labor costs, permitting challenges, and nascent supply chains. Lazard (2023) reports a broad range of US$72–140/MWh, emphasizing how siting, project size, and technology selection influence cost outcomes.

These values mask substantial variability and project-specific risk factors. LCOEs are highly sensitive to financing terms, interest rates, permitting delays, regional grid integration requirements, and the availability of local supply chains. For context, offshore wind costs are increasingly competitive with fossil fuel–based power generation, which ranges between US$70–176/MWh (IRENA, 2024c). Offshore wind gigawatt-scale potential near load centers makes it a good potential option for decarbonizing coastal grids.

left_text_column_width
Learning Curve

Offshore wind turbines exhibit a clear learning curve, with costs declining as deployment scales and the technology matures. Learning rates for offshore wind could vary from 7.2–43%, depending on the type of costs considered, study period, technological advancements, and regional conditions. Most of the cost decline is driven by reductions in capital expenditure, particularly from larger turbines, improved manufacturing, streamlined installation, and economies of scale.

According to IRENA (2024c), the global weighted-average installed cost of offshore wind between 2010–2023 reflects a learning rate of 14.2%. Modeling by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates capital cost reductions per doubling of installed capacity at 8.8% for fixed-bottom turbines and 11.5% for floating turbines (Shields et al., 2022). European forecasts suggest that ongoing innovation and learning by doing could reduce offshore wind’s LCOE by up to 25% by 2030 relative to 2020, with learning rates of 6–12% (TNO & BLIX, 2021).

Earlier meta-analyses found offshore wind learning rates of 5–19% between 1985–2001, driven by improved turbine design and installation methods (Rubin et al., 2015). More recent assessments focused on 2010–2016 suggest capital cost learning rates of 10–12% (Beiter et al., 2021). Looking ahead, global experts project cost reductions of 37–49% by 2050 due to continued technological progress (Wiser et al., 2021).

Learning rates also vary by geography. Mature markets like Europe benefit from robust supply chains and permitting frameworks, leading to faster cost declines. On the other hand, emerging markets face higher initial costs and slower learning trajectories. We estimated a 15.8% median global learning rate for offshore wind, implying a 15.8% reduction in LCOE for each doubling of installed capacity (Table 2).

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of the installed solution base.

Unit: %

25th percentile 11.9
Mean 15.8
Median (50th percentile) 15.8
75th percentile 19.6
Left Text Column Width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Deploy Offshore Wind Turbines is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

One limitation of our approach is the assumption that each additional MWh generated by offshore wind turbines displaces an equivalent MWh of the existing grid mix. This simplification implies that new offshore wind may, at times, displace other renewables such as onshore wind, rather than fossil-based sources. In reality, the extent of avoided emissions varies based on regional grid dynamics, marginal generation sources, and the timing and location of electricity production. This approach could be refined in the future, as emerging evidence suggests that in some cases, wind generation tends to displace a larger share of fossil-fuel output than assumed in average grid-mix methods (e.g., Millstein et al., 2024). While offshore wind avoids many of the land-use constraints associated with onshore wind, it introduces unique challenges that may limit scaling. These include high up-front capital costs, limited port infrastructure, specialized vessels, and supply-chain constraints for large components such as floating platforms and subsea cables. There is also growing competition for ocean space from fisheries, marine conservation zones, and shipping corridors (IEA, 2019).

Like all large-scale infrastructure, offshore wind systems face some risk of early retirement or component failure, which can affect their life-cycle emissions. However, because offshore wind turbines produce zero emissions during operation, any electricity they generate displaces fossil-based power and avoids associated emissions. These benefits are not reversed if a turbine is decommissioned early. Most offshore wind turbines operate for 25–30 years, with newer designs expected to exceed this lifespan (Bills, 2021; IEA, 2019). The bulk of their life-cycle emissions are front-loaded, arising from manufacturing, transportation, and installation. As a result, early retirement reduces the amount of clean electricity generated over the turbine’s lifetime, but it does not erase the emissions already avoided during its operation.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

As of 2023, the global installed capacity for offshore wind energy reached approximately 73,000 MW (Table 3; IRENA, 2024b). Although we used 2023 as our baseline for current adoption, in 2024 an additional 10,000 MW of offshore wind capacity was installed, bringing the global total to over 83,000 MW (GWEC, 2025).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current adoption level, 2023.

Unit: MW installed capacity

Total 73,000
Left Text Column Width

China currently leads in offshore wind deployment, accounting for more than 40 GW, or over half of the global installed capacity. Adoption remains negligible in many countries with several regions – particularly in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Southeast Asia – reporting minimal or no offshore wind installations to date, despite their huge potential (GWEC, 2025). For example, the United States, despite its vast technical potential, had installed only 41 MW by 2023 (IRENA, 2024b).

The global offshore wind market has gained significant momentum in recent years. A record number of new installations occurred in 2021, with continued but slower growth in 2022 and 2023. The most active markets remain concentrated in Asia and Europe, with China, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands leading in cumulative capacity. The European Union collectively reached 18.1 GW by 2023 (IRENA, 2024b), driven by favorable policy environments and advanced maritime infrastructure (IRENA, 2024a).

left_text_column_width
Adoption Trend

Global offshore wind capacity has grown rapidly, expanding from less than 1 GW in 2000 to about 73 GW by 2023 (Figure 2), reflecting technological progress, supportive policies, and accelerating investment. 

left_text_column_width

Figure 2. Global offshore wind turbine installed capacity, 2000–2023. Global offshore wind capacity expanded from less than 1 GW in 2000 to about 73 GW by 2023, reflecting rapid technological progress, supportive policies, and accelerating investment in clean energy.

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024). Renewable capacity statistics 2024. https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Mar/IRENA_RE_Capacity_Statistics_2024.pdf

Enable Download
On
Enable Download
Off

We calculated global adoption for each year 2013–2023 and took the year-to-year difference. The adoption trend of offshore wind energy from 2013–2023 reveals a rapid and accelerating growth trajectory with significant regional disparities. Globally, installed capacity expanded from 7,200 MW in 2013 to 73,000 MW in 2023, reflecting a 10-fold increase over the decade. The most dramatic acceleration occurred in 2020–2021, when global capacity jumped from 34,000 MW to 54,000 MW. Comparing year-to-year global adoption, the mean global adoption trend was adding approximately 6,000 MW of installed capacity per year (Table 4), but expansion was unevenly distributed geographically. 

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Adoption trend, 2013–2023.

Unit: MW installed capacity/yr

25th percentile 3,000
Mean 6,000
Median (50th percentile) 5,000
75th percentile 7,000
Left Text Column Width

Regionally, Asia demonstrated the most remarkable growth. This growth was particularly pronounced in 2020–2021, when capacity soared from 9,400 MW to 28,000 MW, largely driven by China’s rapid deployment. Meanwhile, Europe also experienced steady growth, with installed capacity increasing from 8,000 MW in 2014 to 33,000 MW in 2023. In contrast, North America lags behind, with only 41 MW of installed capacity recorded as of 2023, indicating slow current adoption trends. The slow adoption of offshore wind technology in North America may be attributed to various factors, including regulatory and social barriers as well as high interest rates (McCoy et al., 2024). 

Looking ahead, according to forecasts from the World Forum Offshore Wind (WFO, 2024), global offshore wind capacity is anticipated to reach 414 GW by 2032. The GWEC projects more than 350 GW of new offshore wind capacity in 2025–2034, with annual additions surpassing 30 GW by 2030 and 50 GW by 2033, bringing total capacity to about 441 GW by 2034 (GWEC, 2025).

left_text_column_width
Adoption Ceiling

The adoption ceiling for offshore wind turbines (Table 5) is determined by the technology’s global technical potential, representing the theoretical maximum deployment based on physical resource availability. Offshore wind benefits from vast oceanic areas with higher and more consistent wind speeds than onshore sites. However, its realizable potential is shaped by factors such as water depth, distance to shore, seabed conditions, regional wind patterns, and technological limitations.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption level.

Unit: MW installed capacity

25th percentile 58,000,000
Mean 62,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 62,000,000
75th percentile 67,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Estimates of offshore wind’s technical potential vary widely. A meta-analysis by de La Beaumelle et al. (2023) found values of 4.17–626 petawatt-hours (PWh)/year, with a median of 193 PWh/year. The World Bank’s Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) analysis (2019; n.d.) suggests over 71,000 GW of global offshore wind potential, with more than 70% located in deep waters suitable only for floating turbines. Roughly 25% of this resource lies within low- and middle-income countries, offering major opportunities for clean energy expansion.

Technical potential is typically calculated using wind speed maps, turbine power curves, and water depth data. For example, the ESMAP-IFC 2019 study identified 3.1 terawatts (TW) of potential across eight emerging markets using global wind and ocean depth data (ESMAP, 2019). These figures, however, do not reflect constraints such as economics, regulation, infrastructure, or marine uses that would compete with offshore wind (ESMAP, 2019). Challenges like ecological impact, permitting, and grid integration could significantly reduce practical deployment.

Despite these hurdles, offshore wind’s potential remains vast. For this analysis, we defined the adoption ceiling using installable capacity rather than generation output to avoid forecasting uncertainty. Based on the literature, we estimated an adoption ceiling of 62,000,000 MW. The scaling of floating wind turbines, especially in deep waters, will be critical to unlocking this resource, and will require continued innovation and policy support (Tumse et al., 2024).

left_text_column_width
Achievable Adoption

The IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2024 includes several key scenarios that explore different energy futures based on varying levels of policy intervention, technological development, and market dynamics. We define the adoption achievable range for offshore wind turbines based on the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) and Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) (IEA, 2024b).

Achievable – Low

The low achievable adoption level is based on STEPS, which captured the current trajectory for increased adoption of offshore wind energy as well as future projections based on existing and announced policies. Under this scenario, offshore wind capacity is projected to increase more than 13-fold from 73,000 MW to 1,000,000 MW by 2050 (Table 6). This corresponds to an average compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.2%.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: MW installed capacity

Current adoption 73,000
Achievable – low 1,000,000
Achievable – high 1,600,000
Adoption ceiling 62,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Achievable – High

The high achievable adoption level is based on APS, which assumes the same policy framework as STEPS, plus full realization of announced national energy and climate targets – including net-zero commitments supported by stronger clean energy investments. Under this scenario, offshore wind capacity is projected to increase by a magnitude of approximately 22, from 73,000 MW to 1,600,000 MW by 2050 (Table 6). This would require a CAGR of roughly 12.1% over the same period.

Using our adoption ceiling of 62 million MW, the current adoption of offshore wind turbines constitutes approximately 0.1% of its technical potential. The achievable adoption range, as calculated, is 1.6–2.6% of this potential.

left_text_column_width

Using baseline global adoption and effectiveness, we estimated the current total climate impact of offshore wind turbines to be approximately 0.14 Gt CO₂‑eq (0.14 Gt CO₂‑eq , 20-yr basis) of reduced emissions per year (Table 7). We estimated future climate impacts using the emissions from the 2023 baseline electricity grid. Actual emissions reductions could differ depending on how the emissions intensity of electricity generation changes over time. Assuming global policies on offshore wind power – both existing and announced – are backed with adequate implementation provisions, global adoption could reach 1 million MW by 2050. This would result in an increased emissions reduction of approximately 1.9 Gt CO₂‑eq per year. If every nation’s energy and climate targets (including net-zero commitments backed by stronger clean energy investments) are realized, offshore wind adoption could reach 1.6 million MW by 2050. This would lead to an estimated 3.0 Gt CO₂‑eq of reduced emissions per year. 

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Annual climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.14
Achievable – low 1.9
Achievable – high 3.0
Adoption ceiling 120
Left Text Column Width

We based the adoption ceiling solely on the technical potential of offshore wind resources, neglecting social and economic constraints. Thus, offshore wind turbines are unlikely to reach an average of 62 million MW of installed capacity in the next 100 years. However, reaching the adoption ceiling would correspond to annual emissions reductions of 120 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Wind power has a strong positive impact on the economy. Wind energy projects have been shown to increase total income and employment in high-income and low- and middle-income countries, although the costs of new projects may be higher in emerging markets until the market develops (Adeyeye et al., 2020; GWEC & Global Wind Organization, 2021; World Bank Group, 2021). As the offshore wind sector expands, so will the demand for workers. A report from NREL estimated that U.S. offshore wind projects between 2024–2030 will require an annual average of 15,000–58,000 full-time workers (Stefek et al., 2022). In California, planned and proposed offshore wind farms would add about 5,750 jobs and US$15 billion in wages and further contribute to the local economy by generating tax revenue (E2, 2023). Offshore wind could also strengthen energy security by diversifying the power mix and reducing dependence on imported fuels.

Health

Reduction in air pollution directly translates into health benefits and avoided premature mortality. Simulations of offshore wind projects in China estimate that reductions in air pollution could prevent about 165,000 premature deaths each year (Ren et al., 2025). Proposed offshore wind farms on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States could prevent about 2,100 premature deaths annually and save money in health benefits from improved air quality (Buonocore et al., 2016; Shawhan et al., 2024). Because these offshore wind projects would lessen demand for natural gas and coal-powered electricity generation, populated communities downwind from power plants along the East Coast of the United States – such as New York City – would experience health benefits from improved air quality (Shawhan et al., 2024). Although the economic benefits of improved health associated with wind power have already increased rapidly from US$2 billion in 2014 to US$16 billion in 2022, these benefits could be maximized by replacing fossil fuel power plants in regions with higher health damages (Qiu et al., 2022). 

Nature Protection

While there are some risks through increased ship traffic and noise and light pollution, offshore wind may provide some benefits to fish and marine life (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, n.d.; Galparsoro et al., 2022; World Economic Forum, 2025). Once constructed, offshore wind farms can serve as an artificial reef, providing new habitats in the submerged portion of the turbine (Degraer et al., 2020). When these habitats are colonized by marine organisms, this increases availability of food such as zooplankton and algae, which can increase the abundance of small fish nearby (Wilhelmsson et al., 2006).

Air Quality

Offshore wind energy reduces air pollutants released from fossil fuels, thereby reducing the emissions associated with burning coal and natural gas. A recent analysis of 32 planned or proposed offshore wind farms along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts estimated these projects could reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by 4%, sulfur dioxide by 5%, and PM 2.5 by 6% (Shawhan et al., 2024). Modeling analyses of offshore wind in China estimate these projects could reduce about 3% of air pollution from electricity by lowering emissions from coal-powered electricity generation (Ren et al., 2025).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Implementing offshore wind energy involves several risks. Technically, offshore projects face harsh marine environments that can affect long-term reliability and increase maintenance costs (IRENA, 2024a). These risks can be reduced through advanced materials, corrosion‑resistant designs, predictive maintenance systems, and improved installation practices that extend turbine lifespans and reduce downtime. High capital costs and regulatory uncertainty remain among the most significant barriers, especially in emerging markets where financing, insurance, and investor confidence are limited (ESMAP, 2019). Addressing these challenges often requires stable policy frameworks, innovative financing mechanisms such as Contracts for Difference (CFDs) and blended finance, and public‑private partnerships to de‑risk investments and attract private capital. 

There are also ecological risks associated with offshore wind farms, which can disrupt marine habitats, impact migratory birds and marine mammals, and cause seabed disturbances during installation (Galparsoro et al., 2022). Mitigation strategies such as adaptive siting, seasonal construction limits, and biodiversity offsets are increasingly used to minimize these impacts. Social resistance can arise from local communities due to factors such as visual impact, place attachment, perceived lack of benefits, and competing uses of marine space, such as fisheries and shipping lanes (Gonyo et al., 2021; Haggett, 2011).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Increased availability of renewable energy from offshore wind turbines helps reduce emissions from the electricity grid as a whole. Reduced emissions from the electricity grid lead to lower downstream emissions for these solutions that rely on electricity use. Deploying offshore wind turbines also supports increased integration of solar photovoltaic technology by diversifying the renewable energy mix and reducing overreliance on solar variability.

left_text_column_width

Electrification of transportation systems will be more beneficial in reducing global emissions if the underlying grid includes a higher proportion of non-emitting power sources. Electric transportation systems can also reduce curtailment of wind energy through controlled-time charging and other load-shifting technologies.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Offshore wind could compete for policy attention, funding, and coastal land with other renewables, potentially slowing their deployment. Implementing or deploying offshore wind turbines requires dedicated coastal land or ocean area use which limits conservation programs and raw material and food production. Offshore wind turbines are large structures that could shade photosynthetic organisms and potentially disrupt coastal and marine ecosystems during installation.

left_text_column_width

Offshore wind turbines are large structures that could shade photosynthetic organisms and potentially disrupt coastal and marine ecosystems. Fixed-bottom offshore turbines also require infrastructure that could damage bottom sediments and habitats during installation.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

MW installed capacity

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
1,900
units
Current 73,000 01.0×10⁶1.6×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.14 1.93.04
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

Offshore wind turbines do not emit GHGs during operation, but they are associated with embodied emissions from manufacturing, transport, and installation (Yuan et al., 2023). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) life-cycle assessment estimates indicate that offshore wind energy produces about 8–35 g CO₂‑eq /kWh, compared to about 400–1,000 g CO₂ --eq/kWh for fossil-based electricity generators (Schlömer et al., 2014).

Increasing steel and concrete demand for turbine construction may cause indirect emissions in the industrial sector. These trade‑offs can be mitigated through circular economy approaches such as recycling and repurposing turbine components to cut material demand and emissions. Despite these trade-offs, the emissions saved over a turbine’s 25- to 30-year lifetime greatly exceed the upfront emissions.

left_text_column_width
Fixed
Floating

Technical potential for offshore wind

Highlighted areas are suitable for offshore wind development for fixed turbines (those fixed to the seafloor, typically in waters less than 50 meters deep) and floating turbines (those anchored on platforms in waters less than 1,000 meters deep).

Energy Sector Management Assistant Program & The World Bank Group (2021). Global offshore wind technical potential (version 3) [Data set]. The World Bank Group. Link to source: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0037787 

Fixed
Floating

Technical potential for offshore wind

Highlighted areas are suitable for offshore wind development for fixed turbines (those fixed to the seafloor, typically in waters less than 50 meters deep) and floating turbines (those anchored on platforms in waters less than 1,000 meters deep).

Energy Sector Management Assistant Program & The World Bank Group (2021). Global offshore wind technical potential (version 3) [Data set]. The World Bank Group. Link to source: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0037787 

Maps Introduction

Offshore wind energy is most promising in coastal regions with high wind resources and the physical and regulatory capacity to support utility-scale deployment. It is particularly valuable for countries with limited land availability or high coastal population density, offering a scalable and increasingly cost-effective pathway toward decarbonization. Offshore wind’s effectiveness is underpinned by its strong technical fundamentals, especially its relatively high capacity factor.

We estimated global offshore wind technical potential at around 62,000,000 MW. Notably, more than 70% of the technical potential lies in waters deeper than 50 meters. As of 2023, global installed offshore wind capacity had reached 73 GW, a nearly 20-fold increase since 2010. Europe and Asia account for nearly equal shares of current capacity. Europe remains a global leader with around 30 GW, led by the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, and Netherlands. 

In Asia, China dominates the offshore wind space, with more than 30 GW installed and annual additions of nearly 17 GW in 2021 alone. Japan has set targets of 10 GW by 2030 and 30–45 GW by 2040, while South Korea aims for 14.3 GW by 2030 (IRENA, 2024a). The United States has vast offshore wind potential, with NREL estimating 1,476 GW for fixed‑bottom and 2,773 GW for floating installations (Lopez et al., 2022). The United States is beginning to scale up offshore wind through policy support from the Inflation Reduction Act, and large-scale projects are now under development along the East Coast. As of May 31, 2024, the country had 174 MW of offshore wind capacity installed (McCoy et al., 2024). While this installed capacity remains modest compared to Europe or China, it represents an initial step in building the domestic industry. Importantly, the U.S. offshore wind project development and operational pipeline exceeds 80,000 MW, highlighting the scale of development expected in the coming decade. Canada, with 9.3 TW of technical potential (7.2 TW of which is suitable for floating wind), has begun leasing processes in Nova Scotia targeting 5 GW by 2030 and integrating offshore wind into its green hydrogen strategy, while Australia’s Victoria state aims for 9 GW by 2040 (IRENA, 2024a).

Several emerging markets represent strong opportunities for future deployment. Brazil has more than 1,200 GW of estimated technical potential and is currently developing a national framework for offshore wind licensing. India plans to reach 37 GW by 2030, with auctions for 7.2 GW already scheduled (IRENA, 2024a). Other countries such as Vietnam and South Africa are beginning to position themselves as offshore wind markets (IRENA, 2024a).

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Offshore Wind Turbines
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Integrate perspectives from key stakeholders into the decision-making process, including fisherfolk, coastal communities, port authorities, and other groups impacted by offshore wind development.
  • Simplify and standardize offshore environmental licensing and marine spatial planning to accelerate project approvals while preserving biodiversity safeguards.
  • Offer subsidies, grants, low-interest loans, preferential tax policies, and other incentives for developing and operating offshore wind farms and specialized port infrastructures.
  • Develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production and operation – ideally, before development and adoption to prevent accidents.
  • Prioritize expansion of high-voltage subsea and coastal transmission infrastructure.
  • Offer equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and assistance with onsite supervision.
  • Set quotas for power companies and offer expedited permitting processes for renewable energy production, including offshore wind.
  • Set adjustments for wind power on-grid pricing through mechanisms such as feed-in tariffs, renewable energy auctions, or other guaranteed pricing methods for wind energy.
  • Provide financing for research and development to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and other related technology.
  • Mandate onsite wind power forecasting and set standards for data integrity.
  • Create training programs for engineers, operators, and other personnel.
  • Coordinate voluntary agreements with industry to increase offshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on wind turbine functionality, benefits, and any public concerns.
  • Implement carbon taxes and use funds to de-risk offshore investments.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Work with external organizations to enter new markets and identify challenges early in development.
  • Plan integrated offshore logistics to anticipate specialized vessel needs and port upgrades.
  • Engage in marine spatial planning and cross-sector stakeholder dialogues to remove conflicts.
  • Investigate community-led or cooperative offshore business models to improve local acceptance.
  • Partner with academic institutions, technical institutions, vocational programs, and other external organizations to provide workforce development programs.
  • Focus research and development efforts on increasing the productivity and efficiency of turbines, improving offshore design, and supporting technology such as wind forecasting.
  • Utilize and integrate materials and designs that enhance recyclability and foster circular supply chains.
  • Participate in voluntary agreements with government bodies to increase policy support for onshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Support and participate in public awareness campaigns focusing on wind turbine functionality, benefits, and any public concerns.
  • Stay abreast of changing policies, regulations, zoning laws, tax incentives, and other related developments.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Enter into Purchase Power Agreements (PPAs).
  • Purchase high-integrity Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).
  • Invest in companies that provide offshore wind energy, transmission assets, shared port facilities, component manufacturers, or related technology, such as forecasting.
  • Initiate or join voluntary agreements with national or international bodies and support industry collaboration.
  • Develop workforce partnerships, offer employee scholarships, or sponsor training for careers in offshore wind or related professions such as marine engineering.
  • Support long-term, stable contracts (e.g., power purchase agreements or CFDs) that de-risk investment in floating offshore wind foundation technologies, encouraging their development and deployment.
  • Support community engagement initiatives in areas where you do business to educate and highlight the local economic benefits of offshore wind.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for offshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, quotas, community engagement, and comanagement models.
  • Advocate for fair and transparent benefit-sharing with coastal communities affected by offshore wind.
  • Help conduct proactive land use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected areas, biodiversity, cultural heritage, or traditional marine uses.
  • Propose or help develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production and operation.
  • Conduct open-access research to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and other related technology.
  • Operate or assist with equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite supervision.
  • Create or assist with training programs for engineers, operators, and other personnel.
  • Coordinate voluntary agreements between governments and industry to increase offshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on wind turbine functionality, benefits, and any public concerns. 

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in the development of offshore wind farms.
  • Invest in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds that hold offshore wind companies in their portfolios.
  • Consider offering flexible and low-interest loans for developing and operating offshore wind farms.
  • Invest in supporting infrastructure such as utility companies, grid development, and access roads.
  • Invest in component technology and related science, such as wind forecasting.
  • Help develop insurance products tailored to marine risks and early-stage offshore projects.
  • Invest in green bonds for companies developing offshore wind energy or supporting infrastructure.
  • Align investments with existing public-private partnerships, voluntary agreements, or voluntary guidance that might apply in the location of the investment (including those that apply to biodiversity).

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Provide catalytic financing for or help develop offshore wind farms.
  • Award grants to improve supporting infrastructure such as utility companies, grid development, and access roads.
  • Support the development of component technology and related science, such as wind forecasting.
  • Fund updates to high-resolution marine wind atlases and oceanographic data systems.
  • Foster cooperation between low- and middle-income countries for floating wind and deepwater innovation in emerging economies.
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for offshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.
  • Propose, build capacity for, or help develop regulations, standards, and codes for marine permitting, offshore market design, equipment production, and operation.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on wind turbine functionality, benefits, and any public concerns.
  • Facilitate partnerships to share wind turbine technology and best practices between established and emerging markets, promoting energy equity and access.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for offshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.
  • Propose or help develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production and operation.
  • Conduct research to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and other related technology.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, benefits, and why they are necessary, addressing any public concerns.
  • Advocate for community engagement, respect for Indigenous rights, and preservation of cultural heritage and traditional ways of life to be included in wind power expansion efforts.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve the productivity and efficiency of wind turbines.
  • Improve battery capacity for electricity storage.
  • Develop more accurate, timely, and cost-effective means of offshore wind forecasting.
  • Engineer new or improved means of manufacturing towers and components – ideally with locally sourced materials.
  • Enhance design features such as wake steering, bladeless wind power, and quiet wind turbines.
  • Optimize power output, efficiency, and deployment for vertical-axis turbines.
  • Refine methods for retaining power for low-speed winds.
  • Research and develop optimal ways offshore wind can provide habitats for marine species and reduce negative impacts on biodiversity; research total impact of offshore wind on local ecosystems.
  • Develop strategies to minimize the impact of the noise of offshore wind turbines, both under and above water.
  • Develop more accurate forecasting models for the performance of fixed-base and floating offshore wind turbines.
  • Improve the aero-servo-elasticity of floating offshore wind turbines to accommodate more advanced components.
  • Improve existing – or develop new – materials and designs that can withstand marine environments.
  • Help develop designs and operational protocols to facilitate installation, minimize maintenance, improve safety, and reduce overall costs.
  • Develop materials and designs that facilitate recycling and circulate supply chains.
  • Innovate grid connections and transmission infrastructure for offshore and deep-sea wind farms.
  • Improve smart grid connections to manage integrating offshore wind farms.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Purchase high-integrity RECs, which track ownership of renewable energy generation.
  • If your utility company offers transparent green pricing, which charges a premium to cover the extra cost of renewable energy, opt into it if possible.
  • Conduct research on the benefits and development of wind energy and share the information with your friends, family, and networks.
  • Stay informed about wind development projects that impact your community and support them when possible.
  • Support the development of community wind cooperatives or shared ownership structures that allow local communities to directly benefit from offshore wind projects.
  • Participate in public consultations, licensing hearings, and awareness campaigns focused on offshore wind projects.
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for offshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions: High

The scientific literature on offshore wind turbines reflects high consensus regarding their potential to significantly contribute to reducing GHG emissions and supporting the transition to sustainable energy. Technological advancements, decreasing costs, and increasing efficiency have positioned offshore wind as a key player in achieving global climate targets (Jansen et al., 2020; Letcher, 2023). 

Offshore wind turbines reduce GHG emissions by displacing fossil fuel-based electricity generation, thus avoiding the release of CO₂ and other climate pollutants (Akhtar et al., 2024; Nagababu et al., 2023; Shawhan et al., 2025). The strong and consistent wind speeds found over ocean surfaces make offshore turbines especially efficient, with relatively high-capacity factors and increasingly competitive costs (Akhtar et al., 2021; Bosch et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2022).

The technical potential of offshore wind refers to the maximum electricity generation achievable using available wind resources, constrained only by physical and technological factors. Scientific reviews highlight the significant technical potential of offshore wind to meet global electricity demand many times over, particularly through expansion in deep waters using floating technologies (de La Beaumelle et al., 2023). The World Bank estimates the global technical potential for fixed and floating offshore wind at approximately 71,000 GW globally using current technology (ESMAP, n.d.). With just 83 GW installed so far (GWEC, 2025), this indicates that offshore wind’s potential remains largely untapped. 

The IPCC also sees offshore wind as a key low-emissions technology for achieving net-zero pathways and can be integrated into energy systems at scale with manageable economic and technical challenges (IPCC, 2023). While there is broad scientific agreement on the potential of offshore wind turbines to significantly reduce GHG emissions, there are also growing concerns, including uncertainties around floating platform scalability, ecological impacts, supply chain readiness, and long-term operations. Most of these issues are captured in the Risks & Trade-Offs section of this document.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 17 peer reviewed academic papers (including 6 reviews and 11 research articles), 2 books and 11 agency or institutional reports, reflecting current evidence from representative regions around the world. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Production
Image
Onshore wind turbines
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Onshore wind turbines are land-based machines that harness natural wind to generate electricity. Electricity generation from wind turbines depends on many factors, including natural wind speeds, consistency, and directionality. The Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines solution focuses on utility-scale electricity generation above 1 MW in rated capacity, generally from fields of turbines called wind farms. Deploy Micro Wind Turbines and Deploy Offshore Wind Turbines are discussed as separate solutions.

Deploying onshore wind turbines contributes to reduced CO₂ emissions by increasing the availability of renewable energy sources to meet electricity demand, thereby reducing dependence on fossil fuel–based sources in the overall electricity grid mix.

Income & work,Health
Nature protection,Water resources,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It reduces emissions from electricity generation by expanding production of clean and renewable wind energy.
Overview

An estimated 23% of global GHG emissions on a 100-yr basis comes from electricity generation annually (Clarke et al., 2022), and in 2022 more than 60% of global electricity generation came from fossil fuel–based energy sources (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024c). Since wind is a clean and renewable resource, onshore wind turbines do not contribute to GHG emissions or air pollution while generating energy. The Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines solution reduces the need for electricity generation from fossil fuels, which reduces emissions of CO₂ as well as of smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. 

An onshore wind turbine has a tower with a rotor mounted at the top, connected to a generator. Wind pressure on the turbine blades rotates the rotor, and the generator converts that motion into electrical power. Power potentially generated is directly proportional to the swept area of the rotor blades and the wind speed cubed. Utility-scale turbines require an annual average wind speed of at least 5.8 meters/second (Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2024b). Wind characteristics and technical aspects have a critical impact on electricity generation. Factors include, but are not limited to, wind speed, turbulence, site-specific effects, rotor size, turbine height, generator efficiency, and wind farm layout (Diógenes et al., 2020). Onshore wind farms are often sited where fewer obstacles lead to more consistent wind speeds (Maguire et al., 2024). 

The maximum electrical power a turbine can generate is its installed capacity in MW. Due to changing wind characteristics and operational decisions, onshore wind turbines do not always operate at maximum capacity. The capacity factor of a turbine captures the actual amount of power generated compared with maximum generation if the turbine always operated at its rated capacity. Due to technological improvements over the past decade, global weighted average capacity factors increased from 27% in 2010 to 36% in 2023 and can exceed 50% in some countries (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], 2024a).

Utility-scale wind farms are connected to the grid to provide electricity. Electric power output can be converted to energy generated by multiplying capacity by the capacity factor and a specified time interval. For annual generation, we multiplied by one year and used our estimated median global capacity factor (37%). In 2023, onshore wind turbines generated 2,089 TWh of electricity, approximately 7% of global electricity generation (IEA, 2024c).

Onshore wind turbines can be classified according to their orientation. Horizontal-axis turbines need to face their rotors into the wind to generate power, while vertical-axis turbines operate independently of wind direction. Utility-scale onshore wind turbines are mostly horizontal-axis rotors with three blades, but smaller scale turbines (see Deploy Micro Wind Turbines) can have more complex rotor designs for a variety of applications. The International Electrical Commission (IEC) standardizes wind turbine classifications with distinct designs to maximize energy capture for different sites (IEC, 2019). Wind farms also require distribution systems to transport electricity to locations of electricity demand. 

Adeyeye, K., Ijumba, N., & Colton, J. (2020). Exploring the environmental and economic impacts of wind energy: A cost-benefit perspective. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27(8), 718–731. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1768171 

Albanito, F., Roberts, S., Shepherd, A., & Hastings, A. (2022). Quantifying the land-based opportunity carbon costs of onshore wind farms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 363(132480), 0959–6526. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132480 

Angliviel de La Beaumelle, N., Blok, K., de Chalendar, J. A., Clarke, L., Hahmann, A. N., Huster, J., Nemet, G. F., Suri, D., Wild, T. B., & Azevedo, I. M. L. (2023). The global technical, economic, and feasible potential of renewable electricity. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 48, 419–449. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-091140 

Agra Neto, J., González, M. O. A., Castro, R. L. P. D., Melo, D. C. D., Aiquoc, K. M., Santiso, A. M., Vasconcelos, R. M. D., Souza, L. H. D., & Cabral, E. L. D. S. (2024). Factors influencing the decision-making process at the end-of-life cycle of onshore wind farms: A systematic review. Energies, 17(4), Article 848. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17040848 

Barthelmie, R. J., & Pryor, S. C. (2021). Climate change mitigation potential of wind energy. Climate, 9(9), Article 136. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9090136 

Beiter, P., Cooperman, A., Lantz, E., Stehly, T., Shields, M., Wiser, R., Telsnig, T., Kitzing, L., Berkhout, V., & Kikuchi, Y. (2021). Wind power costs driven by innovation and experience with further reductions on the horizon. WIREs Energy and Environment, 10(5), Article e398. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.398 

Clarke, L., Wei, Y.-M., De La Vega Navarro, A., Garg, A., Hahmann, A. N., Khennas, S., Azevedo, I. M. L., Löschel, A., Singh, A. K., Steg, L., Strbac, G., & Wada, K. (2022). Energy Systems. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 613–746). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.008 

da Silva, V. P., & Galvão, M. L. d. M. (2022). Onshore wind power generation and sustainability challenges in northeast Brazil: A quick scoping review. Wind, 2(2), 192–209. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/wind2020011 

Diógenes, J. R. F., Claro, J., Rodrigues, J. C., & Loureiro, M. V. (2020). Barriers to onshore wind energy implementation: A systematic review. Energy Research & Social Science, 60, Article 101337. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101337 

Energy Information Administration. (2022). Levelized costs of new generation resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2022. U.S. Department of Energy. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf 

Energy Information Administration. (2024a). Capital cost and performance characteristics for utility-scale electric: Power generating technologies. U.S. Department of Energy. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_AEO2025.pdf

Energy Information Administration. (2024b). Where wind power is harnessed. U.S. Department of Energy. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php 

Global Wind Energy Council. (2024). Global wind report 2024. Link to source: https://www.gwec.net/reports/globalwindreport/2024 

Global Wind Energy Council. (2025). Global wind report 2025. Link to source: https://www.gwec.net/reports/globalwindreport 

Global Wind Organization & Global Wind Energy Council. (2021). Global wind workforce outlook 2021–2025. Link to source: https://www.globalwindsafety.org/statistics/global-wind-workforce-forecast-2021-2025 

Global Wind Organization & Global Wind Energy Council. (2023). Global wind workforce outlook 2023–2027. Link to source: https://www.globalwindsafety.org/statistics/global-wind-workforce-outlook-2023-2027 

Gorayeb, A., Brannstrom, C., de Andrade Meireles, J., & de Sousa Mendes, J. (2018). Wind power gone bad: Critiquing wind power planning processes in northeastern Brazil. Energy Research & Social Science, 40, 82–88. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.027 

Haces-Fernandez, F., Cruz-Mendoza, M., & Li, H. (2022). Onshore wind farm development: Technologies and layouts. Energies, 15(7), Article 2381. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072381 

Hartman, L. (2024). Wind Turbines: The Bigger, the Better. Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wind-turbines-bigger-better 

International Electrotechnical Commission. (2019). TC 88 wind energy generation systems. Link to source: https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:1282,25 

International Energy Agency. (2020). Projected costs of generating electricity 2020. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020

International Energy Agency. (2022a). Electricity generation sources, Asia Pacific, 2022. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/regions/asia-pacific/electricity 

International Energy Agency. (2022b). Electricity generation sources, Europe, 2022. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/regions/europe/electricity 

International Energy Agency. (2024a). COP28 tripling renewable capacity pledge: Tracking countries’ ambitions and identifying policies to bridge the gap. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/cop28-tripling-renewable-capacity-pledge

International Energy Agency. (2024b). Renewables 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2024 

International Energy Agency. (2024c). World energy balances—Data product. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-balances 

International Energy Agency. (2024d). World energy outlook 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024a). Renewable power generation costs in 2023. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Sep/IRENA_Renewable_power_generation_costs_in_2023.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024b). Renewable energy capacity statistics 2024—Data product. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Mar/Renewable-capacity-statistics-2024 

Jacobson, M. Z., & Archer, C. L. (2012). Saturation wind power potential and its implications for wind energy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(39), 15679–15684. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208993109 

Jung, C. (2024). Recent development and future perspective of wind power generation. Energies, 17(21), Article 5391. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17215391 

Jung, C., & Schindler, D. (2023). Efficiency and effectiveness of global onshore wind energy utilization. Energy Conversion and Management, 280, Article 116788. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.116788 

Kaldellis, J. K., & Zafirakis, D. (2011). The wind energy (r)evolution: A short review of a long history. Renewable Energy, 36, 1887–1901. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.01.002 

Kati, V., Kassara, C., Vrontisi, Z., & Moustakas, A. (2021). The biodiversity-wind energy-land use nexus in a global biodiversity hotspot. Science of The Total Environment, 768, Article 144471. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144471 

Khan Afridi, S., Ali Koondhar, M., Ismail Jamali, M., Muhammed Alaas, Z., Alsharif, M. H., Kim, M. K., Mahariq, I., Touti, E., Aoudia, M., & Ahmed, M. M. R. (2024). Winds of progress: An in-depth exploration of offshore, floating, and onshore wind turbines as cornerstones for sustainable energy generation and environmental stewardship. IEEE Access, 12, 66147–66166. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3397243 

Maguire, K., Tanner, S., Winikoff, J.B., & Williams, R. (2024). Utility-scale solar and wind development in rural areas: Land cover change (2009–20) (Report No. ERR-330). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.32747/2024.8374829.ers 

Marashli, A., Gasaymeh, A-M., & Shalby, M. (2022). Comparing the global warming impact from wind, solar energy, and other electricity generating systems through life cycle assessment methods (a survey). International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, 12(2), 899–920. ​​Link to source: https://doi.org/10.20508/ijrer.v12i2.13010.g8474 

Mathis, W., & Saul, J. (2024, October 23). A wind power crisis is holding back the world’s green energy goal. Bloomberg. Link to source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-23/wind-power-crisis-is-threat-to-world-s-renewable-energy-target 

McKenna, R., Pfenninger, S., Heinrichs, H., Schmidt, J., Staffell, I., Bauer, C., Gruber, K., Hahmann, A. N., Jansen, M., Klingler, M., Landwehr, N., Larsén, X. G., Lilliestam, J., Pickering, B., Robinius, M., Tröndle, T., Turkovska, O., Wehrle, S., Weinand, J. M., & Wohland, J. (2022). High-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy assessments: A review of potential definitions, methodologies and future research needs. Renewable Energy, 182, 659–684. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.027 

McKenna, R., Lilliestam, J., Heinrichs, H. U., Weinand, J. M., Schmidt, J., Staffell, I., Bauer, C., Hahmann, A. N., Burgherr, P., Burdack, A., Bucha, M., Chen, R., Klingler, M., Lehmann, P., Lowitzsch, J., Novo, R., Price, J., Sacchi, R., Scherhaufer, P.,  … Camargo, L. R. (2025). System impacts of wind energy developments: Key research challenges and opportunities. Joule, 9(1), Article 101799. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2024.11.016 

Meldrum, J., Nettles-Anderson, S., Heath G., & Macknick, J. (2013). Life cycle water use for electricity generation: a review and harmonization of literature estimates. Environmental Research Letters, 8, Article 015031. Link to source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015031 

Millstein, D., O'Shaughnessy, E., & Wiser, R. (2024). Climate and air quality benefits of wind and solar generation in the United States from 2019 to 2022. Cell Reports Sustainability, 1(6), Article 100105. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsus.2024.100105 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2021). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation: Update [Fact sheet]. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf 

Nordman, E. (2013). Wind power and air quality: Reducing air pollution and carbon emissions in Michigan. Link to source: https://www.michiganseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Wind-Brief-7-Air-Quality.pdf 

Qiu, M., Zigler, C. M., & Selin, N. E. (2022). Impacts of wind power on air quality, premature mortality, and exposure disparities in the United States. Science Advances, 8(48), Article eabn8762. Link to source: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn8762 

Sander, L., Jung, C., & Schindler, D. (2024). Global review on environmental impacts of onshore wind energy in the field of tension between human societies and natural systems. Energies, 17, Article 3098. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17133098 

Shafiullah, G. M., Amanullah, M. T., Oo, A. B. M., Shawkat, A., & Wolfs, P. (2013). Potential challenges of integrating large-scale wind energy into the power grid–A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 20, 306–321. Link to source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.057 

Shah, S., & Bazilian, M. (2020). LCOE and its limitations. Energy for Growth Hub. Payne Institute. Link to source: https://energyforgrowth.org/article/lcoe-and-its-limitations/ 

Smith, A. D. (2024, August 8). To unlock clean power’s potential, timing is key. Project Drawdown. Link to source: https://drawdown.org/insights/to-unlock-clean-powers-potential-timing-is-key 

Tafarte, P., & Lehmann, P. (2021). Quantifying trade-offs for the spatial allocation of onshore wind generation capacity: A case study for Germany [White paper]. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ). Link to source: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/234329 

Timilsina, G. R., van Kooten, G. C., & Narbel, P. A. (2013). Global wind power development: Economics and policies. Energy Policy, 61, 642–652. Link to source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.062 

Tolvanen, A., Routavaara, H., Jokikokko, M., & Rana, P. (2023). How far are birds, bats, and terrestrial mammals displaced from onshore wind power development? – A systematic review. Biological Conservation, 288, Article 110382. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110382 

Williams, E., Hittinger, E., Carvalho, R., & Williams, R. (2017). Wind power costs expected to decrease due to technological progress. Energy Policy, 106, 427–435. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.032 

Wiser, R., Yang, Z., Hand, M., Hohmeyer, O., Infield, D., Jensen, P. H., Nikolaev, V., O’Malley, M., Sinden, G., & Zervos, A. (2011). Wind energy. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, & C. von Stechow (Eds.), IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation (pp. 535–608). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139151153.011 

Wiser, R., Bolinger, M., & Lantz, E. (2019). Assessing wind power operating costs in the United States: Results from a survey of wind industry experts. Renewable Energy Focus, 30, 46–57, Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2019.05.003 

Wiser, R., Rand, J., Seel, J., Beiter, P., Baker, E., Lantz, E., & Gilman, P. (2021). Expert elicitation survey predicts 37% to 49% declines in wind energy costs by 2050. Nature Energy, 6, 555–565. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00810-z 

Wiser, R. H., Millstein, D., Hoen, B., Bolinger, M., Gorman, W., Rand, J., Barbose, G. L., Cheyette, A., Darghouth, N. R., Jeong, S., Kemp, J. M., O'Shaughnessy, E., Paulos, B., & Joachim Seel, J. (2024). Land-based wind market report: 2024 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Link to source: https://emp.lbl.gov/wind-technologies-market-report 

World Bank. (2021). Key factors for successful development of offshore wind in emerging markets. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program, World Bank. Link to source: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/343861632842395836/pdf/Key-Factors-for-Successful-Development-of-Offshore-Wind-in-Emerging-Markets.pdf 

Xue, B., Ma, Z., Geng, Y., Heck, P., Ren, W., Tobias, M., Maas, A., Jiang, P., de Oliveira, J. A. P., & Fujita, T. (2015). A life cycle co-benefits assessment of wind power in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 338–346. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.056 

Zhang, H., Yang, J., Ren, X., Wu, Q., Zhou, D., & Elahi, E. (2020). How to accommodate curtailed wind power: A comparative analysis between the US, Germany, India and China. Energy Strategy Reviews, 32, Article 100538. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2020.100538

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Michael Dioha, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Based on IEA data, global emissions from electricity generation accounted for an estimated 530 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh (540 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh, 20-year basis). To convert from MWh to MW, we used the median global average capacity factor for onshore wind turbines of 37% (IRENA, 2024a). We estimated onshore wind turbines to reduce 1,700 t CO₂‑eq /MW (1,700 t CO₂‑eq /MW, 20-year basis) of installed capacity annually (Table 1).

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions. 

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-year basis)/MW installed capacity/yr

Estimate 1,700
Left Text Column Width

To estimate the effectiveness of onshore wind turbines, we assumed that electricity generated by new installations displaces an equivalent MWh of the global electricity grid mix. Then, the reduction in emissions from additional onshore wind capacity was equal to emissions (per MWh) from the 2023 global electricity grid mix (IEA, 2024c). We then used the onshore wind capacity factor to convert to annual emissions per MW of installed capacity.

During operation, onshore wind turbines do not emit GHGs. Life-cycle analyses for onshore wind turbines have estimated lifetime GHG emissions as very low, 7–20 g CO₂‑eq per kWh (100-year) of electricity generated (Barthelmie et al., 2021; Wiser et al., 2011). Emissions from manufacturing, transportation, installation, and decommissioning are commonly paid back in less than two years of wind farm operation (Diógenes et al., 2020; Haces-Fernandez et al., 2022; Kaldellis & Zafirakis, 2011). 

Our analysis focused solely on emissions produced during electricity generation; emissions associated with construction and installation of onshore wind are attributed to the Industry, Materials & Waste sector. Thus, we did not include carbon payback time and embodied life-cycle emissions in our estimates of effectiveness, even though this may overestimate climate impacts. We qualitatively discuss life-cycle emissions in Caveats below.

left_text_column_width
Cost

We estimated a mean levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for onshore wind turbines of US$52/MWh based on three industry reports (IEA, 2024d; IEA, 2020; IRENA, 2024a). LCOE is commonly used to compare costs across electricity generation technologies because it provides a single metric that combines total installed costs, costs of capital, operating and maintenance costs, the capacity factor, and lifetime of the project (EIA, 2022; Shah & Bazilian, 2020). 

In many global markets, wind power is one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity per MWh (IEA, 2024d); in 2023, newly commissioned onshore wind projects had lower electricity costs than the weighted average LCOE for fossil fuels, which was US$70–176/MWh (IRENA, 2024a). According to IRENA, the global weighted average LCOE for onshore wind turbines declined 91% between 1984–2023 (IRENA, 2024a). Although turbine prices increase with height, revenue from increased power generation available to larger turbines can offset increases in upfront costs, reducing LCOE (Beiter et al., 2021). Additional factors influencing cost-competitiveness of onshore wind include regional energy market fluctuations, social costs of carbon, and subsidies. These factors are not included in our analysis, but some policy levers are discussed in Take Action below. 

left_text_column_width
Learning Curve

Learning rates for onshore wind vary widely due to different underlying assumptions, geographies, and performance metrics. Past learning rate estimates for wind power ranged from –3%, implying that wind power is more expensive over time, to 33% (Beiter et al., 2021). Learning-by-doing rates, based on experience accumulated as capacity increases, ranged from 1–17%, while learning-by-research rates, based on innovation and technological development, ranged from 5–27% (Williams et al., 2017).

More recent LCOE-based learning rate estimates suggest a 10%–20% reduction in LCOE when cumulative global capacity is doubled (Wiser et al., 2021). Since upfront costs are the largest component of LCOE for onshore wind, the reduction in LCOE was driven by a 9–18% decrease in capital expenditures between 2014–2019 due to “turbine price declines, economies of size, technology innovation, and siting choices” (Beiter et al., 2021). Between 2008–2020, onshore wind turbine prices declined by 50% (Wiser et al., 2024). Additionally, installed costs per megawatt decreased with increasing project size, and wind farms above 200 MW had the lowest installed costs (Wiser et al., 2024). Supply chain bottlenecks and higher material costs caused project cost increases between 2020–2022, but in 2023 prices flattened or dropped compared to the previous year (Wiser et al., 2024). Industry experts predicted a 37–49% reduction in wind turbine costs by 2050 (Wiser et al., 2021).

Although learning rates vary from country to country and site to site, we used two high-quality global studies that provided LCOEs for onshore wind to estimate a global learning rate for onshore wind. This resulted in a 28% median global learning rate between 2014–2019 for onshore wind, implying a 28% reduction in LCOE for each doubling of installed capacity during that time period (Table 2). 

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Learning rate: drop in LCOE per doubling of the installed solution base.

 Unit: %

25th percentile 21
Mean 28
Median (50th percentile) 28
75th percentile 34
Left Text Column Width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Emissions from fossil fuel–based electricity generation can be reduced with increased deployment of wind power. One limitation of our approach is assuming that each additional MWh of installed capacity displaces one MWh of the existing grid mix. This implies that new onshore wind may, at times, displace other renewables, rather than fossil-based sources. In reality, the extent of avoided emissions varies based on regional grid dynamics, marginal generation sources, and the timing and location of electricity production. This approach could be refined in the future, since wind generation could displace a larger share of fossil-fuel output than assumed in average grid-mix methods (e.g., Millstein et al., 2024). We may overestimate the achievable range of climate impacts because grid-average emissions would decrease over time as more renewables are added to the grid mix. In regions where utility-scale wind farms contribute significantly to the electricity grid, continued expansion also faces socio-ecological challenges due to limited available land with good wind conditions (da Silva and Galvão, 2022). 

Increasing the speed of adoption of onshore wind turbines could lead to issues such as lack of financing, supply chain bottlenecks, land and permit availability, social acceptance, and necessary grid and infrastructure expansion (GWEC, 2024). Globally, bottlenecks in supply chains alongside increased commodity prices for steel and other turbine materials in recent years led to a slowdown in wind power installations compared to solar (Mathis & Saul, 2024). Poor governance and low stakeholder engagement from utilities can also limit future adoption.

Due to the successful adoption of onshore wind in the past, many existing wind farms will reach the end of their average 20- to 25-year project lifetime before 2050 (IEA, 2024b; IRENA, 2024a; Wiser et al., 2024). Global wind energy capacity could decrease as wind farms are decommissioned, which involves dismantling and disposal of turbines and related infrastructure (Agra Neto et al., 2024). However, it is unlikely that a wind farm would be replaced with a nonrenewable energy source (Maguire et al., 2024). Although 85–90% of turbine raw materials can be recycled, including steel and cement, composite materials are still landfilled, with environmental consequences (Barthelmie et al., 2021; GWEC, 2024). Wind farms can also be retrofitted or repowered at the end of their design lifetimes.

GHGs are emitted during construction, installation, operation, decommissioning, and disposal of onshore wind turbines, but full life-cycle emissions are an order of magnitude lower than emissions from fossil fuel–based energy sources (Barthelmie et al., 2021; National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL], 2021). Nonoperational emissions are attributed to solutions in the Industry, Materials & Waste sector.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Current adoption of onshore wind power is well documented by international agencies; we based our estimate on reported installed capacity in 2023 from IRENA, IEA, and the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Globally, onshore wind turbines exceeded 940,000 MW of installed capacity in 2023 (Table 3), based on the median across three global wind energy reports (GWEC, 2024; IEA, 2024d; IRENA, 2024b). Although we used 2023 as our baseline for current adoption, in 2024 an additional 109 GW of onshore wind capacity was installed, bringing the global total to over 1 million MW (GWEC, 2025).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current adoption level (2023).

Unit: MW installed capacity

Median 940,000
Left Text Column Width

Based on data from IRENA, onshore wind turbines generated electricity in 133 countries (IRENA, 2024b). At the country level, China led the market with more than 400,000 MW, and the lowest current adoption was in Trinidad and Tobago with 0.01 MW. Median country-level adoption was in Mongolia with 160 MW of installed capacity. Countries with less than 1 MW of installed capacity each were excluded from analysis, but their combined installed capacity was 6.4 MW across 16 countries. See Geographic Guidance for more regional details.

left_text_column_width
Adoption Trend

Based on the IRENA’s 2024 Renewable Energy Statistics, we calculated the global adoption trend by summing adoption across countries for each year between 2013–2023 and taking the year-to-year difference. Comparing year-to-year global adoption, the median global adoption trend was adding 54,000 MW of installed capacity per year (Table 4, Figure 1), but expansion was unevenly distributed geographically. 

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Adoption trend (2013–2023).

Unit: MW installed capacity per year

25th percentile 46,000
Mean 62,000
Median (50th percentile) 54,000
75th percentile 70,000
Left Text Column Width

Figure 1. Global adoption of onshore wind turbines, 2000–2023. Copyright © IRENA 2024

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024b). Renewable energy capacity statistics 2024—Data product.

Enable Download
Off

Between 2010–2023, global cumulative onshore wind installed increased more than fourfold (IRENA, 2024a). Globally new onshore wind deployment declined between 2020–2022, but this trend reversed in 2023 with record global additions of 108,000 MW for a single year (GWEC, 2024; IEA, 2024b). GWEC projected that average annual installations would continue to increase, with 653,000 MW predicted to be added in 2024–2028 (GWEC, 2024).

left_text_column_width
Adoption Ceiling

The availability of wind resources sets the absolute upper limit of the adoption ceiling for onshore wind turbines with additional constraints due to land availability. However, wind resources are not evenly distributed around the world, so there will also be regional adoption ceilings for different countries (Wiser et al., 2011). In the literature, the global technical potential for onshore wind energy is calculated using power curves for turbines, statistical wind speed maps, and simulations (Jacobson & Archer, 2012; Jung, 2024). Land availability constrains the adoption ceiling because siting includes assessments of land cover type and exclusions of protected areas, bodies of water, and urban areas (Angliviel de La Beaumelle et al., 2023). 

At COP28 in 2023, nearly 200 countries pledged to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 (IEA, 2024a). For onshore wind turbines, tripling capacity would mean accelerating adoption to nearly 270,000 MW installed annually. If that accelerated adoption trend is maintained between 2030–2050, the tripling pledge would result in more than 8.2 million MW of onshore wind turbine installed capacity by 2050. Additionally, the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario in IEA’s World Energy Outlook projected 7.9 million MW of installed capacity for onshore and offshore wind power combined (IEA, 2024d), but we do not include combined wind power estimates in our adoption ceiling. For our analysis, we use the median technical potential to get an adoption ceiling of 12 million MW installed capacity for onshore wind turbines (Table 5).

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption level.

Unit: MW installed capacity

25th percentile 7,700,000
Mean 28,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 12,000,000
75th percentile 32,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2024 includes several key scenarios that explore different energy futures based on varying levels of policy intervention, technological development, and market dynamics. We define the adoption achievable range for onshore wind turbines based on the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) and Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) (IEA, 2024d).

Achievable – Low

The Achievable – Low adoption level is based on STEPS, which captured the current trajectory for increased adoption of onshore wind energy as well as future projections based on existing and announced policies. Under this scenario, onshore wind capacity is projected to increase more than threefold from 940,000 MW to 3,200,000 MW by 2050 (Table 6). 

Achievable – High

The Achievable – High adoption level is based on APS, which assumes the same policy framework as STEPS, plus full realization of announced national energy and climate targets, including net-zero commitments supported by stronger clean energy investments. Under this scenario, onshore wind capacity is projected to increase more than fourfold from 940,000 MW to 4,400,000 MW by 2050 (Table 6).

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: MW installed capacity

Current adoption 940,000
Achievable – low 3,200,000
Achievable – high 4,400,000
Adoption ceiling 12,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Current adoption of onshore wind turbines was nearly 8% of our estimated 12 million MW adoption ceiling and the achievable range is between 27% and 37%.

left_text_column_width

Based on baseline global adoption and effectiveness, we estimate the current total climate impact of onshore wind turbines to be 1.6 Gt CO₂‑eq (1.6 Gt CO₂‑eq , 20-year basis) of reduced emissions per year. We estimated the achievable range of climate impacts using the emissions from the 2023 baseline electricity grid; actual emissions reductions could differ depending on how the emissions intensity of electricity generation changes over time. The IEA Stated Policies Scenario projected that global adoption would reach 3.2 million MW by 2050 (IEA, 2024d), resulting in an increased emissions reduction of 5.4 Gt CO₂‑eq (5.4 Gt CO₂‑eq , 20-year basis) per year. The IEA Announced Pledges Scenario projected 4.4 million MW of installed capacity by 2050 (IEA, 2024d), implying an estimated 7.5 Gt CO₂‑eq (7.5 Gt CO₂‑eq , 20-year basis) of reduced emissions per year (Table 7).

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq (100-year basis) per year

Current adoption 1.6
Achievable – low 5.4
Achievable – high 7.5
Adoption ceiling 20
Left Text Column Width

We based the adoption ceiling solely on technical potential and wind resources, neglecting economic constraints, so onshore wind turbines are unlikely to reach 12 million MW of installed capacity in the next 100 years (IEA, 2024d). However, if the adoption ceiling could be reached, annual emissions reductions would be approximately 20 Gt CO₂‑eq (20 Gt CO₂‑eq , 20-year basis).

left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Wind power has a strong positive impact on the economy. Wind energy projects have been shown to increase both total income and employment in high-, low-, and middle-income countries, although the costs of new projects may be higher in emerging markets until the market develops (Adeyeye et al., 2020; GWEC & GWO, 2021; World Bank, 2021). According to the GWEC & GWO (2023), the wind industry will need more than half a million new technicians to reach renewable energy goals. Technical roles will also be supported by additional jobs for engineers, manufacturers, analysts, and managers. Many of these jobs are in the construction sector. They also include technicians, engineers, manufacturers, analysts, and managers. In the United States, wind energy employed more than 125,000 workers in 2022 (Hartman, 2024). Onshore wind could also strengthen energy security by diversifying the power mix and reducing dependence on imported fuels. 

Health

Improvements in air quality offer health benefits from reduced air pollution exposure, including reduced premature mortality. The magnitude and distribution of these benefits depends on the local electricity grid mix and the fuels used to generate electricity (Qiu et al., 2022). In 2022, the air quality health benefits from wind power amounted to US$16 billion at a rate of US$36 per megawatt-hour (Millstein et al., 2024). Health benefits of onshore wind can be greater for racial and ethnic minority groups and low-income populations, who often face higher exposure burdens from fossil-fuel electricity generation; however these benefits also depend on the existing grid and on how pollutants are transported in the atmosphere (Qiu et al., 2022). In the United States, economic benefits of improved health outcomes have already increased from US$2 billion in 2014 to US$16 billion in 2022, but these benefits could be maximized by replacing fossil-fuel power plants in regions with higher health damages (Qiu et al., 2022). 

Nature Protection

While some wind power systems could displace species through habitat loss, careful planning and development could reduce some of these risks and conserve biodiversity (Kati et al., 2021; Tolvanen et al., 2023). Wind-powered electricity generation can benefit the environment by requiring less water than fossil fuel–powered electricity. According to a life-cycle analysis by Meldrum et al. (2013), wind power has the lowest water consumption of all electricity generation methods. 

Water Resources

For a description of water resources benefits, please refer to the Nature Protection section.

Air Quality

Wind energy significantly reduces air pollutants released from fossil-fuel energy generation, thereby avoiding the emission of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter associated with burning coal and natural gas. In the U.S. Midwest, each MWh of wind energy added to the grid can avoid 4.9 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 2.0 pounds of nitrous oxides (Nordman, 2013). A life-cycle analysis of wind power in China found that wind farms could reduce sulfur dioxide,, nitrous oxides, and PM10 emissions by 80.38%, 57.31%, and 30.91%, respectively, compared with emissions from coal-based power plants (Xue et al., 2015). 

left_text_column_width
Risks

Several key risks could prevent growth in installed capacity of onshore wind turbines. Electricity generation from onshore wind turbines inherently fluctuates because wind speeds vary temporally and spatially. Onshore wind turbines face challenges integrating into regional electricity grids (Diógenes et al., 2020; Shafiullah et al., 2013), depending on their location. To reliably meet demand, many grid mixes rely on backup power from coal and natural gas (Haces-Fernandez et al., 2022; Millstein et al., 2024) – although advances in smart grids, storage, and grid flexibility can help reduce reliance on backup fossil-fuel power. Times of high wind generation can create instability (Smith, 2024), leading turbine operators to curtail power output to prevent overloading the electricity grid. Curtailment can also occur due to infrastructure limitations or market conditions (Hartman, 2024). However, we found that curtailment was often small: In 2018, less than 2% of wind power was curtailed in the United States and Germany (Zhang et al., 2020). Intermittency in wind energy could also drive increases in electricity costs, but this can be reduced through a variety of generation-side, demand-side, and storage technologies (Ren et al., 2017).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing 

Increased availability of renewable energy from onshore wind turbines helps reduce emissions from the electricity grid as a whole. Reduced emissions from the electricity grid lead to lower downstream emissions for solutions that rely on electricity use. Deploying onshore wind turbines also supports increased integration of solar PV by diversifying the renewable energy mix and reducing overreliance on solar variability.

left_text_column_width

Automated and more efficient use of electricity in buildings can shift energy use to times of high renewable generation and reduce electricity demand to help balance intermittency challenges of onshore wind energy.

left_text_column_width

Electrification of transportation systems will be more beneficial in reducing global emissions if the underlying grid includes a higher proportion of non-emitting power sources. Electric transportation systems can also reduce curtailment of wind energy through controlled-time charging and other load-shifting technologies.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Deploying onshore wind energy requires dedicated land use which limits land availability for other renewable energy technologies, raw material and food production, and conservation programs. Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines competes with the following solutions for land:

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

MW installed capacity

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
1,700
units
Current 940,000 03.2×10⁶4.4×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 1.6 5.47.5
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

Siting, transportation, and transmission challenges involve trade-offs between electricity generation requirements, cost, and impacts to people and the environment (Tarfarte & Lehmann, 2023). Construction delays occur due to regulatory and permitting challenges (McKenna et al., 2025; Timilsina et al., 2013). Larger turbines, which provide more power, also exacerbate logistical challenges of construction, transportation, installation, and optimization (Afridi et al., 2024). Construction and siting of new onshore wind farms could threaten land used for agriculture, Indigenous land rights, cultural landscapes, and ecosystems if not carefully assessed during project planning phases, including minimizing visual disturbances and vibrations (Gorayeb et al., 2018; McKenna et al., 2025; Tolvanen et al., 2023). There are emissions associated with land use change (LUC) for new wind farms because sequestered carbon is released as CO₂ when soil is disturbed during construction. The magnitude of LUC emissions depends on the land cover type that the wind farm replaces. LUC emissions caused by constructing on pastureland, cropland, and forests were 6–17% of annual emissions savings from deploying the wind turbines (Albanito et al., 2022; Marashli et al., 2022), and constructing on peatlands could cause emissions greater than the emission savings (Albanito et al., 2022). 

left_text_column_width
m/s
0≥ 10

Mean Wind Speed at 100 meters above surface

This map shows average wind speeds at 100 meters above the surface, roughly the height of modern turbine towers. Wind speeds above 6 meters per second (m/s) are generally suitable for onshore wind farms, while 9–10 m/s and higher are considered excellent for power generation. The color scale highlights differences: lighter areas show weaker winds, while darker areas indicate strong winds that make onshore projects most efficient.

Global Wind Atlas (2025). Mean wind speed (version 4.0) [Data set]. Technical University of Denmark (DTU). Link to source: https://globalwindatlas.info/

m/s
0≥ 10

Mean Wind Speed at 100 meters above surface

This map shows average wind speeds at 100 meters above the surface, roughly the height of modern turbine towers. Wind speeds above 6 meters per second (m/s) are generally suitable for onshore wind farms, while 9–10 m/s and higher are considered excellent for power generation. The color scale highlights differences: lighter areas show weaker winds, while darker areas indicate strong winds that make onshore projects most efficient.

Global Wind Atlas (2025). Mean wind speed (version 4.0) [Data set]. Technical University of Denmark (DTU). Link to source: https://globalwindatlas.info/

Maps Introduction

China, the United States, and Germany lead the market for installed onshore wind capacity, with 60% of global capacity in the United States and China. Installed capacity in China alone was greater than installed capacity across the rest of the world, excluding the United States (IRENA, 2024b). 

Capacity factors vary geographically. In 2023, Brazil had the sixth-highest installed capacity globally (29,000 MW) and reported the highest capacity factors, 54%, while capacity factors in China were only 34%, below the global median capacity factor of 37% (IRENA, 2024b). Higher capacity factors lead to better performance and increased electricity output from clean energy sources.

Regions with fossil fuel–dominated grid mixes use onshore wind turbines to diversify electricity sources and cut emissions from electricity generation. Although China led the onshore wind market in 2023, wind energy from both offshore and onshore turbines only accounted for 6% of electricity generation in Asia and the Pacific, while 56% came from coal (IEA, 2022a). Germany and Spain had the highest installed capacity in Europe as of 2023 with combined onshore and offshore energy contributing 14% of total electricity generation, the highest percentage of any regional grid (IEA, 2022b). 

While expanding onshore wind in established markets such as Europe is important, targeting regions with little to no electricity generation from renewables could have a larger impact on emissions reductions by providing a clean energy alternative to fossil fuels. It is also critical to ensure that as wind power expands into low- and middle-income countries, the transition to a more renewable electricity grid is done equitably and benefits local communities (Gorayeb et al., 2018).

In 2023, China, the United States, Brazil, Germany, and India cumulatively made up 82% of new global additions to onshore wind capacity (Global Wind Energy Council [GWEC], 2024). Across all countries with new onshore wind installations in 2023, the median global trend was adding 39 MW of installed capacity per year, but expansion was unevenly distributed around the world. China and India were examples of rapidly expanding markets, with adoption trends of more than 32,000 MW per year and 2,600 MW per year, respectively. Despite a reduction in installations in 2023 compared with 2022, previous installations in the United States contributed to a high 10-year adoption trend of 8,800 MW per year (IRENA, 2024b). The slowest expanding countries, Denmark and the Netherlands, were adding 130–430 MW of onshore wind turbine capacity per year, most likely due to highly saturated existing markets for wind power. 

There is ample technical potential for onshore wind adoption in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific, although current installed capacity is relatively low in those regions (IRENA, 2024b; Wiser et al., 2011). The Global Wind Energy Council highlighted Australia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Japan, Kenya, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, the United States, and Vietnam as markets to watch for growth (GWEC, 2024).

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Onshore Wind Turbines
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Coordinate wind power policies horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts), ensuring an inclusive process for impacted communities and consumers.
  • Develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production, safe operation, and quick deployment – ideally, before development and adoption to prevent accidents and delays.
  • Offer equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and assistance with onsite supervision
  • Set quotas for power companies and offer expedited permitting processes for renewable energy production, including onshore wind, while maintaining environmental safeguards.
  • Set adjustments for wind power on-grid pricing through schemes such as feed-in tariffs, renewable energy auctions, or other guaranteed pricing methods for wind energy.
  • Offer subsidies, grants, low-interest loans, and preferential tax policies for manufacturers, developers, and operators of onshore wind farms.
  • Invest in and develop grid infrastructure – particularly, high-voltage transmission capacity.
  • Provide financing for research and development (R&D) to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and related technology.
  • Mandate onsite wind power forecasting and set standards for data integrity.
  • Create training programs for engineers, operators, and other personnel.
  • Coordinate voluntary agreements with industry to increase onshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, their benefits, and any public concerns.
  • Disincentivize fuel-based power generation and use funds to subsidize new onshore wind investments.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Work with external organizations to enter new markets and identify challenges early in development.
  • Participate in, offer, or explore coinvestments in, electricity infrastructure (e.g., shared transmission).
  • Partner with academic institutions and other external organizations to provide workforce development programs.
  • Focus R&D on increasing the productivity and efficiency of turbines, especially in areas with lower wind conditions, and on supporting technology such as wind forecasting.
  • Consider leasing usable land for onshore wind development.
  • Participate in voluntary agreements with government bodies to increase policy support for onshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Conduct integrated logistics planning to anticipate transport challenges for large turbine components.
  • Strengthen local workforce skills through partnerships with technical schools and vocational programs.
  • Support and participate in public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, their benefits, and any public concerns.
  • Stay abreast of and engage with changing policies, regulations, zoning laws, tax incentives, and related developments to help remove commercial barriers.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Enter into Purchase Power Agreements (PPAs), long-term contracts between a company (the buyer) and a renewable energy producer (the seller).
  • Purchase high-integrity renewable energy certificates (RECs), which track ownership of renewable energy generation.
  • Support long-term, stable contracts (e.g., PPAs or Contracts for Difference) that de-risk investment in onshore wind technologies and incentivize local supply chain development.
  • Invest in companies that provide onshore wind energy, those that make components for onshore wind, or those that develop related technology, such as forecasting.
  • Initiate or join voluntary agreements with national or international bodies and support industry collaboration.
  • Support workforce development programs and/or offer employee scholarships or sponsor training for careers in onshore wind.
  • Support community engagement initiatives in areas where you do business to educate and highlight the local economic benefits of onshore wind.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for onshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.
  • Propose or help develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production, safe operation, and quick deployment.
  • Advocate for equitable sharing of revenue and taxes in areas that produce wind power.
  • Support fair benefit-sharing arrangements and conflict resolution mechanisms to settle land use disputes.
  • Conduct open-access research to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and related technology.
  • Operate or help with equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite supervision.
  • Create or help with training programs for engineers, operators, and other personnel.
  • Coordinate voluntary agreements between governments and industry to increase onshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, their benefits, and any public concerns.

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in the development of onshore wind farms.
  • Consider offering flexible and low-interest loans for developing and operating onshore wind farms.
  • Invest in supporting infrastructures such as utility companies, grid development, and access roads.
  • Invest in component technology and related science, such as wind forecasting.
  • Invest in green bonds and/or explore blended finance structures to mobilize capital for companies developing onshore wind energy or supporting infrastructure.
  • Help develop insurance products for onshore wind in emerging markets.
  • Align investments with existing public-private partnerships, voluntary agreements, or voluntary guidance that may apply in the location of the investment (including those that apply to biodiversity).

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Provide catalytic financing for, or help develop, onshore wind farms.
  • Award grants to improve supporting infrastructures such as utility companies, grid development, and access roads.
  • Support the development of component technology and related science, such as wind forecasting.
  • Fund updates to high-resolution wind atlases and data platforms to improve resource assessment and project planning.
  • Facilitate partnerships to share wind turbine technology and best practices between established and emerging markets, promoting energy equity and access.
  • Foster cooperation and technology transfer between low- and middle-income countries with emerging wind sectors.
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for onshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.
  • Propose or help develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production, safe operation, and quick deployment.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, their benefits, and any public concerns.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for onshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.
  • Propose or help develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production, safe operation, and quick deployment.
  • Conduct research to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and related technology.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, their benefits, why they are necessary, and any public concerns.
  • Advocate for inclusion of community engagement, respect for Indigenous rights, and preservation of cultural heritage and traditional ways of life in wind power expansion efforts.
  • Advance academic and/or public discourse on fully pricing fossil-fuel externalities to improve fair competition for renewables.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve the productivity and efficiency of wind turbines.
  • Improve battery capacity for electricity storage.
  • Develop more accurate, timely, and cost-effective means of wind forecasting.
  • Develop siting maps that highlight exclusion zones for Indigenous lands, cultural heritage sites, and biodiversity hot spots.
  • Engineer new or improved means of manufacturing towers and components – ideally with locally sourced materials.
  • Enhance design features such as wake steering, bladeless wind power, and quiet wind turbines.
  • Develop materials and designs that facilitate recycling and circulate supply chains.
  • Optimize power output, efficiency, and deployment for vertical axis turbines.
  • Refine methods for retaining power for low-speed winds.
  • Research the cumulative social, environmental, and climate impacts of the onshore wind industry.
  • Explore smart transmission and advanced grid management to address future connection bottlenecks.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Purchase high-integrity RECs, which track ownership of renewable energy generation.
  • Advocate for equitable sharing of revenue and taxes in areas that produce wind power.
  • Participate in public consultations and licensing hearings for wind projects.
  • Stay informed about wind development projects that impact your community and support them when possible.
  • Conduct research on the benefits and development of wind energy and share the information with your friends, family, and other networks.
  • Support the development of community wind cooperatives or shared ownership structures that allow local communities to directly benefit from onshore wind projects.
  • Participate in public awareness campaigns focused on onshore wind projects.
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for onshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.
  • If your utility company offers transparent green pricing, which charges a premium to cover the extra cost of renewable energy, and if it fits your budget, opt into it.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of overall effectiveness of onshore wind turbines: High

Onshore wind energy is inherently renewable and well established as an efficient and effective electricity source. Increasing availability of wind energy reduces the need for fossil fuel–derived energy sources such as coal and gas, leading to lower GHG emissions from the global electricity sector. Through reduced emissions, deploying onshore wind turbines also leads to climate and air quality benefits (Afridi et al., 2024; Millstein et al., 2024). Wind energy is widely adopted around the world, and in 2023 “the country weighted average turbine capacity ranged from 2.5 MW to 5.8 MW” across 133 countries (IRENA, 2024a).

Ongoing innovation is necessary for broader global adoption of onshore wind. Estimates of technical adoption potential depend on site characteristics and socioeconomic conditions (Jung & Schindler 2023; McKenna et al., 2022). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “at low to medium levels of wind electricity penetration (up to 20% of total electricity demand), the integration of wind energy generally poses no insurmountable technical barriers and is economically manageable” (Wiser et al., 2011). Potentially exploitable wind resources are 20–30 times higher than 2017 global electricity demand (Clarke et al., 2022).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 8 reviews and meta-analyses, 29 original studies, 18 agency reports, and 4 articles reflecting current evidence from 133 countries. We prioritized global data, but some research primarily focuses on trends in the United States, Brazil, China, and Germany. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Deploy Clean Cooking

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Buildings
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Energy Sources
Image
Family cooking on a clean stove indoors
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Deploy Clean Cooking solution as the use of cleaner cooking fuels (liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, electricity, biogas, and ethanol) in place of polluting fuels such as wood, charcoal, dung, kerosene, and coal, and/or the use of efficient cookstove technologies (together called cleaner cooking solutions). Replacing unclean fuel and cookstoves with cleaner approaches can drastically reduce GHG emissions while offering health and biodiversity benefits.

Income & work,Health,Equality
Nature protection,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Clean Cooking is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Cleaner cooking can reduce GHG emissions while offering health and biodiversity benefits, too.
Overview

Worldwide, cooking is responsible for an estimated 1.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis), (World Health Organization [WHO], 2023), or almost 3% of annual global emissions. Most of these emissions come from burning nonrenewable biomass fuels. Only the CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis is reported here due to lack of data on the relative contributions of GHGs. The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2023a) states that 2.3 billion people in 128 countries currently cook with coal, charcoal, kerosene, firewood, agricultural waste, or dung over open fires or inefficient cookstoves because they do not have the ability to regularly cook using cleaner cooking solutions. Even when sustainably harvested, biomass fuel is not climate neutral because it emits methane and black carbon (Smith, 2002).

Clean cooking (Figure 1) reduces GHG emissions through three pathways: 

Improving Efficiency

Traditional biomass or charcoal cookstoves are less than 15% efficient (Khavari et al., 2023), meaning most generated heat is lost to the environment rather than heating the cooking vessel and food. Cleaner fuels and technologies can be many times more efficient, using less energy to prepare meals than traditional fuels and cookstoves (Kashyap et al., 2024). 

Reducing Carbon Intensity

Cleaner fuels have lower carbon intensity, producing significantly fewer GHG emissions per unit of heat generated than conventional fuels. Carbon intensity includes CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide as well as black carbon. For instance, charcoal cookstoves emit approximately 572 kg CO₂‑eq /GJ of heat delivered for cooking (Cashman et al., 2016). In contrast, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and biogas emit about 292 and 11 kg CO₂‑eq /GJ, respectively (Cashman et al., 2016) and, excluding the embodied carbon, stoves that heat with electricity generated from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric have zero emissions.

Reducing Deforestation

Cleaner cooking also helps mitigate climate change by reducing deforestation (Clean Cooking Alliance [CCA], 2023) and associated GHG emissions. 

Figure 1. Classification of household cooking fuels as clean (green) and polluting (orange). Adapted from Stoner et al. (2021).

Tree diagram listing types of fuels.

Source: Stoner, O., Lewis, J., Martínez, I. L., Gumy, S., Economou, T., & Adair-Rohani, H. (2021). Household cooking fuel estimates at global and country level for 1990 to 2030. Nature communications, 12(1), 5793.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26036-x

Afrane, G., & Ntiamoah, A. (2011). Comparative life cycle assessment of charcoal, biogas, and liquefied petroleum gas as cooking fuels in Ghana. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15(4), 539–549. Link to source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00350.x

Afrane, G., & Ntiamoah, A. (2012). Analysis of the life-cycle costs and environmental impacts of cooking fuels used in Ghana. Applied energy, 98, 301–306. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261912002590

Anenberg, S. C., Balakrishnan, K., Jetter, J., Masera, O., Mehta, S., Moss, J., & Ramanathan, V. (2013). Cleaner cooking solutions to achieve health, climate, and economic cobenefits. Link to source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es304942e

Bailis, R., Drigo, R., Ghilardi, A., & Masera, O. (2015). The carbon footprint of traditional woodfuels. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 266–272. Link to source: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2491

Bensch, G., Jeuland, M., & Peters, J. (2021). Efficient biomass cooking in Africa for climate change mitigation and development. One Earth, 4(6), 879–890. Link to source: https://www.cell.com/one-earth/pdf/S2590-3322(21)00296-7.pdf

Bennitt, F. B., Wozniak, S. S., Causey, K., Burkart, K., & Brauer, M. (2021). Estimating disease burden attributable to household air pollution: new methods within the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet Global Health, 9, S18. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00126-1

Bergero, C., Gosnell, G., Gielen, D., Kang, S., Bazilian, M., & Davis, S. J. (2023). Pathways to net-zero emissions from aviation. Nature Sustainability, 6(4), 404–414. Link to source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-01046-9

​​Biswas, S., & Das, U. (2022). Adding fuel to human capital: Exploring the educational effects of cooking fuel choice from rural India. Energy Economics, 105, 105744. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105744 

Cabiyo, B., Ray, I., & Levine, D. I. (2020). The refill gap: clean cooking fuel adoption in rural India. Environmental Research Letters, 16(1), 014035. Link to source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd133

Cashman, S., Rodgers, M., & Huff, M. (2016). Life-cycle assessment of cookstove fuels in India and China. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-15/325. Link to source: https://cleancooking.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/496-1.pdf

Clean Cooking Alliance (CCA). (2023). Accelerating clean cooking as a nature-based solution. Link to source: https://cleancooking.org/reports-and-tools/accelerating-clean-cooking-as-a-nature-based-climate-solution/

Clean Cooking Alliance. (2022). Clean cooking as a catalyst for sustainable food systems. Link to source: https://cleancooking.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CCA_Clean-Cooking-as-a-Catalyst-for-Sustainable-Food-Systems.pdf

Climate & Clean Air Coalition. (2024). Nationally determined contributions and clean cooking. Link to source: https://www.ccacoalition.org/resources/nationally-determined-contributions-and-clean-cooking

Choudhuri, P., & Desai, S. (2021). Lack of access to clean fuel and piped water and children’s educational outcomes in rural India. World Development, 145, 105535. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105535 

Dagnachew, A. G., Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., & Hof, A. F. (2018). Towards universal access to clean cooking solutions in sub-Saharan Africa. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Link to source: https://www.pbl.nl/uploads/default/downloads/pbl-2019-clean-cooking-solutions-sub-saharan-africa_3421_0.pdf

Down to Earth. (2022). Ujjwala: Over 9 million beneficiaries did not refill cylinder last year, Centre admits. Retrieved June 20, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/energy/ujjwala-over-9-million-beneficiaries-did-not-refill-cylinder-last-year-centre-admits-84130

Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (2023). Building evidence to unlock impact finance : A field assessment of lean cooking co-benefits for climate, health, and gender. Retrieved September 13, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.esmap.org/Building_Evidence_To_unloc_Impact_Finance_Benefits

Fullerton, D. G., Bruce, N., & Gordon, S. B. (2008). Indoor air pollution from biomass fuel smoke is a major health concern in the developing world. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 102(9), 843–851. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.05.028 

Garland, C., Delapena, S., Prasad, R., L'Orange, C., Alexander, D., & Johnson, M. (2017). Black carbon cookstove emissions: A field assessment of 19 stove/fuel combinations. Atmospheric Environment, 169, 140–149. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.08.040

Gill-Wiehl, A., Kammen, D. M., & Haya, B. K. (2024). Pervasive over-crediting from cookstove offset methodologies. Nature Sustainability, 7(2), 191–202. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01259-6 

International Energy Agency. (2022). Africa energy outlook. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2022/key-findings

International Energy Agency. (2023a). A vision for clean cooking access for all. Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/f63eebbc-a3df-4542-b2fb-364dd66a2199/AVisionforCleanCookingAccessforAll.pdf 

International Energy Agency. (2023b). Electricity market report. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-market-report-update-2023

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of the Working Group III to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

Jameel, Y., Patrone, C. M., Patterson, K. P., & West, P. C. (2022). Climate-poverty connections: Opportunities for synergistic solutions at the intersection of planetary and human well-being. Link to source: https://drawdown.org/publications/climate-poverty-connections-report

Jewitt, S., Atagher, P., & Clifford, M. (2020). “We cannot stop cooking”: Stove stacking, seasonality and the risky practices of household cookstove transitions in Nigeria. Energy Research & Social Science, 61, 101340. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629619304700?via%3Dihub

Johnson, E. (2009). Charcoal versus LPG grilling: a carbon-footprint comparison. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(6), 370–378. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925509000420

Kashyap, S. R., Pramanik, S., & Ravikrishna, R. V. (2024). A review of energy-efficient domestic cookstoves. Applied Thermal Engineering, 236, 121510. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.121510

Kapsalyamova, Z., Mishra, R., Kerimray, A., Karymshakov, K., & Azhgaliyeva, D. (2021). Why energy access is not enough for choosing clean cooking fuels? Evidence from the multinomial logit model. Journal of Environmental Management, 290, 112539. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721006010

Khavari, B., Ramirez, C., Jeuland, M., & Fuso Nerini, F. (2023). A geospatial approach to understanding clean cooking challenges in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature Sustainability, 6(4), 447–457. Link to source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-01039-8

Lacey, F. G., Henze, D. K., Lee, C. J., van Donkelaar, A., & Martin, R. V. (2017). Transient climate and ambient health impacts due to national solid fuel cookstove emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(6), 1269–1274. Link to source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1612430114

Lansche, J., & Müller, J. (2017). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of biogas versus dung combustion household cooking systems in developing countries–a case study in Ethiopia. Journal of cleaner production, 165, 828–835. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652617315597

Lee, M., Chang, J., Deng, Q., Hu, P., Bixby, H., Harper, S., ... & Liu, J. (2024). Effects of a coal to clean heating policy on acute myocardial infarction in Beijing: a difference-in-differences analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 8(11), e924–e932. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00243-2

Mazorra, J., Sánchez-Jacob, E., de la Sota, C., Fernández, L., & Lumbreras, J. (2020). A comprehensive analysis of cooking solutions co-benefits at household level: Healthy lives and well-being, gender and climate change. Science of The Total Environment, 707, 135968. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719359637

Po, J. Y. T., FitzGerald, J. M., & Carlsten, C. (2011). Respiratory disease associated with solid biomass fuel exposure in rural women and children: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax, 66(3), 232–239. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2010.147884 

Rosenthal, J., Quinn, A., Grieshop, A. P., Pillarisetti, A., & Glass, R. I. (2018). Clean cooking and the SDGs: Integrated analytical approaches to guide energy interventions for health and environment goals. Energy for Sustainable Development, 42, 152–159. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082617309857

Shankar, A. V., Quinn, A. K., Dickinson, K. L., Williams, K. N., Masera, O., Charron, D., ... & Rosenthal, J. P. (2020). Everybody stacks: Lessons from household energy case studies to inform design principles for clean energy transitions. Energy Policy, 141, 111468. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111468

Simkovich, S. M., Williams, K. N., Pollard, S., Dowdy, D., Sinharoy, S., Clasen, T. F., ... & Checkley, W. (2019). A systematic review to evaluate the association between clean cooking technologies and time use in low-and middle-income countries. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(13), 2277. Link to source: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/13/2277

Singh, P., Gundimeda, H., & Stucki, M. (2014). Environmental footprint of cooking fuels: a life cycle assessment of ten fuel sources used in Indian households. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19, 1036–1048. Link to source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-014-0699-0

Smith, K. R. (2002). In praise of petroleum? Science, 298(5600), 1847–1847. DOI: 10.1126/science.298.5600.1847

Stoner, O., Lewis, J., Martínez, I. L., Gumy, S., Economou, T., & Adair-Rohani, H. (2021). Household cooking fuel estimates at global and country level for 1990 to 2030. Nature communications, 12(1), 5793. Link to source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26036-x

World Bank. (2018). A recipe for protecting the Democratic Republic of Congo’s tropical forests. Retrieved January 16, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2018/01/24/a-recipe-for-protecting-the-democratic-republic-of-congos-tropical-forests

World Bank. (2020). Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (2020). The state of access to modern energy cooking services. Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/the-state-of-access-to-modern-energy-cooking-services

World Bank. (2023). Moving the needle on clean cooking for all. Retrieved September 13, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2023/01/19/moving-the-needle-on-clean-cooking-for-all

World Health Organization. (2025). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/air-pollution/household-air-pollution 

World Health Organization. (2023). Achieving universal access and net-zero emissions by 2050: a global roadmap for just and inclusive clean cooking transition. Link to source: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/achieving-universal-access-by-2030-and-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-a-global-roadmap-for-just-and-inclusive-clean-cooking-transition

World Health Organization. (2024a). WHO publishes new global data on the use of clean and polluting fuels for cooking by fuel type. Retrieved June 17, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2022-who-publishes-new-global-data-on-the-use-of-clean-and-polluting-fuels-for-cooking-by-fuel-type#:~:text=As%20of%202021%2C%202.3%20billion,%2D%20and%20middle%2Dincome%20countries.

World Health Organization. (2024b). Household air pollution. Retrieved June 17, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

The climate impact of cleaner cooking depends on which fuel and technology is being replaced and what is replacing it. The WHO (2023) categorizes cooking fuels as clean, transitional, or polluting based primarily on health impacts. Clean fuels include solar, electric, biogas, LPG, and alcohols, while kerosene and unprocessed coal are polluting fuels. Biomass cooking technologies may be classified as clean, transitional, or polluting depending on the levels of fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide produced. Switching from traditional cookstoves (polluting) to improved cookstoves (transitional) can reduce emissions 20–40%, while switching to an LPG or electric cookstove can reduce emissions more than 60% (Johnson, 2009). Not including the embodied carbon, switching completely to solar-powered electric cookstoves can reduce emissions 100%.

We estimated the effectiveness of cleaner cooking by calculating the reduction in GHG emissions per household switching to cleaner cooking solutions per year (Table 1). Our analysis of national, regional, and global studies suggested that switching to cleaner fuels and technologies can reduce emissions by 0.83–3.4 t CO₂‑eq /household/yr (100-yr basis), including CO₂, methane, black carbon, and sometimes other GHGs. The large range is due to varying assumptions. For example, the IEA arrived at 3.2 t CO₂‑eq /household/yr (100-yr basis) by assuming that >50% of the households switched to electricity or LPG. In comparison, Bailis et al. (2015) assumed a switch from unclean cookstoves to improved biomass cookstoves, resulting in an emissions reduction of only 0.98 t CO₂‑eq /household/yr (100-yr basis).

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing GHG emissions of switching from unclean cooking fuels and technologies to cleaner versions.

Unit: t CO₂-eq/household switching to cleaner cooking solutions/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 1.5
Mean 2.2
Median (50th percentile) 2.3
75th percentile 3.1
Left Text Column Width

While we calculated a median reduction of 2.3 t CO₂‑eq /household switching to cleaner cooking solutions/yr (100-yr basis), the actual reduction per household might be lower because households often stack cleaner cooking fuel with unclean fuel. This could result from multiple socioeconomic factors. For instance, a household may primarily rely on LPG as its main cooking fuel but occasionally turn to firewood or kerosene for specific dishes, price fluctuation, or fuel shortages (Khavari et al., 2023). In rural areas, cleaner fuels and traditional biomass (e.g., wood or dung) are used together to cut costs or due to personal preferences.

left_text_column_width
Cost

People can obtain traditional unclean fuels and traditional woodstoves for little or no cost (Bensch et al., 2021; Kapsalyamova et al., 2021). Our analysis estimated the cost of woodstoves at US$1.50/household and the monetary cost of biomass fuel at US$0.00/household/yr. Over the two-yr lifespan of a woodstove, the net annualized cost is US$0.75/household/yr. While collecting this fuel might be free, it contributes to poverty because households can spend one to three hours daily collecting fuelwood. This can contribute to children, especially girls, missing school (Jameel et al., 2022). 

We estimated the median upfront cost of transitioning from primarily unclean cooking fuels and technology to cleaner cooking to be approximately US$58/household, with stoves lasting 3–10 years. However, the range of annual costs is large because several cleaner cooking technologies have significant variations in price, and cleaner fuel cost is even more variable. Our analysis showed a median annual fuel cost of US$56/household/yr with costs ranging from savings of US$9/household/yr when buying less biomass for more efficient biomass stoves to costs of US$187/household/yr for LPG. We estimated that over a five-year lifespan, cleaner cooking solutions have a net cost of US$64/household/yr.

Our analysis may overestimate operational costs due to a lack of data on biomass and charcoal costs. The IEA (2023a) estimates that an annual investment of US$8 billion is needed to supply cleaner cookstoves, equipment, and infrastructure to support a transition to cleaner cooking. This translates to US$17/household/yr. 

The IEA (2023) assumes improved biomass and charcoal cookstoves are predominantly adopted in rural areas while LPG and electric stoves are adopted in urban regions because, in LMICs, economic and infrastructure challenges can limit access to LPG and electricity in rural areas. If every household were to switch exclusively to modern cooking (e.g., LPG and electricity), the cost would be much higher. The World Bank estimates the cost of implementing these solutions to be US$1.5 trillion between 2020 and 2030 or ~US$150 billion/yr over the next 10 years. This translates into an average cost of US$214/household/yr (World Bank, 2020). 

left_text_column_width

The median cost per unit of climate impact was US$28/t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis, Table 2), obtained by taking the difference between median cost of cooking with polluting sources and the cost of adopting cleaner fuel, then dividing by the median reduction per household (Table 1). Beyond climate benefits, cleaner cooking offers significant other benefits (discussed below). While the median cost presented here is a reasonable first-order estimate, the actual cost of GHG reduction will depend upon several factors, including the type of stove adopted, stove usage, fuel consumption, and scale of adoption. 

left_text_column_width
Learning Curve

Deploying cleaner cooking is a mature technology, and prices are unlikely to decrease in high-income countries where cleaner cooking fuels and technologies have been completely adopted. Nonetheless, the high cost of cleaner cooking technologies and the fluctuating prices of cleaner cooking fuel have been among the main impediments in the transition of households experiencing poverty away from unclean fuels and technologies. For example, recent price surges in Africa rendered LPG unaffordable for 30 million people (IEA, 2022). Electricity prices have also fluctuated regionally. In Europe and India, prices were higher in 2023 than in 2019 (IEA, 2023b). In contrast, U.S. electricity prices have remained stable over the past five years, while China experienced an 8% decrease.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Deploy Clean Cooking is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than gradual and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Households may continue using unclean cooking fuel and technologies alongside cleaner fuels and technologies (referred to as stacking). The data on cleaner cooking are typically measured as the number of households primarily relying on cleaner cooking fuel. This fails to capture the secondary fuel source used in the household. A review from LMICs revealed that stacking can range from low (28%) to as high as 100%, which would mean that every household is simultaneously using cleaner and unclean fuel (Shankar et al., 2020). This can happen due to factors like an increase in the cost of cleaner cooking fuel, cooking preference, unavailability of cleaner fuel, and unfamiliarity with cleaner cooking technologies. Stacking is challenging to avoid, and there is a growing realization from cleaner cooking practitioners of the need for cleaner approaches, even when multiple stoves are used. For example, electric stoves can be supplemented with LPG or ethanol stoves.

Permanence

There are significant permanence challenges associated with cleaner cooking. Households switch back from cleaner cooking fuels and technologies to unclean fuels and technologies (Jewitt et al., 2020). 

Finance

Finance is vital to supercharge adoption of cleaner cooking. Investment in the cleaner cooking sector remains significantly below the scale of the global challenge, with current funding at approximately US$130 million. This is many times lower than the amount needed each year to expand adoption of cleaner cooking solutions for the 2.4 billion people who still rely on polluting fuels and technologies (CCA 2023). At the current business-as-usual adoption rate, limited by severe underfunding, more than 80% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa will continue to rely on unclean fuels and technologies in 2030 (Stoner et al., 2021)

Climate funding, developmental finance, and subsidies have made some progress in increasing adoption of cleaner cooking. For instance, the World Bank invested more than US$562 million between 2015 and 2020, enabling 43 million people across 30 countries to adopt cleaner cooking solutions (ESMAP, 2023; World Bank, 2023). However, the emissions reductions these programs achieve can be overestimated. A recent analysis (Gill-Wiehl et al., 2024) found that 26.7 million clean cooking offset credits in reality only amounted to about 2.9 million credits. This discrepancy underscores the urgent need for updated methodologies and standards to accurately estimate emissions reductions and the cost of reduction per t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis). 

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

The WHO (2025) estimated that 74% of the global population in 2022 used cleaner cooking fuels and technologies. This translates to 1.2 billion households using cleaner cooking (Table 2) and 420 million households that have yet to switch to clean cooking solutions (Table 6). The adoption of cleaner cooking is not evenly spread across the world. On the higher end of the spectrum are the Americas and Europe, where, on average, more than 93% of people primarily rely on cleaner cooking fuels and technologies (WHO, 2025). On the lower end of the spectrum are sub-Saharan countries such as Madagascar, Mali and Uganda, where primary reliance on cleaner cooking fuel and technologies is <5%. While current adoption represents households that enjoy cleaner cooking today, our analysis for achievable adoption and adoption ceiling focuses on quantifying households that currently use traditional cooking methods and can switch to cleaner cooking. 

To calculate climate impact of this solution, we defined the adoption unit as households switching to clean cooking after 2022. For this reason, current adoption in Table 6 and the solution summaries is not determined.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Current adoption level (2022).

Unit: households using cleaner cooking solutions

Mean 1,200,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Global adoption of cleaner cooking fuel and technologies as the primary source of cooking increased from 61% of the population in 2013 to 74% in 2023 (WHO, 2025). This translates to roughly 21 million households adopting cleaner cooking technologies/yr (Table 3). This uptake, however, is not evenly distributed (see Maps section above).

Large-scale adoption across China, India, and Indonesia has driven the recent increase. Between 2011 and 2021, use of cleaner fuels and technologies as the primary means of cooking rose from 61% to 83% of the population in China. In India, adoption expanded from 38% to 71%, and in Indonesia, it increased from 47% to 87% (WHO, 2024a). In contrast, primary reliance on cleaner cooking in sub-Saharan Africa only increased from 12% in 2010 to 16% in 2020 (Stoner et al., 2021). 

Based on the existing policies, population growth, and investments, more than 75% of the sub-Saharan African population will use unclean cooking fuels and technologies in 2030 (Stoner et al., 2021). In Central and Southern Asia, about 25% of the population will use unclean cooking fuels and technologies by 2030 (Stoner et al., 2021).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Adoption trend (2013–2023).

Unit: households switching to cleaner cooking solutions/yr

Mean 21,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

The World Bank (2020) estimated that universal adoption of modern energy cooking services by 2030 is possible with an annual investment of US$148–156 billion, with 26% of the investment coming from governments and development partners, 7% from private investment, and 67% from households. Universal adoption and use of cleaner fuels and technologies is possible with an investment of US$8–10 billion/yr (IEA, 2023a; World Bank, 2020). We therefore set the adoption ceiling at 100% of households adopting and using cleaner cooking solutions, which entails 420 million households switching from unclean solutions (Table 4).

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Cleaner cooking adoption ceiling: upper limit for new adoption of cleaner cooking solutions.

Unit: households switching to cleaner cooking solutions

Mean 420,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Universal adoption and use of cleaner cooking solutions is achievable before 2050 (Table 5). This is because if the current adoption trend continues, all households that currently use unclean cooking fuels and technologies will have switched to using cleaner versions by 2043. 

China, India, and Indonesia have shown that it is possible to rapidly expand adoption with the right set of policies and investments. In Indonesia, for example, use of cleaner cooking solutions increased from 9% of the population to 89% between 2002 and 2012 (WHO, 2025). 

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: households switching to cleaner cooking solutions

Current adoption Not determined
Achievable – low 420,000,000
Achievable – high 420,000,000
Adoption ceiling 420,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Cooking from all fuel types is responsible for approximately 1.7 Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) emissions every year (WHO, 2023), on par with global emissions from the aviation industry (Bergero et al., 2023). Unclean cooking fuels and technologies are also the largest source of black carbon (Climate & Clean Air Coalition, 2024), a short-lived climate pollutant with a GWP several hundred times higher than CO₂ that contributes to millions of premature deaths yearly (Garland et al., 2017). 

The actual reduction in climate impact will depend upon the mix of cleaner fuel and technologies that replace unclean fuel. The IEA (2023a) estimates that if the cleanest cooking fuels and technologies (e.g., electric and LPG) are adopted, emissions could be reduced by 1.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2030. In contrast, a greater reliance on improved cookstoves as cleaner cooking solutions will result in lower emissions reductions. The WHO (2023) estimates that much of the shift by 2030 will involve using improved biomass and charcoal cookstoves, especially in rural areas, reducing emissions 0.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2030 and ~1.6 CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2050, closely matching the IEA estimate.

According to our analysis, deploying cleaner cooking can reduce emissions by 0.98 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) between now and 2050 (Table 6). Our emissions reduction estimates are lower than those of the IEA because we do not assume that the shift to cleaner cooking will be dominated by LPG and renewables.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂-eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption Not determined
Achievable – low 0.98
Achievable – high 0.98
Adoption ceiling 0.98
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Simkovich et al. (2019) found that time gained by switching to cleaner fuel can increase daily income by 3.8–4.7%. Their analysis excludes the expenses related to fuel, as well as the costs associated with delivery or transportation for refilling cleaner fuel. Mazorra et al. (2020) reported that if 50% of the time saved from not gathering firewood were redirected to income-generating activities, it could lead to an estimated annual income increase of approximately US$125 (2023 dollars) in the Gambia, US$113 in Guinea-Bissau, and US$200 in Senegal. Health and Air Quality

Unclean cooking fuels and technologies produce household air pollution (HAP), with smoke and fine particulates sometimes reaching levels up to 100 times acceptable limits, particularly in poorly ventilated spaces (WHO, 2024b). HAP is linked to numerous health issues, such as stroke, ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and poor birth outcomes (Jameel et al., 2022). It accounts for more than 3.2 million early deaths annually (WHO, 2024b). In 2019, it accounted for over 4% of all the deaths globally (Bennitt et al., 2021). The World Bank (2020) estimated that the negative health impact of unclean cooking fuels and technologies is valued at US$1.4 trillion/yr. Globally, switching to cleaner fuels and technologies could prevent 21 million premature deaths from 2000–2100 (Lacey et al., 2017). A recent study offered empirical evidence of potential cardiovascular benefits stemming from household cleaner energy policies (Lee et al., 2024).

Equality

Unclean cooking disproportionately impacts women and children who are traditionally responsible for collecting fuelwood or biomass. Typically, they spend an hour every day collecting solid fuel; however, in some countries (e.g., Senegal, Niger, and Cameroon), daily average collection time can exceed three hours (Jameel et al., 2022). Time-saving cooking fuels are associated with more education in women and children (Biswas & Das, 2022; Choudhuri & Desai, 2021) and can additionally promote gender equity through economic empowerment by allowing women to pursue additional employment opportunities (CCA, 2023). In conflict zones, adoption of cleaner fuels and technologies has been shown to reduce gender-based violence (Jameel et al., 2022). Finally, cleaner cooking fuels can improve health equity as women are disproportionately exposed to indoor air pollution generated from cooking (Fullerton et al., 2008; Po et al., 2011). 

Nature Protection

The unsustainable harvest of wood for cooking fuel has led to deforestation and biodiversity loss in regions such as South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (CCA, 2022). East African nations, including Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda, are particularly affected by the rapid depletion of sustainable wood fuel resources. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 84% of harvested wood is charcoal or firewood (World Bank, 2018). Switching to cleaner cooking fuels and technologies can reduce deforestation and protect biodiversity (Anenberg et al., 2013; CCA, 2022; Dagnachew et al., 2018).

left_text_column_width
Risks

The expensive nature of cleaner cooking presents a significant barrier to adoption. Households that have recently transitioned to cleaner cooking face a high risk of defaulting back to unclean fuels and technologies. For example, among the households that received free LPG connection as a part of the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana in India, low-income households reverted to unclean fuels and technologies during extensive periods of refill gaps (Cabiyo et al., 2020). In total, 9 million recipients could not refill their LPG cylinders even once in 2021–22 due to high LPG costs and other factors (Down to Earth, 2022).

Beyond the cost, there is an adjustment period for the households adopting the cleaner cooking solution, which includes familiarizing themselves with the technology and fostering cultural and behavioral changes, including overcoming biases and adopting new habits.

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

This solution also decreases the demand for wood and waste biomass. Because the total projected demand for wood and waste biomass across climate solutions exceeds the supply, reducing demand from clean cooking will help the following solutions increase their potential adoption by increasing the availability of raw agricultural waste and other biomass:

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

household switching to cleaner cooking

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
01.52.3
units
Current Not Determined 04.2×10⁸4.2×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0 0.980.98
US$ per t CO₂-eq
27
Emergency Brake

CO₂, CH₄, BC

Trade-offs

Switching to electric cooking will meaningfully reduce GHG emissions only if the grid is powered by clean energy. A life-cycle assessment of cooking fuels in India and China (Cashman et al., 2016) showed that unclean cooking fuels such as crop residue and cow dung had a lower carbon footprint than electricity because in these countries >80% of the electricity was produced by coal and natural gas. 

LPG has been the leading cleaner fuel source replacing unclean cooking fuel globally (IEA, 2023a). The IEA (2023a) estimated that 33% of households transitioning to cleaner cooking fuels and technologies will do so using LPG to transition. Because LPG is a fossil fuel, increased reliance can hinder or slow the transition from fossil fuels. 

left_text_column_width
% population
0–15
15–30
30–45
45–60
60–75
75–100
No data

Percentage of country population relying primarily on clean cooking technologies, 2023

Access to clean cooking technology – and the benefits it confers – varies widely around the world.

World Health Organization (2026). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies for cooking (%) [Data set]. The Global Health Observatory Indicators. Retrieved January 7, 2026 from Link to source: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/gho-phe-primary-reliance-on-clean-fuels-and-technologies-proportion 

% population
0–15
15–30
30–45
45–60
60–75
75–100
No data

Percentage of country population relying primarily on clean cooking technologies, 2023

Access to clean cooking technology – and the benefits it confers – varies widely around the world.

World Health Organization (2026). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies for cooking (%) [Data set]. The Global Health Observatory Indicators. Retrieved January 7, 2026 from Link to source: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/gho-phe-primary-reliance-on-clean-fuels-and-technologies-proportion 

Maps Introduction

The Deploy Clean Cooking solution applies to geographies where low-cost, inefficient, and polluting cooking methods are common. Sub-Saharan Africa is the overwhelming target, with only 23% of the population relying on clean cooking technologies (WHO, 2025). 

There are significant correlations between the lack of clean cooking solutions and levels of extreme poverty (World Bank, 2024). The financial cost of clean fuel and cookstoves is a significant barrier to adoption (WHO, 2023).  

Some of the key benefits of deploying clean cooking will vary based on geography and landscape. For instance, freeing up time spent collecting firewood will be more notable in areas with less dense forest, since people in such locations would have to travel farther to harvest wood (Khavari et al., 2023).

Barriers to the adoption of clean cooking can also vary with geography. Examples noted by Khavari et al. (2023) include robustness of supply chains, which can be influenced by population density and road networks.

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Clean Cooking
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Prioritize the issue at the national level to coordinate policy, coordinate resources, and ensure a robust effort.
  • Create a dedicated coordinating body across relevant ministries, agencies, and sectors.
  • Create subsidies and fuel price caps, and ban unclean cooking fuels and technologies.
  • Remove taxes and levies on clean-cooking stoves.
  • Create dedicated teams to deliver cleaner cooking equipment.
  • Run public education campaigns appropriate for the context. 

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Serve as a clean cooking ambassador to raise awareness within your industry and community.
  • Participate in training programs.
  • Develop feedback channels with manufacturers to enhance design and overcome local challenges.
  • Restaurant owners and cooks can adopt clean cooking in their kitchens to reduce emissions, lower costs, and improve worker health and safety. 

Further information:

Business Leaders

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Ensure operations use clean cooking methods.
  • Educate the public on the benefits of clean cooking, available options, and applicable incentive programs.
  • Advocate to policymakers on issues such as targeted subsidies and providing government support.
  • Educate investors and the business community on local needs and market trends. 

Further information:

Investors

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Distribute cleaner cooking equipment and fuel.
  • Work with local policymakers to ensure that recipient communities can maintain fuel costs over the long term (possibly through fuel subsidies).
  • Provide grants to businesses in this sector.
  • Fund education campaigns appropriate for the context.
  • Advance political action through public-private partnerships such as the CCA. 

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Educate the public on the health, gender, climate, and environmental impacts of unclean cooking and the benefits of cleaner cooking.
  • Hone your message to fit the context and share through appropriate messengers and platforms.
  • Use mechanisms to promote trust, such as working with local health-care workers or other respected professionals. 

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop regional-specific technology that uses local sources of energy, such as biogas or high-efficiency charcoal.
  • Create technology that works with the local environment and economy and has reliable supply chains.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Learn about the benefits and harms associated with unclean fuels and technologies.
  • Identify the right technology to purchase by considering the availability and affordability of fuels; practicality of the equipment in producing the quantity, quality, and type of preferred food, and ease of use. 

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

There is a strong consensus on the effectiveness of cleaner cooking as a climate solution. Research over the past two decades (e.g., Anenberg et al., 2013; Mazorra et al., 2020; Rosenthal et al., 2018) has supported the contention that replacing solid fuel cooking with cleaner fuel reduces GHG emissions. 

There is high agreement and robust evidence that switching cooking from unclean fuels and technologies to cleaner alternatives such as burning LPG or electric stoves offers health, air quality, and climate change benefits (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2022).

The IPCC (2022) identified unclean fuels such as biomass as a major source of short-lived climate pollutants (e.g., black carbon, organic carbon, carbon monoxide, and methane) and switching to cleaner fuels and technologies can reduce the emission of short-lived climate pollutants.

Regional and country-level analyses provide additional evidence of the efficacy of cleaner cooking solutions. Khavari et al. (2023) reported that in sub-Saharan Africa, replacing unclean solid fuels with cleaner cooking could reduce GHG emissions by 0.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis). Life cycle assessments comparing different cooking fuels and technologies (Afrane & Ntiamoah, 2011; Afrane & Ntiamoah, 2012; Lansche & Müller, 2017; Singh et al., 2014) also have shown that cleaner cooking fuels and technologies emit less GHG per unit of energy delivered than unclean fuels.

The IEA estimated that switching completely to clean cooking fuels and technologies by 2030 would result in a net reduction of 1.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2030 (IEA, 2023a). 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from five reviews and meta-analyses and 23 original studies and reports reflecting current evidence from 13 countries, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date
Subscribe to Nature protection

Drawdown Delivered

Join the 85,000+ subscribers discovering how to drive meaningful climate action around the world! Every other week, you'll get expert insights, cutting-edge research, and inspiring stories.

Receive biweekly email newsletter updates from Project Drawdown. Unsubscribe at any time.

Support Climate Action

back to top