Access to employment opportunities that support the economic status of households, communities, or governments.

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 produce zero operational greenhouse gas 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. Link to source: https://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

Nonmotorized transportation requires a lot less space than cars. Some of this space could be reallocated to ecosystem conservation and other land-based methods of GHG sequestration. In 2011, roads and parking accounted for 10–30% of land in residential areas and 50–70% of land in commercial areas (Litman, 2011). Transforming 35% of the land area of European cities alone into green spaces could sequester an additional 26 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr. Globally, this kind of effort could sequester 0.1–0.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Rodriguez Mendez et al., 2024).

left_text_column_width

Competing

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

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

Mobilize Hybrid Cars

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Transportation
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Enhance Efficiency
Image
Start button on a hybrid vehicle
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

The Mobilize Hybrid Cars solution entails shifting trips from fossil fuel–powered internal combustion engine (ICE) cars to more efficient, lower emitting hybrid cars. Hybrid cars include hybrid electric cars (HEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric cars (PHEVs). They are four-wheeled passenger cars that combine an ICE with an electric motor and battery to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. This definition includes hybrid sedans, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and pickup trucks, but excludes fully electric cars, two-wheeled vehicles, and hybrid commercial or freight vehicles, such as hybrid buses and delivery trucks. Hybrid cars are a transitional climate solution because they are more efficient and produce fewer emissions per distance traveled than do fossil fuel–powered ICE cars but still rely on fossil fuel combustion.

Income & work,Health
Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Mobilize Hybrid Cars is a Highly Recommended climate solution. By combining internal combustion engines with electric motors, hybrids reduce fuel use and air pollution.
Overview

Hybrid cars reduce fuel consumption and tailpipe emissions by relying on electric propulsion for part of their operation. There are currently more than 45 million hybrids making up 2.2% of the more than two billion global car stock. HEVs provide the same functionality as fossil fuel–powered ICE cars, but combine an ICE with an electric motor and battery to improve fuel efficiency. Unlike electric cars, HEVs do not require external charging; instead, they recharge their battery using regenerative braking and energy from the engine. This allows them to use electric power at low speeds and in stop-and-go traffic, reducing fuel consumption and emissions compared to traditional gasoline or diesel cars. PHEVs work similarly but have larger batteries that can be charged using the electricity grid. This enables them to operate in full-electric mode for a limited distance before switching to hybrid mode when the battery is depleted.

Hybrid cars typically offer better acceleration than their purely fossil fuel–powered ICE counterparts, especially at lower speeds. This is because electric motors deliver instant torque, allowing hybrids to respond quickly when accelerating from a stop. PHEVs tend to have stronger electric motors and thus better acceleration. The high torque at low speeds eliminates the need for inefficient gear changes and allows near-constant operation at optimal conditions because the ICE is usually engaged at efficient conditions. This improves the real-world fuel economy 39–58% compared to fossil fuel–powered ICE cars of similar size (Zhang et al., 2025).

While hybrid cars reduce fuel consumption and tailpipe emissions by relying on electric propulsion for part of their operation, their overall emissions depend on how much they use the ICE versus the electric motor, and, for PHEVs, on the emissions intensity of the electricity source used for charging. PHEVs can offer greater potential for emission reductions if charged from low-carbon electricity sources. If driven primarily in electric mode, PHEVs can significantly reduce GHG emissions compared to fossil fuel–powered ICE cars, but if the battery is not regularly charged, their fuel consumption may be similar to or even higher than standard HEVs (Dornoff, 2021; Plötz et al., 2020).

Hybrid technologies also improve car efficiency by reducing energy losses. First, both HEVs and PHEVs recover energy through regenerative braking, converting kinetic energy into electricity and storing it in the battery (Yang et al., 2024). Second, their electric powertrains are more efficient than those of traditional ICEs, particularly in urban driving conditions where frequent stops and starts are common (Verma et al., 2022). These advantages contribute to lower fuel consumption and emissions compared to fossil fuel–powered ICE cars. However, the environmental benefits of hybrids depend on driving patterns, battery charging habits, and the carbon intensity of the electricity grid used to charge PHEVs.

Hybrid cars reduce emissions of CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide to the atmosphere by increasing fuel efficiency compared to fossil fuel–powered ICE cars, which emit these gases from their tailpipes. Because they are typically fueled by gasoline, hybrid cars produce more methane than any diesel-fueled cars they might be replacing. As a result, their 20-yr effectiveness at addressing climate change is lower than their 100-yr effectiveness. 

Agusdinata, D. B., Liu, W., Eakin, H., & Romero, H. (2018). Socio-environmental impacts of lithium mineral extraction: Towards a research agenda. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12). Article 123001. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae9b1

Alberini, A., Di Cosmo, V., & Bigano, A. (2019). How are fuel efficient cars priced? Evidence from eight EU countries. Energy Policy, 134, Article 110978. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110978

Anenberg, S., Miller, J., Henze, D., & Minjares, R. (2019). A global snapshot of the air pollution-related health impacts of transportation sector emissions in 2010 and 2015. International Council on Clean Transportation. Link to source: https://theicct.org/publication/a-global-snapshot-of-the-air-pollution-related-health-impacts-of-transportation-sector-emissions-in-2010-and-2015/

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. (2024). Connecting traveler choice with climate outcomes: Innovative greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies and practices in the APEC region through traveler behavioral change. Link to source: https://www.apec.org/docs/default-source/publications/2024/9/224_tpt_connecting-traveler-choice-with-climate-outcomes.pdf 

Bell-Pasht, A. (2024). Combined energy burdens: Estimating total home and transportation energy burdens [Topic brief]. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Link to source: https://www.aceee.org/topic-brief/2024/05/combined-energy-burdens-estimating-total-home-and-transportation-energy-burdens

BEUC. (2021). Electric cars: Calculating the total cost of ownership for consumers [Technical report]. The European Consumer Organisation. Link to source: https://www.beuc.eu/reports/electric-cars-calculating-total-cost-ownership-consumers-technical-report

BloombergNEF. (2024). Electric vehicle outlook 2024. Bloomberg Finance L.P. Link to source: https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/

Carey, J. (2023, January 11). The other benefit of electric vehicles [News feature]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(3), Article e2220923120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2220923120

Castelvecchi, D. (2021, August 17). Electric cars and batteries: How will the world produce enough? [News feature]. Nature, 596(7872), 336–339. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02222-1

Choma, E. F., Evans, J. S., Hammitt, J. K., Gómez-Ibáñez, J. A., & Spengler, J. D. (2020). Assessing the health impacts of electric vehicles through air pollution in the United States. Environment International, 144, Article 106015. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106015 

Dornoff, J. (2021). Plug-in hybrid vehicle CO2 emissions: How they are affected by ambient conditions and driver mode selection [White paper]. International Council on Clean Transportation. Link to source: https://theicct.org/publication/plug-in-hybrid-vehicle-co2-emissions-how-they-are-affected-by-ambient-conditions-and-driver-mode-selection/

Duncan, D., Ku, A. L., Julian, A., Carley, S., Siddiki, S., Zirogiannis, N., & Graham, J. D. (2019). Most consumers don’t buy hybrids: Is rational choice a sufficient explanation? Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 10(1), 1–38. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2018.24

Fortune Business Insights. (2025). Hybrid vehicle market size, share & growth report, 2024–2032. Link to source: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/hybrid-vehicle-market-105435

Fulton, L. (2020). A publicly available simulation of battery electric, hybrid electric, and gas-powered vehicles. Energies, 13(10), Article 2569. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102569

Furch, J., Konečný, V., & Krobot, Z. (2022). Modelling of life cycle cost of conventional and alternative vehicles. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article 10661. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14715-8

Garcia, E., Johnston, J., McConnell, R., Palinkas, L., & Eckel, S. P. (2023). California’s early transition to electric vehicles: Observed health and air quality co-benefits. Science of The Total Environment, 867, Article 161761. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161761

International Energy Agency. (2021). Global fuel economy initiative 2021 data explorer [Data tool].Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/global-fuel-economy-initiative-2021-data-explorer

International Energy Agency. (2022). Electric vehicles: Total cost of ownership tool [Data tool]. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/electric-vehicles-total-cost-of-ownership-tool

International Energy Agency. (2023). Energy technology perspectives 2023. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-perspectives-2023

International Energy Agency. (2024). Global EV outlook 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024

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

Isenstadt, A., & Slowik, P. (2025). Hybrid vehicle technology developments and opportunities in the 2025–2035 time frame [Working paper]. International Council on Clean Transportation. Link to source: https://theicct.org/publication/hybrid-vehicle-technology-developments-and-opportunities-in-the-2025-2035-time-frame-feb25/

Jones, S. J. (2019). If electric cars are the answer, what was the question? British Medical Bulletin, 129(1), 13–23. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldy044

Kerr, G. H., Goldberg, D. L., & Anenberg, S. C. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic reveals persistent disparities in nitrogen dioxide pollution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(30), Article e2022409118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022409118

Kittner, N., Tsiropoulos, I., Tarvydas, D., Schmidt, O., Staffell, I., & Kammen, D. M. (2020). Electric vehicles. In M. Junginger & A. Louwen (Eds.), Technological learning in the transition to a low‑carbon energy system: Conceptual issues, empirical findings, and use in energy modeling (pp. 145–163). Academic Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818762-3.00009-1

Larson, E., Greig, C., Jenkins, J., Mayfield, E., Pascale, A., Zhang, C., Drossman, J., Williams, R., Pacala, S., Socolow, R., Baik, E., Birdsey, R., Duke, R., Jones, R., Haley, B., Leslie, E., Paustain, K., & Swan, A. (2020). Net-zero America: Potential pathways, infrastructure, and impacts [Interim report]. Princeton University, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment. Link to source: https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report

Lutsey, N., Cui, H., & Yu, R. (2021). Evaluating electric vehicle costs and benefits in China in the 2020–2035 time frame [White paper]. International Council on Clean Transportation. Link to source: https://theicct.org/publication/evaluating-electric-vehicle-costs-and-benefits-in-china-in-the-2020-2035-time-frame/

Menes, M. (2021). Two decades of hybrid electric vehicle market. Journal of Civil Engineering and Transport, 3(1), 29–37. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.24136/tren.2021.003

Milovanoff, A., Posen, I. D., & MacLean, H. L. (2020). Electrification of light-duty vehicle fleet alone will not meet mitigation targets. Nature Climate Change, 10(12), 1102–1107. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00921-7

Mittal, V., & Shah, R. (2024). Modeling and comparing the total cost of ownership of passenger automobiles with conventional, electric, and hybrid powertrains. SAE International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Energy, Environment, & Policy, 5(2), 179–192. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4271/13-05-02-0013

Mustapa, S. I., Ayodele, B. V., Mohamad Ishak, W. W., & Ayodele, F. O. (2020). Evaluation of cost competitiveness of electric vehicles in Malaysia using life cycle cost analysis approach. Sustainability, 12(13), Article 5303. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135303

Ouyang, D., Zhou, S., & Ou, X. (2021). The total cost of electric vehicle ownership: A consumer-oriented study of China’s post-subsidy era. Energy Policy, 149, Article 112023. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112023

Pennington, A. F., Cornwell, C. R., Sircar, K. D., & Mirabelli, M. C. (2024). Electric vehicles and health: A scoping review. Environmental Research, 251, Article 118697. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.118697

Peters, D. R., Schnell, J. L., Kinney, P. L., Naik, V., & Horton, D. E. (2020). Public health and climate benefits and trade‐offs of U.S. vehicle electrification. GeoHealth, 4(10), Article e2020GH000275. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GH000275

Petrauskienė, K., Galinis, A., Kliaugaitė, D., & Dvarionienė, J. (2021). Comparative environmental life cycle and cost assessment of electric, hybrid, and conventional vehicles in Lithuania. Sustainability, 13(2), Article 957. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020957

Plötz, P., Moll, C., Li, Y., Bieker, G., & Mock, P. (2020). Real-world usage of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: Fuel consumption, electric driving, and CO2 emissions [White paper]. International Council on Clean Transportation. Link to source: https://theicct.org/publication/real-world-usage-of-plug-in-hybrid-electric-vehicles-fuel-consumption-electric-driving-and-co2-emissions

Requia, W. J., Mohamed, M., Higgins, C. D., Arain, A., & Ferguson, M. (2018). How clean are electric vehicles? Evidence-based review of the effects of electric mobility on air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions and human health. Atmospheric Environment, 185, 64–77. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.04.040

Roberts, C. (2022). Easy street for low-carbon mobility? The political economy of mass electric car adoption. In G. Parkhurst & W. Clayton (Eds.), Electrifying mobility: Realising a sustainable future for the car (Vol. 15, pp. 13–31). Emerald Publishing Limited. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-994120220000015004

Romm, J. J., & Frank, A. A. (2006, April). Hybrid vehicles gain traction. Scientific American, 294(4), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0406-72

Sovacool, B. K. (2019). The precarious political economy of cobalt: Balancing prosperity, poverty, and brutality in artisanal and industrial mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Extractive Industries and Society, 6(3), 915–939. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.05.018

Suttakul, P., Wongsapai, W., Fongsamootr, T., Mona, Y., & Poolsawat, K. (2022). Total cost of ownership of internal combustion engine and electric vehicles: A real-world comparison for the case of Thailand. Energy Reports, 8, 545–553. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.05.213

Vega-Perkins, J., Newell, J. P., & Keoleian, G. (2023). Mapping electric vehicle impacts: Greenhouse gas emissions, fuel costs, and energy justice in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 18(1), Article 014027. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aca4e6

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

Weiss, M., Zerfass, A., & Helmers, E. (2019). Fully electric and plug-in hybrid cars - An analysis of learning rates, user costs, and costs for mitigating CO2 and air pollutant emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 1478–1489. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.019

World Health Organization. (2022). Number of registered vehicles [Data set]. The Global Health Observatory. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/number-of-registered-vehicles

Yang, C., Sun, T., Wang, W., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., & Zha, M. (2024). Regenerative braking system development and perspectives for electric vehicles: An overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 198, Article 114389. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114389

Zhang, Y., Fan, P., Lu, H., & Song, G. (2025). Fuel consumption of hybrid electric vehicles under real-world road and temperature conditions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 142, Article 104691. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2025.104691 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Heather Jones, Ph.D.

  • Cameron Roberts, 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

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D. 

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Each million pkm shifted from fossil fuel–powered cars to hybrid cars saves 27.11 t CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (26.94 t CO₂‑eq on a 20-yr basis, Table 1). Fossil fuel–powered cars emit 115.3 t CO₂‑eq/million pkm on a 100-yr basis (116.4 t CO₂‑eq/million pkm on a 20-yr basis). The emissions from fossil fuel–powered ICE cars are calculated from the current global fleet mix which is mostly gasoline and diesel powered cars. PHEVs have lower emissions in countries with large shares of renewable, nuclear, or hydropower generation in their electricity grids (International Transport Forum, 2020; Verma et al., 2022).

We found this by collecting data on fuel consumption per kilometer for a range of HEV and PHEV models (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2021; International Transport Forum, 2020) and multiplying it by the emissions intensity of the fuel the vehicle uses (weighting PHEVs for percentage traveled using fuel). Simultaneously, we collected data on electricity consumption for a range of PHEV models (IEA, 2021; International Transport Forum, 2020), and multiplied them by the global average emissions per kWh of electricity generation. This was then weighted by the share of HEVs (73.4%) and PHEVs (26.6%) of the global hybrid car stock.

The amount of emissions savings for PHEVs depends on how often they are charged, the distance traveled using the electric motor, and the emissions intensity of the electrical grid from which they are charged. Hybrid cars today are disproportionately used in high and upper-middle income countries, where electricity grids emit less than the global average per unit of electricity generated (IEA, 2024). HEVs and PHEVs benefit from braking so are more efficient (relative to fossil fuel–powered ICE cars) in urban areas.

Hybrid cars have higher embodied emissions than fossil fuel–powered ICE cars due to the presence of both an ICE and electric motor with a battery that has a GHG-intensive manufacturing process. This gives them a carbon payback period of 2.6 to under 16 years (Alberini et al., 2019; Duncan et al., 2019) for HEVs and as low as one year for PHEVs (Fulton, 2020). Embodied emissions are outside the scope of this assessment. 

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

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

25th percentile 19.51
mean 22.36
median (50th percentile) 27.11
75th percentile 65.85
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Hybrid cars cost on average US$0.01 more per pkm (US$7,200/million pkm) than fossil fuel–powered ICE cars, including purchase price, financing, fuel and electricity costs, and maintenance costs. This is based on a population-weighted average of the cost differential between hybrid and fossil fuel–powered ICE cars in the EU and 11 other countries: Argentina, China, Czechia, India, Indonesia, Lithuania, Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand, Ukraine, and the United States (BEUC, 2021; Furch et al., 2022; IEA, 2022; Isenstadt & Slowik, 2025; Lutsey et al., 2021; Mittal & Shah, 2024; Mustapa et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2021; Petrauskienė et al., 2021; Suttakul et al., 2022). The hybrid cost is weighted by the share of car stock of HEVs and PHEVs. 

While this analysis found that hybrid cars are slightly more expensive than fossil fuel–powered ICE cars almost everywhere, the margin is often quite small and hybrids are less expensive in China, Czechia, India, Thailand, and the United States.

This amounts to a cost of US$264/t CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (US$266/t CO₂‑eq avoided emissions on a 20-yr basis, Table 2).

This analysis did not include costs that are the same for both hybrid and fossil fuel–powered ICE cars, including taxes, insurance costs, public costs of building road infrastructure, etc.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

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

median 264
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Hybrid car prices are declining. For every doubling in hybrid car production, costs decline in accordance with the learning rate of approximately 10% (Table 3).

The learning curve for hybrids is expected to continue its historical trend of 6–17% declines in production costs with each generation (Kittner et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2021; Weiss et al., 2019). For hybrid cars, production costs are driven more by the integration of electric and internal combustion powertrain components than by advancements in battery technology. Because they still rely on ICEs, hybrids do not experience the same rapid cost declines from battery improvements as fully electric cars. Instead, their cost reductions stem from manufacturing efficiencies, economies of scale, and advancements in hybrid powertrain efficiency and electric components (Weiss et al., 2019).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of the installed solution base %.

Unit: %

25th percentile 8.00
mean 11.00
median (50th percentile) 10.00
75th percentile 13.50
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.

Mobilize Hybrid Cars 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

Hybrid cars are often considered a transitional technology for climate change mitigation. While they offer immediate reductions in fuel consumption and emissions compared to fossil fuel–powered ICE cars as the world transitions to fully electric transportation, hybrids still rely on the combustion of fossil fuels. The Mobilize Hybrid Cars solution is a move toward lower emissions – not zero emissions. By combining electric and gasoline powertrains, hybrids improve efficiency and reduce GHG emissions without requiring extensive charging infrastructure, making them a practical short-term solution (IEA, 2021). However, as battery costs decline, renewable energy expands, and charging networks improve, fully electric cars (EVs) are expected to replace hybrids as the dominant low-emission transportation option (Plӧtz et al., 2020).

The effectiveness of hybrid cars in reducing fuel consumption and emissions depends significantly on their ability to use electric power, which is influenced by charging habits and regenerative braking efficiency. PHEVs achieve the greatest fuel savings and emissions reductions when they are regularly charged from a low-emissions-intensity electricity grid because this maximizes their electric driving capability and minimizes reliance on the ICE. However, studies show that real-world charging behaviors vary, with some PHEV users failing to charge frequently, leading to higher-than-expected fuel consumption. Regenerative braking also plays a crucial role because it recaptures kinetic energy during deceleration and converts it into electricity to recharge the battery, improving overall efficiency. The extent of these benefits depends on driving conditions, with stop-and-go urban traffic allowing for more energy recovery than highway driving, where regenerative braking opportunities are limited (Plötz et al., 2020).

Hybrid car adoption faces a major obstacle in the form of constraints on battery production. While electric car battery production is being aggressively upscaled (IEA, 2024), building enough batteries to build enough cars to replace a significant fraction of fossil fuel–powered ICE cars is an enormous challenge. This will likely slow down a transition to hybrids, even if consumer demand is high (Milovanoff et al., 2020). This suggests that EV batteries should be prioritized for users whose transport needs are harder to serve with other forms of low-emissions transportation (such as nonmotorized transportation, public transit, etc.). This could include emergency vehicles, commercial vehicles, and vehicles for people who live in rural areas or have disabilities. 

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Approximately 12 million PHEVs (IEA, 2024) and more than 33 million HEVs (IEA, 2023) are in use worldwide. This corresponds to about 2.2% of the total car stock of 2,022,057,847 (World Health Organization [WHO], 2022) and means that hybrid cars worldwide travel about 1.3 trillion pkm/yr. We assumed this travel would occur in a fossil fuel–powered ICE car if the car’s occupants did not use a hybrid car. Adoption is much higher in some countries, such as Japan, where the global hybrid car stock share was 20–30% in 2023.

To convert this number into pkm traveled by hybrid car, we need to determine the average passenger-distance that each passenger car travels per year. Using population-weighted data from several different countries, the average car carries 1.5 people and travels about 19,500 vehicle-kilometers (vkm)/yr, or an average of 29,250 pkm/yr. Multiplying this number by the number of hybrid cars in use (48.5 million) gives the total travel distance shifted (1.3 trillion pkm) from fossil fuel–powered ICE cars to hybrid cars (Table 4).

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Current (2024) adoption level.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Population-weighted mean 1,318,000

Implied travel shifted from fossil fuel–powered cars to hybrid cars.

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Globally, the pkm driven in hybrid cars rather than fossil fuel–powered ICE cars increases by an average of about 178,200 million pkm/yr (Table 5). PHEV car purchases between 2019–2023 grew 45%/yr (IEA, 2024), while HEV purchases increased 10% annually between 2021–2023 (IEA, 2021, 2023). Global purchases of hybrid cars are increasing by around 6.1 million cars/yr. This is based on globally representative data (Bloomberg New Energy Finance [BloombergNEF], 2024; Fortune Business Insights, 2025; IEA, 2024; Menes, 2021).

It is worth noting that despite this impressive rate of growth, hybrid cars still have a long way to go before they replace a large percentage of the more than two billion cars currently driven (WHO, 2022).

left_text_column_width

Table 5. 2023–2024 adoption trend.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Population-weighted mean 178,200

Implied travel shifted from fossil fuel–powered cars to hybrid cars.

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

The total adoption ceiling for hybrid cars is equal to the total passenger-distance driven by private cars worldwide. Using a population-weighted mean of the average distance (in pkm) traveled per car annually, this translates to about 59 trillion pkm traveled (Table 6).

Replacing every single fossil fuel–powered ICE passenger car with a hybrid car would require an enormous upscaling of hybrid car production capacity, rapid development of charging infrastructure for PHEVs, cost reductions to make hybrid cars more affordable for more people, and technological improvements to make them more suitable for more kinds of drivers and trips. This shift would also face cultural obstacles from drivers who are attached to fossil fuel–powered cars (Roberts, 2022).

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Population-weighted mean 59,140,000

Implied travel shifted from fossil fuel–powered cars to hybrid cars.

Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The achievable adoption of hybrid car travel is about 12-30 trillion pkm shifted from fossil fuel–powered ICE vehicles.

Various organizations have produced forecasts of future hybrid car adoption. These are not assessments of feasible adoption per se; they are instead predictions of likely rates of adoption, given various assumptions about the future (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2024; Fortune Business Insights, 2025; IEA, 2021, 2023, 2024). But they are useful in that they take a large number of variables into account. To convert these estimates of future likely adoption into estimates of the achievable adoption range, we applied some optimistic assumptions to the numbers in the scenario projections. 

To find a high rate of hybrid car adoption, we assumed that every country could reach the highest rate of adoption projected to occur for any country. Bloomberg (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2024) predicts that some countries will reach 20–50% hybrid vehicle stock share by 2030. We therefore set our high adoption rate at 50% adoption worldwide. This corresponds to 1.011 trillion total hybrid cars in use, or 29.6 trillion pkm traveled by hybrid cars (Table 7). An important caveat is that with a global supply constraint in the production of electric car batteries that are also used by hybrids, per-country adoption rates are somewhat zero-sum. Every hybrid car purchased in Japan is one that cannot be purchased somewhere else. This means that for the whole world to achieve 50% hybrid car stock share, global hybrid car production (especially battery production) would have to radically increase. 

To identify a lower feasible rate of electric car adoption, we took the lower end of Bloomberg’s 20–50% global hybrid car adoption ceiling. This is also the current adoption rate in the most intensive country (Japan at 20%), proving it feasible. This translates to 404 million hybrid cars, or 11.8 trillion pkm traveled by hybrid car.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Current Adoption 1,318,000
Achievable – Low 11,830,000
Achievable – High 29,570,000
Adoption Ceiling 59,140,000
Left Text Column Width

Hybrid cars currently displace 0.036 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of GHG emissions from the transportation system on a 100-yr basis (Table 8; 0.036 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr on a 20-yr basis).

If hybrid cars reach 20% of the global private car stock share as BloombergNEF (2024) projects, then with the current number of cars on the road, they will displace 0.321 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr GHG emissions on a 100-yr basis (0.319 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr on a 20-yr basis).

If hybrid cars globally reach 50% of global private car stock share, as BloombergNEF (2024) estimates might happen in some markets, they will displace 0.802 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr GHG emissions on a 100-yr basis (0.796 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr on a 20-yr basis).

If hybrid cars replace 100% of the global car fleet, they will displace 1.603 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr GHG emissions on a 100-yr basis (1.593 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr on a 20-yr basis).

These numbers are based on the present-day average fuel consumption for hybrids and include emissions intensity from electrical grids for PHEVs. If fuel efficiency continues to improve (including hybrids getting lighter) and grids become cleaner, the total climate impact from hybrids cars will increase.

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.036
Achievable – Low 0.321
Achievable – High 0.802
Adoption Ceiling 1.603
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Air Quality

HEVs and PHEVs cars can reduce emissions of air pollutants, including sulfur oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and especially carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds (Requia et al., 2018). Some air pollution reductions are limited (particularly particulate matter and ozone) because hybrid cars are heavy. The added weight can increase emissions from brakes, tires, and wear on the batteries (Carey, 2023; Jones, 2019).

Health

Because hybrid cars have lower tailpipe emissions than fossil fuel–powered ICE cars, they can reduce traffic-related air pollution, which is associated with asthma, lung cancer, increased emergency department visits for respiratory disease, and increased mortality (Anenberg et al., 2019). Transitioning to hybrid cars can reduce exposure to air pollution, improve health, and prevent premature mortality (Garcia et al., 2023; Larson et al., 2020; Peters et al., 2020).

The health benefits of lower traffic-related air pollution vary spatially and – for PHEVs – partly depend on how communities generate electricity (Choma et al., 2020). Racial and ethnic minority communities located near highways and major traffic corridors are disproportionately exposed to air pollution (Kerr et al., 2021). Transitioning to HEVs and PHEVs could improve health in marginalized urban neighborhoods located near highways, industry, or ports (Pennington et al., 2024). These benefits depend on an equitable distribution of hybrid cars and infrastructure to support the adoption of plug-in hybrid cars (Garcia et al., 2023). 

Income and Work

Adopting hybrid cars can lead to savings in a household’s energy burden spent on fuel, or the proportion of income spent on fuel for transportation (Vega-Perkins et al., 2023). Plug-in hybrids can be charged during off-peak times, leading to further reductions in transportation costs (Romm & Frank, 2006). Savings from HEVs and PHEVs may be especially important for low-income households because they have the highest energy burdens (Bell-Pasht, 2024). 

left_text_column_width
Risks

There is some criticism against any solution that advocates for car ownership (electric cars in particular and hybrids – which use fossil fuels – by extension) and that the focus should be on solutions such as public transport systems that reduce car ownership and usage (Jones, 2019; Milovanoff et al., 2020).

There is potential for a rebound effect, where improved fuel efficiency encourages people to drive more, potentially offsetting some of the expected fuel and emissions savings. This can occur because lower fuel costs per kilometer make driving more affordable and so increase vehicle use.

There is a risk that allocating the limited global battery supply to hybrid cars might undermine the deployment of solutions that also require batteries but are more effective at avoiding GHG emissions (Castelvecchi, 2021). These could include electric buses, electric rail, and electric bicycles.

Mining minerals necessary to produce hybrid car batteries carries environmental and social risks. Such mining has been associated with significant harm, particularly in lower-income countries that supply many of these minerals (Agusdinata et al., 2018; Sovacool, 2019).

Hybrid cars might also pose additional safety risks due to their higher weight, which means that they have longer stopping distances and can cause greater damage in collisions and to pedestrians and cyclists (Jones, 2019). 

The operating efficiency depends on charging for PHEVs and braking intensity for all hybrids. The results of efficiency studies also depend on assumptions such as car type, fuel efficiency, battery size, electricity grid, km/yr, and car lifetime. 

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

The effectiveness of PHEVs in reducing GHG emissions increases as electricity grids become cleaner, since lower-carbon electricity further reduces the emissions associated with car charging. 

left_text_column_width

Competing

Hybrid cars compete directly with electric cars for adoption as well as for batteries, public resources, and infrastructural investment.

left_text_column_width

Scaling up the production of hybrid cars requires more mining of critical minerals, which could affect ecosystems that are valuable carbon sinks (Agusdinata et al., 2018).

left_text_column_width

Traveling by bicycle, sidewalk, public transit network, fully electric car, or smaller electric vehicle (such as electric bicycle) provides a greater climate benefit than traveling by hybrid car. There is an opportunity cost to deploying hybrid cars because those resources could otherwise be used to support these more effective solutions (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC], 2024).

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

million passenger kilometers (million pkm)

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
019.5127.11
units/yr
Current 1.318×10⁶ 01.183×10⁷2.957×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.036 0.3210.802
US$ per t CO₂-eq
264
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

Hybrid cars have higher embodied emissions than fossil fuel–powered ICE cars due to the presence of both an ICE and electric motor with a battery that has a GHG-intensive manufacturing process. While the embodied emissions are higher for hybrid cars than ICE cars, coupling them with operating emissions yields a carbon payback period of several years. Embodied emissions were outside the scope of this assessment.

left_text_column_width
Action Word
Mobilize
Solution Title
Hybrid Cars
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Create time-bound government procurement policies and targets to transition government fleets to hybrid cars when fully electric cars aren’t possible.
  • Provide financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for hybrid car production and purchases that gradually reduce as market adoption increases.
  • Provide complimentary benefits for hybrid car drivers, such as privileged parking areas, free tolls, and access schemes.
  • Use targeted financial incentives to help low-income communities buy hybrid cars and incentivize manufacturers to produce more affordable options.
  • Develop charging infrastructure, ensuring adequate spacing between stations and equitable distribution of stations.
  • Invest in R&D or implement regulations to improve manufacturing, adoption, supply chain standards, and circularity of hybrid cars – particularly batteries.
  • Transition fossil fuel electricity production to renewables while promoting the transition to hybrid cars.
  • Disincentivize fossil fuel–powered ICE car ownership by gradually introducing taxes, penalties, buy-back programs, or other mechanisms.
  • Offer one-stop shops for information on hybrid vehicles, including demonstrations and educational resources on cost savings, environmental impact, and maintenance.
  • Work with industry and labor leaders to construct new hybrid car plants and transition fossil fuel–powered ICE car manufacturing into hybrid car production.
  • Set regulations for sustainable use of hybrid car batteries and improve recycling infrastructure.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure supply chain environmental and human rights standards.
  • Incentivize or mandate life-cycle assessments and product labeling (e.g., Environmental Product Declarations).
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for hybrid car adoption.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Produce and sell affordable hybrid car models.
  • Collaborate with dealers to provide incentives, low-interest financing, or income-based payment options.
  • Develop charging infrastructure, ensuring adequate spacing between stations and equitable distribution of stations.
  • Offer lifetime warranties for hybrid batteries and easy-to-understand maintenance instructions.
  • Invest in R&D to improve manufacturing, adoption, supply chain standards, and circularity of hybrid cars, particularly batteries.
  • Provide customers with real-world data to help alleviate fuel efficiency concerns.
  • Offer one-stop shops for information on hybrid cars, including educational resources on cost savings, environmental impact, optimal charging, and maintenance.
  • Work with policymakers and labor leaders to construct new hybrid car plants and transition fossil fuel–powered ICE car manufacturing into hybrid car production.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure supply chain environmental and human rights standards.
  • Invest in recycling and circular economy infrastructure.
  • Conduct life-cycle assessments and ensure product labeling (e.g., Environmental Product Declarations).
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for hybrid car adoption.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Set time-bound company procurement policies and targets to transition corporate fleets to hybrid cars when fully electric cars aren’t feasible and report on these metrics regularly.
  • Encourage supply chain partners to transition their delivery fleets to hybrid vehicles when fully electric cars aren’t feasible.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives, such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for hybrid car purchases.
  • Create purchasing agreements with hybrid car manufacturers to support stable demand and improve economies of scale.
  • Install charging stations and offer employee benefits for hybrid car drivers, such as privileged parking areas.
  • Invest in R&D to improve manufacturing, adoption, supply chain standards, and circularity of hybrid cars – particularly batteries.
  • Work with industry and labor leaders to transition fossil fuel–powered ICE car manufacturing into hybrid car production.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and policies that promote hybrid car adoption.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure supply chain environmental and human rights standards.
  • Educate employees, customers, and investors about the company's transition to hybrid cars and encourage them to learn more about them.
  • Offer one-stop shops for information on hybrid cars, including demonstrations and educational resources on cost savings, environmental impact, and maintenance.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for hybrid car adoption.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Set time-bound organizational procurement policies and targets to transition fleets to hybrid cars when fully electric cars aren’t feasible.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives, such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for hybrid car purchases.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and policies that promote hybrid car adoption.
  • Install charging stations and offer employee benefits for hybrid car drivers, such as privileged parking areas.
  • Advocate for or provide improved charging infrastructure.
  • Offer workshops or support to low-income communities for purchasing and owning hybrid cars.
  • Work with industry and labor leaders to transition fossil fuel–powered ICE car manufacturing into hybrid car production.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure supply chain environmental and human rights standards.
  • Advocate for regulations on lithium-ion batteries and investments in recycling facilities.
  • Offer one-stop shops for information on hybrid cars, including demonstrations and educational resources on cost savings, environmental impact, and maintenance.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for hybrid car adoption.

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in hybrid car companies and companies that provide charging equipment or installation.
  • Pressure and support portfolio companies in transitioning their corporate fleets.
  • Pressure portfolio companies to establish and report on time-bound targets for corporate fleet transition and roll-out of employee incentives.
  • Invest in R&D to improve manufacturing, adoption, supply chain standards, and circularity of hybrid cars – particularly batteries.
  • Invest in hybrid car companies, associated supply chains, and end-user businesses like rideshare apps.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure supply chain environmental and human rights standards.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for hybrid car adoption.
  • Offer low-interest loans for purchasing hybrid cars or charging infrastructure.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Set time-bound organizational procurement policies to transition fleets to hybrid cars when fully electric cars aren’t feasible.
  • Install charging stations and offer employee benefits for hybrid car drivers, such as privileged parking areas.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives, such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for hybrid car purchases.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and policies that promote hybrid car adoption.
  • Advocate for or provide improved charging infrastructure.
  • Advocate for regulations on lithium-ion batteries and public investments in recycling facilities.
  • Offer financial services such as low-interest loans or grants for purchasing hybrid cars and charging equipment.
  • Offer workshops or support to low-income communities for purchasing and owning hybrid cars.
  • Work with industry and labor leaders to transition fossil fuel–powered ICE car manufacturing into hybrid car production.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure supply chain environmental and human rights standards.
  • Offer one-stop shops for information on hybrid vehicles, including demonstrations and educational resources on cost savings, environmental impact, and maintenance.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for hybrid car adoption.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • If purchasing a new car, buy a hybrid car if fully electric isn’t feasible.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives, such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for hybrid car purchases.
  • Share your experiences with hybrid cars through social media and peer-to-peer networks, highlighting the cost savings, benefits, incentive programs, and troubleshooting tips.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and policies that promote hybrid car adoption.
  • Advocate for improved charging infrastructure.
  • Help improve circularity of hybrid car supply chains.
  • Conduct in-depth life-cycle assessments of hybrid cars in particular geographies.
  • Research ways to reduce weight and improve the performance of hybrid cars while appealing to customers.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure supply chain environmental and human rights standards.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for hybrid car adoption.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve circularity of hybrid car supply chains.
  • Reduce the amount of critical minerals required for hybrid car batteries.
  • Innovate low-cost methods to improve safety, labor standards, and supply chains in mining for critical minerals.
  • Increase the longevity of batteries.
  • Research ways to reduce weight and improve the performance of hybrid cars while appealing to customers.
  • Improve techniques to repurpose used hybrid car batteries for stationary energy storage.
  • Develop methods of adapting fossil fuel–powered car manufacturing and infrastructure to include electric components.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • If purchasing a new car, buy a hybrid car when fully electric cars aren’t feasible.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives, such as tax breaks, subsidies, or grants for hybrid car purchases.
  • Share your experiences with hybrid cars through social media and peer-to-peer networks, highlighting the cost savings, benefits, incentive programs, and troubleshooting tips.
  • Help shift the narrative around hybrid cars by demonstrating capability and performance.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and policies that promote hybrid car adoption.
  • Advocate for improved charging infrastructure.
  • Help improve circularity of supply chains for hybrid car components.
  • Join international efforts to promote and ensure supply chain environmental and human rights standards.
  • Create, support, or join partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for hybrid car adoption.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions: Mixed

There is a high level of consensus that hybrid cars emit fewer GHGs per kilometer traveled compared to fossil fuel–powered ICE cars. Hybrid cars achieve these reductions by combining an ICE with an electric motor that improves fuel efficiency and, for some models, allow for limited all-electric driving, further reducing fuel consumption and emissions. This advantage is strongest in places where trips are short and require a lot of braking, such as in cities. 

Globally, cars and vans were responsible for 3.8 Gt CO₂‑eq emissions in 2023 – more than 60% of road transport emissions (IEA, 2024).

Major climate research organizations generally see hybrid cars as a transitional means of reducing GHG emissions from passenger transportation. These technologies offer immediate emissions reductions while the electricity grid decarbonizes and battery technology improves. Any improvement to fuel efficiency or time spent driving electrically reduces emissions. These technologies can be a gateway to fully electric cars by eliminating range anxiety and allowing drivers the experience of electric driving without fully committing to the limitations of current EV infrastructure. 

Hybrid cars, while more fuel-efficient than fossil fuel–powered ICE cars, still rely on gasoline or diesel, meaning they continue to produce tailpipe emissions and contribute to air pollution. Additionally, their dual powertrains add complexity, leading to higher embodied emissions, manufacturing costs, increased maintenance requirements, and potential long-term reliability concerns. The added weight from both an ICE and an electric motor, along with a battery pack, can reduce overall efficiency and raise safety concerns. Embodied emissions are outside the scope of this assessment.

The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT; Isenstadt & Slowik (2025) estimated that HEVs reduce tailpipe GHG emissions by 30% while costing an average of US$2,000 more upfront. Over a 10-yr period, they offered an estimated fuel cost savings of US$4,500. ICCT expected future HEVs to achieve an additional 15% reduction in GHG emissions, with a decrease in the price premium of US$300–800. PHEVs reduce GHG emissions by 11–30%, depending on emissions intensity of the electric grid and the proportion of distance driven electrically. 

The IEA (2024) noted that a PHEV bought in 2023 will emit 30% less GHGs than a fossil fuel–powered ICE car over its lifetime. This includes full life cycle impacts, including those from producing the car. 

The International Transport Forum (2020) estimated that fossil fuel–powered ICE cars emit 162 g CO₂‑eq/pkm while HEVs emit 132 g CO₂‑eq/pkm and PHEVs emit 124 g CO₂‑eq/pkm. This includes embodied and upstream emissions.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 12 reviews and meta-analyses and 29 original studies reflecting current evidence from 72 countries, primarily from the IEA’s Global Electric Vehicle Outlook (2024) and Electric Vehicles: Total Cost of Ownership Tool (2022) and the International Transport Forum’s life-cycle analysis on sustainable transportation (2020). 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

Increase Centralized Composting

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Use Waste as a Resource
Image
Centralized composting facility
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

A composting system diverts organic waste (OW) from landfills, reducing the production of methane and other GHG emissions. OW is defined as the combination of food waste and green waste, composed of yard and garden trimmings. Composting transforms it into a nutrient-rich soil supplement.

Our focus is on centralized (city- or regional-level) composting systems for the OW components of municipal solid waste (MSW). Decentralized (home- and community-level) and on-farm composting are also valuable climate actions, but are not included here due to limited data availability at the global level (see Increase Decentralized Composting).

Income & work,Health,Equality
Land resources,Water resources,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Increase Centralized Composting reduces methane and other GHG emissions by diverting organic waste from landfills to composting facilities that repurpose waste into nutrient-rich soil supplements.
Overview

There are many stages involved in a composting system to convert organic MSW into finished compost that can be used to improve soil health (Figure 1). Within this system, composting is the biochemical process that transforms OW into a soil amendment rich in nutrients and organic matter. 

Figure 1. Stages of a composting system. Solution boundaries exclude activities upstream and downstream of centralized MSW composting such as waste collection and compost application. Modified from Kawai et al. (2020) and Manea et al. (2024).

Diagram demonstrating process steps for landfill and compost materials.

Source: Kawai et al. (2020) and Manea et al. (2024).

The composting process is based on aerobic decomposition, driven by complex interactions among microorganisms, biodegradable materials, and invertebrates and mediated by water and oxygen (see the Appendix). Without the proper balance of oxygen and water, anaerobic decomposition occurs, leading to higher methane emissions during the composting process (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al., 2024). Multiple composting methods can be used depending on the amounts and composition of OW feedstocks, land availability, labor availability, finances, policy landscapes, and geography. Some common methods include windrow composting, bay or bin systems, and aerated static piles (Figure 2; Amuah et al., 2022; Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023).

Figure 2. Examples of commonly used centralized composting methods. Bay systems (left) move organics between different bays at different stages of the composting process. Windrows (center) are long, narrow piles that are often turned using large machinery. Aerated static piles (right) can be passively aerated as shown here or actively aerated with specialized blowing equipment.

Decentralized composting examples

Credit: Bays, iStock | nikolay100; Windrows, iStock | Jeremy Christensen; Aerated static pile, iStock | AscentXmedia

Centralized composting generally refers to processing large quantities (> 90 t/week) of organic MSW (Platt, 2017). Local governments often manage centralized composting as part of an integrated waste management system that can also include recycling non-OW, processing OW anaerobically in methane digesters, landfilling, and incineration (Kaza et al., 2018). 

Organic components of MSW include food waste and garden and yard trimmings (Figure 2). In most countries and territories, these make up 40–70% of MSW, with food waste as the largest contribution (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2019; Kaza et al., 2018; Manea et al., 2024; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2020; U.S. EPA, 2023). 

Diverting OW, particularly food waste, from landfill disposal to composting reduces GHG emissions (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; FAO, 2019). Diversion of organics from incineration could also have emissions and pollution reduction benefits, but we did not include incineration as a baseline disposal method for comparison since it is predominantly used in high-capacity and higher resourced countries and contributes less than 1% to annual waste-sector emissions (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change [IPCC], 2023; Kaza et al., 2018). 

Disposal of waste in landfills leads to methane emissions estimated at nearly 1.9 Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) annually (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024). Landfill emissions come from anaerobic decomposition of inorganic waste and OW and are primarily methane with smaller contributions from ammonia, nitrous oxide, and CO₂ (Cao et al., 2023; Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). Although CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide are released during composting, methane emissions are up to two orders of magnitude lower than emissions from landfilling for each metric ton of waste (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al, 2023; FAO, 2019; IEA, 2024; Nordahl et al., 2023; Perez et al., 2023). GHG emissions can be minimized by fine-tuning the nutrient balance during composting. 

Depending on the specifics of the composting method used, the full transformation from initial feedstocks to finished compost can take weeks or months (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al., 2024; Perez et al., 2023). Finished compost can be sold and used in a variety of ways, including application to agricultural lands and green spaces as well as for soil remediation (Gilbert et al., 2020; Platt et al., 2022; Ricci-Jürgensen et al., 2020a; Sánchez et al., 2025). 

Alves Comesaña, D., Villar Comesaña, I., & Mato de la Iglesia, S. (2024). Community composting strategies for biowaste treatment: Methodology, bulking agent and compost quality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(7), 9873–9885. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25564-x 

Amuah, E. E. Y., Fei-Baffoe, B., Sackey, L. N. A., Douti, N. B., & Kazapoe, R. W. (2022). A review of the principles of composting: Understanding the processes, methods, merits, and demerits. Organic Agriculture, 12(4), 547–562. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-022-00408-z

Ayilara, M., Olanrewaju, O., Babalola, O., & Odeyemi, O. (2020). Waste management through composting: Challenges and potentials. Sustainability, 12(11), Article 4456. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114456

Bekchanov, M., & Mirzabaev, A. (2018). Circular economy of composting in Sri Lanka: Opportunities and challenges for reducing waste related pollution and improving soil health. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 1107–1119. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.186

Bell, B., & Platt, B. (2014). Building healthy soils with compost to protect watersheds. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Compost-Builds-Healthy-Soils-ILSR-5-08-13-2.pdf 

Brown, S. (2015, July 14). Connections: YIMBY. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/connections-yimby/

Cai, B., Lou, Z., Wang, J., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., Liu, J., & Gao, Q. (2018). CH4 mitigation potentials from China landfills and related environmental co-benefits. Science Advances, 4(7), Article eaar8400. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8400

Cao, X., Williams, P. N., Zhan, Y., Coughlin, S. A., McGrath, J. W., Chin, J. P., & Xu, Y. (2023). Municipal solid waste compost: Global trends and biogeochemical cycling. Soil & Environmental Health, 1(4), Article 100038. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seh.2023.100038

Casey, J. A., Cushing, L., Depsky, N., & Morello-Frosch, R. (2021). Climate justice and California’s methane superemitters: Environmental equity Assessment of community proximity and exposure intensity. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(21), 14746–14757. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04328

Coker, C. (2020, March 3). Composting business management: Revenue forecasts for composters. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-business-management-revenue-forecasts-composters/

Coker, C. (2020, March 10). Composting business management: Capital cost of composting facility construction. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-business-management-capital-cost-composting-facility-construction/

Coker, C. (2020, March 17). Composting business management: Composting facility operating cost estimates. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-business-management-composting-facility-operating-cost-estimates/ 

Coker, C. (2022, August 23). Compost facility planning: Composting facility approvals and permits. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-facility-approval-permits/

Coker, C. (2022, September 27). Compost facility planning: Composting facility cost estimates. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/compost-facility-planning-cost/

Coker, C. (2024, August 20). Compost market development. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/compost-market-development/

European Energy Agency. (2024). Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector. (Last Updated: April 18, 2024). Eurostat. [Data set and codebook]. Link to source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_air_gge__custom_16006716/default/table 

Farhidi, F., Madani, K., & Crichton, R. (2022). How the US economy and environment can both benefit from composting management. Environmental Health Insights, 16. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302221128454

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2024). The state of food and agriculture 2024 – Value-driven transformation of agrifood systems. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cd2616en

Finlay, K. (2024). Turning down the heat: how the U.S. EPA can fight climate change by cutting landfill emissions. Industrious Labs. Link to source: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/xdjws328/production/657706be7f29a20fe54692a03dbedce8809721e8.pdf

González, D., Barrena, R., Moral-Vico, J., Irigoyen, I., & Sánchez, A. (2024). Addressing the gaseous and odour emissions gap in decentralised biowaste community composting. Waste Management, 178, 231–238. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2024.02.042 

International Energy Agency. (2024), Global Methane Tracker 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2024

International Energy Agency. (2025). Outlook for biogas and biomethane. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane 

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2022 – Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Working Group II contribution to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Calvo. Buendia, E., Tanabe, K., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M., Ngarize S., Osako, A., Pyrozhenko, Y., Shermanau, P. and Federici, S. (eds). Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html 

Jamroz, E., Bekier, J., Medynska-Juraszek, A., Kaluza-Haladyn, A., Cwielag-Piasecka, I., & Bednik, M. (2020). The contribution of water extractable forms of plant nutrients to evaluate MSW compost maturity: A case study. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 12842. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69860-9

Kawai, K., Liu, C., & Gamaralalage, P. J. D. (2020). CCET guideline series on intermediate municipal solid waste treatment technologies: Composting. United Nations Environment Programme. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/ietc/resources/publication/ccet-guideline-series-intermediate-municipal-solid-waste-treatment

Kaza, S., Yao, L. C., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F., (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Urban Development. World Bank. Link to source: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/30317 

Krause, M., Kenny, S., Stephenson, J., & Singleton, A. (2023). Quantifying methane emissions from landfilled food waste (Report No. EPA-600-R-23-064). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/food-waste-landfill-methane-10-8-23-final_508-compliant.pdf 

Liu, K-. M., Lin, S-. H., Hsieh, J-., C., Tzeng, G-., H. (2018). Improving the food waste composting facilities site selection for sustainable development using a hybrid modified MADM model. Waste Management, 75, 44–59. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.017

Maalouf, A., & Agamuthu, P. (2023). Waste management evolution in the last five decades in developing countries – A review. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 41(9), 1420–1434. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X231160099

Manea, E. E., Bumbac, C., Dinu, L. R., Bumbac, M., & Nicolescu, C. M. (2024). Composting as a sustainable solution for organic solid waste management: Current practices and potential improvements. Sustainability, 16(15), Article 6329. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156329

Martínez-Blanco, J., Lazcano, C., Christensen, T. H., Muñoz, P., Rieradevall, J., Møller, J., Antón, A., & Boldrin, A. (2013). Compost benefits for agriculture evaluated by life cycle assessment. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33(4), 721–732. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0148-7

Martuzzi, M., Mitis, F., & Forastiere, F. (2010). Inequalities, inequities, environmental justice in waste management and health. The European Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 21–26. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp216

Nordahl, S. L., Devkota, J. P., Amirebrahimi, J., Smith, S. J., Breunig, H. M., Preble, C. V., Satchwell, A. J., Jin, L., Brown, N. J., Kirchstetter, T. W., & Scown, C. D. (2020). Life-Cycle greenhouse gas emissions and human health trade-offs of organic waste management strategies. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(15), 9200–9209. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00364 

Nordahl, S. L., Preble, C. V., Kirchstetter, T. W., & Scown, C. D. (2023). Greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions from composting. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(6), 2235–2247. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c05846 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Waste - Municipal waste: generation and treatment. (Downloaded: March 20, 2025) [Data set]. Link to source: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_MUNW%40DF_MUNW&df[ag]=OECD.ENV.EPI&dq=.A.INCINERATION_WITHOUT%2BLANDFILL.T&pd=2014%2C&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false&vw=ov 

Pérez, T., Vergara, S. E., & Silver, W. L. (2023). Assessing the climate change mitigation potential from food waste composting. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 7608. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34174-z

Platt, B., Bell, B., & Harsh, C. (2013). Pay dirt: Composting in Maryland to reduce waste, create jobs, & protect the bay. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Pay-Dirt-Report.pdf

Platt, B. (2017, April 4). Hierarchy to Reduce Food Waste & Grow Community, Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/articles/food-waste-hierarchy/

Platt, B., and Fagundes, C. (2018). Yes! In my backyard: A home composting guide for local government. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/articles/yimby-compost/

Platt, B., Libertelli, C., & Matthews, M. (2022). A growing movement: 2022 community composter census. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/articles/composting-2022-census/ 

Ricci-Jürgensen, M., Gilbert, J., & Ramola, A.. (2020a). Global assessment of municipal organic waste production and recycling. International Solid Waste Association. Link to source: https://www.altereko.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Report-1-Global-Assessment-of-Municipal-Organic-Waste.pdf 

Ricci-Jürgensen, M., Gilbert, J., & Ramola, A.. (2020b). Benefits of compost and anaerobic digestate when applied to soil. International Solid Waste Association. Link to source: https://www.altereko.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Report-2-Benefits-of-Compost-and-Anaerobic-Digestate.pdf 

Rynk, R., Black, G., Biala, J., Bonhotal, J., Cooperband, L., Gilbert, J., & Schwarz, M. (Eds.). (2021). The composting handbook. Compost Research & Education Foundation and Elsevier. Link to source: https://www.compostingcouncil.org/store/viewproduct.aspx?id=19341051

Sánchez, A., Gea, T., Font, X., Artola, A., Barrena, R., & Moral-Vico, J. (Eds.). (2025). Composting: Fundamentals and Recent Advances: Chapter 1. Royal Society of Chemistry. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1039/9781837673650 

Souza, M. A. d., Gonçalves, J. T., & Valle, W. A. d. (2023). In my backyard? Discussing the NIMBY effect, social acceptability, and residents’ involvement in community-based solid waste management. Sustainability, 15(9), Article 7106. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097106

The Environmental Research & Education Foundation. (2024). Analysis of MSW landfill tipping fees — 2023. Link to source: https://erefdn.org/product/analysis-of-msw-landfill-tipping-fees-2023/

U.S. Composting Council. (2008). Greenhouse gases and the role of composting: A primer for compost producers [Fact sheet]. Link to source: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.compostingcouncil.org/resource/resmgr/documents/GHG-and-Role-of-Composting-a.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). 2018 wasted food report (EPA Publication No. EPA 530-R-20-004). Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-02/2018_wasted_food_report-v2.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). 2019 Wasted food report (EPA Publication No. 530-R-23-005). National Institutes of Health. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/2019-wasted-food-report_508_opt_ec_4.23correction.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM): Organic Materials Chapters (EPA Publication No. EPA-530-R-23-019). Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/warm_organic_materials_v16_dec.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, January). Approaches to composting. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/approaches-composting

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, April). Benefits of using compost. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/benefits-using-compost

United Nations Environment Programme. (2023). Towards Zero Waste: A Catalyst for delivering the Sustainable Development Goals. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/44102

United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Global Waste Management Outlook 2024 Beyond an age of waste: Turning rubbish into a resource. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/resources/global-waste-management-outlook-2024 

Urra, J., Alkorta, I., & Garbisu, C. (2019). Potential benefits and risks for soil health derived from the use of organic amendments in agriculture. Agronomy, 9(9), 542. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090542

Wilson, D. C., Paul, J., Ramola, A., & Filho, C. S. (2024). Unlocking the significant worldwide potential of better waste and resource management for climate mitigation: With particular focus on the Global South. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 42(10), 860–872. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X241262717

World Bank. (2018). What a waste global database: Country-level dataset. (Last Updated: June 4, 2024) [Data set]. World Bank. Link to source: https://datacatalogfiles.worldbank.org/ddh-published/0039597/3/DR0049199/country_level_data.csv 

Yasmin, N., Jamuda, M., Panda, A. K., Samal, K., & Nayak, J. K. (2022). Emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) during composting and vermicomposting: Measurement, mitigation, and perspectives. Energy Nexus, 7, Article 100092. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2022.100092

Zaman, A. U. (2016). A comprehensive study of the environmental and economic benefits of resource recovery from global waste management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 41–50. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.086

Zero Waste Europe & Bio-based Industries Consortium. (2024). Bio-waste generation in the EU: Current capture levels and future potential (Second edition). LIFE Programme of the European Union. Link to source: https://zerowasteeurope.eu/library/bio-waste-generation-in-the-eu-current-capture-levels-and-future-potential-second-edition/ 

Zhu, J., Luo, Z., Sun, T., Li, W., Zhou, W., Wang, X., Fei, X., Tong, H., & Yin, K. (2023). Cradle-to-grave emissions from food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems. Nature Food, 4(3), 247–256. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00710-3

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Megan Matthews, Ph. D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph. D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated that composting reduces emissions by 3.9 t CO₂‑eq /t OW (9.3 t CO₂‑eq /t OW, 20-yr basis) based on avoided landfill emissions minus the emissions during composting of MSW OW (Table 1). In our analysis, composting emissions were an order of magnitude lower than landfill emissions.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions. 

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/t OW

25th percentile 2.5
mean 3.2
median (50th percentile) 3.9
75th percentile 4.3
Left Text Column Width

Emissions data from composting and landfilling OW are geographically limited, but our analysis includes three global reports and studies from the U.S., China, Denmark, and the EU (European Energy Agency [EEA], 2024; Industrious Labs, 2024; Perez et al., 2023; U.S. EPA, 2020; Yang et al., 2017, Yasmin et al., 2022). We assumed OW was 39% of MSW in accordance with global averages (Kaza et al., 2018; World Bank, 2018).

We estimated that landfills emit 4.3 t CO₂‑eq /t OW (9.9 t CO₂‑eq /t OW, 20-yr basis). We estimated composting emissions were 10x lower at 0.4 t CO₂‑eq /t OW (0.6 t CO₂‑eq /t OW, 20-yr basis). We quantified emissions from a variety of composting methods and feedstock mixes (Cao et al., 2023; Perez et al., 2023; Yasmin et al., 2022). Consistent with Amuah et al. (2022), we assumed a 60% moisture content by weight to convert reported wet waste quantities to dry waste weights. We based effectiveness estimates only on dry OW weights. For adoption and cost, we did not distinguish between wet and dry OW.

left_text_column_width
Cost

Financial data were geographically limited. We based cost estimates on global reports with selected studies from the U.K., U.S., India, and Saudi Arabia for landfilling and the U.S. and Sri Lanka for composting. Transportation and collection costs can be significant in waste management, but we did not include them in this analysis. We calculated amortized net cost for landfilling and composting by subtracting revenues from operating costs and amortized initial costs over a 30-yr facility lifetime.

Landfill initial costs are one-time investments, while operating expenses, which include maintenance, wages, and labor, vary annually. Environmental costs, including post-closure operations, are not included in our analysis, but some countries impose taxes on landfilling to incentivize alternative disposal methods and offset remediation costs. Landfills generate revenue through tip fees and sales of landfill gas (Environmental Research & Education Foundation [EREF], 2023; Kaza et al., 2018). We estimated that landfilling is profitable, with a net cost of –US$30/t OW. 

Initial and operational costs for centralized composting vary depending on method and scale (IPCC, 2023; Manea et al., 2024), but up-front costs are generally cheaper than landfilling. Since composting is labor-intensive and requires monitoring, operating costs can be higher, particularly in regions that do not impose landfilling fees (Manea et al., 2024). 

Composting facilities generate revenue through tip fees and sales of compost products. Compost sales alone may not be sufficient to recoup costs, but medium- to large-scale composting facilities are economically viable options for municipalities (Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). We estimated the net composting cost to be US$20/t OW. The positive value indicates that composting is not globally profitable; however, decentralized systems that locally process smaller waste quantities can be profitable using low-cost but highly efficient equipment and methods (see Increase Decentralized Composting). 

We estimated that composting costs US$50/t OW more than landfilling. Although composting systems cost more to implement, the societal and environmental costs are greatly reduced compared to landfilling (Yasmin et al., 2022). The high implementation cost is a barrier to adoption in lower-resourced and developing countries (Wilson et al., 2024). 

Combining effectiveness with the net costs presented here, we estimated a cost per unit climate impact of US$10/t CO₂‑eq (US$5/t CO₂‑eq , 20-yr basis) (Table 2). 

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

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

median 10
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Global cost data on composting are limited, and costs can vary depending on composting methods, so we did not quantify a learning rate for centralized composting.

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.

Increase Centralized Composting is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than nominal 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

The composting process has a low risk of reversal since carbon is stored stably in finished compost instead of decaying and releasing methane in a landfill (Ayilara et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). However, a composting system, from collection to finished product, can be challenging to sustain. Along with nitrogen-rich food and green waste, additional carbon-rich biomass, called bulking material, is critical for maintaining optimal composting conditions that minimize GHG emissions. Guaranteeing the availability of sufficient bulking materials can challenge the success of both centralized and decentralized facilities.

Financially and environmentally sustainable composting depends not only on the quality of incoming OW feedstocks, but also on the quality of the final product. Composting businesses require a market for sales of compost products (in green spaces and/or agriculture), and poor source separation could lead to low-quality compost and reduced demand (Kawai et al., 2020; Wilson et al., 2024). Improvements in data collection and quality through good feedback mechanisms can also act as leverage for expanding compost markets, pilot programs, and growing community support.

If composting facilities close due to financial or other barriers, local governments may revert to disposing of organics in landfills. Zoning restrictions also vary broadly across geographies, affecting how easily composting can be implemented (Cao et al., 2023). In regions where centralized composting is just starting, reversal could be more likely without community engagement and local government support (Kawai et al., 2020; Maalouf & Agamuthu, 2023); however, even if facilities close, the emissions savings from past operation cannot be reversed.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Table 3. Current adoption level (2021).

Unit: t OW composted/yr

25th percentile 67,000,000
mean 78,000,000
median (50th percentile) 78,000,000
75th percentile 89,000,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimated global composting adoption at 78 million t OW/yr, as the median between two datasets. The most recent global data on composting were compiled in 2018 from an analysis from 174 countries and territories (World Bank, 2018). We also used an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) analysis from 45 countries (OECD, 2021). However, there were still many countries and territories that did not report composting data in one or both datasets. Although the World Bank dataset is comprehensive, it is based on data collected in 2011–2018, so more recent, high-quality, global data on composting are needed.

Globally in 2018, nearly 40% of all waste was disposed of in landfills, 19% was recovered through composting and other recovery and recycling methods, and the remaining waste was either unaccounted for or disposed of through open dumping and wastewater (Kaza et al., 2018)

We calculated total tonnage composted using the reported composting percentages and the total MSW tonnage for each country. Composting percentages were consistently lower than the total percentage of OW present in MSW, suggesting there is ample opportunity for increased composting, even in geographies where it is an established disposal method. In 2018, 26 countries/territories had a composting rate above 10% of MSW, and 15 countries/territories had a composting rate above 20% of MSW. Countries with the highest composting rates were Austria (31%), the Netherlands (27%), and Switzerland (21%) (World Bank, 2018).

left_text_column_width
Adoption Trend

Table 4. Adoption trend (2014–2021).

Unit: t OW composted/yr/yr

25th percentile -1,200,000
mean -1,300,000
median (50th percentile) 260,000
75th percentile 4,300,000
Left Text Column Width

We used OECD data to estimate the composting adoption trend from 2014–2021 (OECD, 2021), which fluctuated significantly from year to year (Table 4). Negative rates indicate less OW was composted globally than in the previous year. Taking the median composting rate across seven years, we estimate the global composting trend as 260,000 t OW/yr/yr. However, the mean composting trend is –1.3 Mt OW/yr/yr, suggesting that on average, composting rates are decreasing globally. 

Although some regions are increasing their composting capacity, others are either not composting or composting less over time. Germany, Italy, Spain, and the EU overall consistently show increases in composting rates year-to-year, while Greece, Japan, Türkiye, and the U.K. show decreasing composting rates. In Europe, the main drivers for consistent adoption were disposal costs, financial penalties, and the landfill directive (Ayilara et al., 2020). 

Lack of reported data could also contribute to a negative global average composting rate over the past seven years. A large decline in composting rates from 2018–2019 was driven by a lack of data in 2019 for the U.S. and Canada. If we assumed that the U.S. composted the same tonnage in 2019 as in 2018, instead of no tonnage as reported in the data, then the annual trend for 2018–2019 is much less negative (–450,000 t OW/yr/yr) and the overall mean trend between 2014–2019 would be positive (1,400,000 t OW/yr/yr).

left_text_column_width
Adoption Ceiling

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

Unit: t OW composted/yr

median (50th percentile) 991,000,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimate the global adoption ceiling for Increase Centralized Composting to be 991 million t OW/yr (Table 5). In 2016, 2.01 Gt of MSW were generated, and generation is expected to increase to 3.4 Gt by 2050 (Kaza et al., 2018). Due to limited global data availability on composting infrastructure or policies, we estimated the adoption ceiling based on the projected total MSW for 2050 and assumed the OW fraction remains the same over time.

In reality, amounts of food waste within MSW are also increasing, suggesting that there are sufficient global feedstocks to support widespread composting adoption (Zhu et al., 2023). 

We assume that 75% of OW could be processed via composting and the remaining 25% via methane digesters (see Deploy Methane Digesters). Biowaste from MSW makes up approximately 15% of incoming feedstocks for methane digesters (IEA, 2025). 

left_text_column_width
Achievable Adoption

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: t OW composted/yr

Current Adoption 78,000,000
Achievable – Low 156,000,000
Achievable – High 244,000,000
Adoption Ceiling 991,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Since the global annual trend fluctuates, we used country-specific composting rates and organic fractions of MSW from 2018 to estimate the achievable range of composting adoption (see Appendix for an example). In our analysis, achievable increases in country-specific composting rates cannot exceed the total organic fraction of 2018 MSW. 

For the 106 countries/territories that did not report composting rates, we defined achievable levels of composting relative to the fraction of OW in MSW. When countries also did not report OW percentages, the country-specific composting rate was kept at zero. For the remaining 86 countries/territories, we assumed that 25% of organic MSW could be diverted to composting for low achievable adoption and that 50% could be diverted for high achievable adoption. 

For the 68 countries/territories with reported composting rates, we define low and high achievable adoption as a 25% or 50% increase to the country-specific composting rate, respectively. If the increased rate for either low or high adoption exceeded the country-specific OW fraction of MSW, we assumed that all organic MSW could be composted (see Appendix for an example). Our Achievable – Low adoption level is 156 Mt OW/yr, or 16% of our estimated adoption ceiling. Our Achievable – High adoption level is 244 Mt OW/yr, or 25% of our estimated adoption ceiling. 

Our estimated adoption levels are conservative because some regions without centralized composting of MSW could have subnational decentralized composting programs that aren’t reflected in global data.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/yr

Current Adoption 0.30
Achievable – Low 0.60
Achievable – High 0.95
Adoption Ceiling 3.8
Left Text Column Width

Although our achievable range is conservative compared to the estimated adoption ceiling, increased composting has the potential to reduce GHG emissions from landfills (Table 7). We estimated that current adoption reduces annual GHG emissions by 0.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.73 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis). Our estimated low and high achievable adoption levels reduce 0.60 and 0.95 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (1.4 and 2.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis), respectively. Using the adoption ceiling, we estimate that annual GHG reductions increase to 3.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (9.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis).

The IPCC estimated in 2023 that the entire waste sector accounted for 3.9% of total global GHG emissions, and solid waste management represented 36% of total waste sector emissions (IPCC, 2023). Disposal of waste in landfills leads to methane emissions estimated at nearly 1.9 Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) annually (IEA, 2024). Based on these estimates, current composting adoption reduces annual methane emissions from landfills more than 16%. 

Increasing adoption to low and high achievable levels could reduce the amount of OW going to landfills by up to 40% and avoid 32–50% of landfill emissions. Reaching our estimated adoption ceilings for both Increase Centralized Composting and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions could avoid all food-related landfill emissions.

These climate impacts can be considered underestimates of beneficial mitigation from increased composting since we did not quantify the carbon sequestration benefits of compost application and reduced synthetic fertilizer use. Our estimated climate impacts from composting are also an underestimate because we didn’t include decentralized composting. 

left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Composting creates more jobs than landfills or incinerators and can save money compared with other waste management options (Bekchanov & Mirzabaev, 2018; Farhidi et al., 2022; Platt et al., 2013; Zaman, 2016). It is less expensive to build and maintain composting plants than incinerators (Kawai et al., 2020). According to a survey of Maryland waste sites, composting creates twice as many jobs as landfills and four times as many jobs as incineration plants (Platt et al., 2013). Composting also indirectly sustains jobs in the distribution and use of compost products (Platt et al., 2013). Compost is rich in nutrients and can also reduce costs associated with synthetic fertilizer use in agriculture (Farhidi et al., 2022).

Health

Odors coming from anaerobic decomposition landfills, such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, are another source of pollutants that impact human well-being, which can be reduced by aerobic composting (Cai et al., 2018).

Equality

Reducing community exposure to air pollution from landfills through composting has implications for environmental justice (Casey et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2023). A large review of waste sites in the United States and Europe found that landfills are disproportionately located near populations with low socioeconomic status and near racially and ethnically marginalized neighborhoods (Marzutti et al., 2010). Reducing disproportionate exposures to air pollution from landfills may mitigate poor health outcomes in surrounding communities (Brender et al., 2011)

Land Resources

Compost provides an important soil amendment that adds organic matter and nutrients to soil, reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers (Urra et al., 2019; U.S. EPA, 2025). Healthy soils that are rich in organic matter can benefit the surrounding ecosystem and watershed and lead to more plant growth through improved water retention and filtration, improved soil quality and structure, and reduced erosion and nutrient runoff (Bell & Platt, 2014; Martinez-Blanco et al., 2013; U.S. EPA, 2025). By reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers and by improving soils’ ability to filter and conserve water, compost can also reduce eutrophication of water bodies (U.S. EPA, 2025). These soil benefits are partially dependent on how compost is sorted because there may be risks associated with contamination of microplastics and heavy metals (Manea et al., 2024; Urra et al., 2019).

Water Resources

For a description of the water resources benefits, please refer to the “land resources” subsection. 

Air Quality

Composting can reduce air pollution such as CO₂, methane, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter that is commonly released from landfills and waste-to-energy systems (Kawai et al., 2020; Nordahl et al., 2020; Siddiqua et al., 2022). An analysis comparing emissions from MSW systems found composting to have lower emissions than landfilling and other waste-to-energy streams (Nordahl et al., 2020). Composting can also reduce the incidence of landfill fires, which release black carbon and carbon monoxide, posing risks to the health and safety of people in nearby communities (Nguyen et al., 2023).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Before the composting process can start, feedstocks are sorted to remove potential contaminants, including nonbiodegradable materials such as metal and glass as well as plastics, bioplastics, and paper products (Kawai et al., 2020; Perez et al., 2023; Wilson et al., 2024). While most contaminants can be removed through a variety of manual and mechanical sorting techniques, heavy metals and microplastics can become potential safety hazards or reduce finished compost quality (Manea et al., 2024). Paper and cardboard should be separated from food and green waste streams because they often contain contaminants such as glue or ink, and they degrade more slowly than other OW, leading to longer processing time and lower-quality finished compost (Kawai et al., 2020; Krause et al., 2023).

Successful and safe composting requires careful monitoring of compost piles to avoid anaerobic conditions and ensure sufficient temperatures to kill pathogens and weed seeds (Amuah et al., 2022; Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). Anaerobic conditions within the compost pile increase GHGs emitted during composting. Poorly managed composting facilities can also pose safety risks for workers and release odors, leading to community backlash (Cao et al., 2023; Manea et al., 2024; UNEP, 2024). Regional standards, certifications, and composter training programs are necessary to protect workers from hazardous conditions and to guarantee a safe and effective compost product (Kawai et al., 2020). Community outreach and education on the benefits of separating waste and composting prevent “not-in-my-backyard” attitudes or “NIMBYism” (Brown, 2015; Platt & Fagundes 2018) that may lead to siting composting facilities further from the communities they serve (Souza, et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2018).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Increased composting could positively impact annual cropping by providing consistent, high-quality finished compost that can reduce dependence on synthetic fertilizers and improve soil health and crop yields. 

left_text_column_width

High-quality sorting systems also allow for synergies that benefit all waste streams and create flexible, resilient waste management systems. Improving waste separation programs for composting can have spillover effects that also improve other waste streams, such as recyclables, agricultural waste, or e-waste. Access to well-sorted materials can also help with nutrient balance for various waste streams, including agricultural waste.

left_text_column_width

Composting facilities require a reliable source of carbon-rich bulking material. Agricultural waste can be diverted to composting rather than burning to reduce emissions from crop residue burning. 

left_text_column_width

Competing

Diverting OW from landfills will lead to lower landfill methane emissions and, therefore, less methane available to be captured and resold as revenue.

left_text_column_width

OW diverted from landfills can also be managed using anaerobic digestion in methane digesters, which reduces the available volumes of OW for composting.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

t organic waste

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
02.53.9
units/yr
Current 7.8×10⁷ 01.56×10⁸2.44×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.3 0.60.95
US$ per t CO₂-eq
10
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  CH₄

Trade-offs

Robust collection networks and source separation of OW are vital for successful composting, but they also increase investment costs. However, well-sorted OW can reduce the need for separation equipment and allow for simpler facility designs, leading to lower operational costs. The emissions from transporting OW are not included here, but are expected to be significantly less than the avoided landfill emissions. Composting facilities are typically located close to the source of OW (Kawai et al., 2020; U.S. Composting Council [USCC], 2008), but since centralized composting facilities are designed to serve large communities and municipalities, there can be trade-offs between sufficient land availability and distance from waste sources.

We also exclude emissions from onsite vehicles and equipment such as bulldozers and compactors, assuming that those emissions are small compared to the landfill itself.

left_text_column_width
Action Word
Increase
Solution Title
Centralized Composting
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Establish zero waste and OW diversion goals; incorporate them into local or national climate plans and soil health and conservation policies.
  • Ensure public procurement uses local compost when possible.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Establish or improve existing centralized composting facilities, collection networks, and storage facilities.
  • Establish incentives and programs to encourage both centralized and decentralized composting.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Invest in source separation education and waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Regulate the use of waste separation technologies to prioritize source separation of waste and the quality of compost products.
  • Ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs with particular attention to underserved communities such as multi-family buildings and rural households.
  • Enact extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Ensure composting plants are placed as close to farmland as possible and do not adversely affect surrounding communities.
  • Streamline permitting processes for centralized compost facilities and infrastructure.
  • Establish laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Establish zoning policies that support both centralized and decentralized composting efforts, including at the industrial, agricultural, community, and backyard scales.
  • Establish fees or fines for OW going to landfills; use funds for composting programs.
  • Use financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support infrastructure, participation, and waste separation.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why it’s important.
  • If composting is not possible or additional infrastructure is needed, consider methane digesters as alternatives to composting.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Work with policymakers and local communities to establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals for local or national climate plans.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to create quality supply streams and develop markets for compost.
  • Invest in source separation education and waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why that’s important.
  • Ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs with particular attention to underserved communities such as multi-family buildings and rural households.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Ensure composting plants are placed as close to farmland as possible and do not adversely affect surrounding communities.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies or exemptions to set up centralized composting infrastructure, increase participation, and improve waste separation.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Consider partnerships through initiatives such as sister cities to share innovation and develop capacity.
  • If additional infrastructure is needed, consider methane digesters as alternatives to composting.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; incorporate the goals into corporate net-zero strategies.
  • Ensure procurement uses strategies to reduce FLW at all stages of the supply chain; consider using the Food Loss and Waste Protocol.
  • Ensure corporate procurement and facilities managers use local compost when possible.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Offer employee pre-tax benefits on materials to compost at home or participate in municipal composting programs.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support composting initiatives.
  • Support extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Educate employees on the benefits of composting, include them in companywide waste diversion initiatives, and encourage them to use and advocate for municipal composting in their communities. Clearly label containers and signage for composting.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Help policymakers establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; help incorporate them into local or national climate plans.
  • Ensure organizational procurement uses local compost when possible.
  • Help administer, fund, or promote local composting programs.
  • Help gather data on local OW streams, potential markets, and comparisons of alternative uses such as methane digesters.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Help ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs with particular attention to underserved communities such as multi-family buildings and rural households.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why that’s important.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure relevant portfolio companies separate waste streams, contribute to compost programs, and/or use finished compost.
  • Invest in companies developing composting programs or technologies that support the process, such as equipment, circular supply chains, and consumer products.
  • Fund start-ups or existing companies that are improving waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support composting initiatives.
  • Invest in companies that adhere to extended producer responsibility or encourage portfolio companies to adopt the policies.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Help policymakers establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; help incorporate them into local or national climate plans.
  • Advocate for businesses to establish time-bound and transparent zero-waste and OW diversion goals.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Provide financing and capacity building for low- and middle-income countries to establish composting infrastructure and programs.
  • Help administer, fund, or promote composting programs.
  • Invest in companies developing composting programs or technologies that support the process, such as equipment, circular supply chains, and consumer products.
  • Fund startups or existing companies that are improving waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Incubate and fund mission-driven organizations and cooperatives that are advancing OW composting.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support composting initiatives.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Help ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs, with particular attention to underserved communities such as multifamily buildings and rural households.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Research and enact effective composting promotional strategies.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why that’s important.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Participate in and promote centralized, community, or household composting programs, if available, and carefully sort OW from other waste streams.
  • If no centralized composting system exists, work with local experts to establish household and community composting systems.
  • Help policymakers establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; help incorporate them into local or national climate plans.
  • Start cooperatives that provide services and/or equipment for composting.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Help gather data on local OW streams, potential markets, and comparisons of alternative uses such as methane digesters.
  • Help develop waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products and/or improve educational programs on waste separation.
  • Develop innovative governance models for local composting programs; publicly document your experiences.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost.
  • Research various governance models for local composting programs and outline options for communities to consider.
  • Research and enact effective composting campaign strategies.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Quantify estimates of OW both locally and globally; estimate the associated potential compost output.
  • Improve waste separation technology to improve the quality of finished compost.
  • Create tracking and monitoring software for OW streams, possible uses, markets, and pricing.
  • Research the application of AI and robotics for optimal uses of OW streams, separation, collection, distribution, and uses.
  • Research various governance models for local composting programs and outline options for communities to consider.
  • Research effective composting campaign strategies and how to encourage participation from individuals.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Participate in and promote centralized composting programs, if available, and carefully sort OW from other waste.
  • If no centralized composting system exists, work with local experts to establish household and community composting systems.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, and businesses to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Take advantage of educational programs, financial incentives, employee benefits, and other programs that facilitate composting.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness as a climate solution: High

Composting reduces OW, prevents pollution and GHG emissions from landfilled OW, and creates soil amendments that can reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers (Kaza et al., 2018; Manea et al., 2024). Although we do not quantify carbon sequestration from compost use in this analysis, a full life-cycle analysis that includes application could result in net negative emissions for composting (Morris et al., 2013).

Globally, the waste sector was responsible for an estimated 3.9% of total global GHG emissions in 2023, and solid waste management represented 36% of those emissions (IPCC, 2023; United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2024). Emissions estimates based on satellite and field measurements from landfills or direct measurements of carbon content in food waste can be significantly higher than IPCC Tier 1-based estimates. Reviews of global waste management estimated that food loss and food waste account for around 6% of global emissions or approximately 2.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Wilson et al., 2024; Zhu et al., 2023). Facility-scale composting reduces emissions 38–84% relative to landfilling (Perez et al., 2023), and monitoring and managing the moisture content, aeration, and carbon to nitrogen ratios can further reduce emissions (Ayilara et al., 2020).

Unclear legislation and regulation for MSW composting can prevent adoption, and there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to composting (Cao et al., 2023). Regardless of the method used, composting converts OW into a nutrient-rich resource and typically reduces incoming waste volumes 40–60% in the process (Cao et al., 2023; Kaza et al., 2018). A comparative cost and energy analysis of MSW components highlighted that while composting adoption varies geographically and economically, environmental benefits also depend on geography and income (Zaman, 2016). Food and green waste percentages of MSW are higher in lower-resourced countries than in high-income countries due to less packaging, and more than one-third of waste in high-income countries is recovered through recycling and composting (Kaza et al., 2018).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 22 reports, 31 reviews, 12 original studies, two books, nine web articles, one fact sheet, and three data sets reflecting the most recent evidence for more than 200 countries and territories. 

left_text_column_width
Appendix

Global MSW Generation and Disposal

Analysis of MSW in this section is based on the 2018 What a Waste 2.0 global dataset and report as well as the references cited in the report (Kaza et al., 2018; World Bank 2018). In 2018, approximately 2 Gt of waste was generated globally. Most of that went to landfills (41%) and open dumps (22%). Out of 217 countries and territories, 24 sent more than 80% of all MSW to landfills and 3 countries reported landfilling 100% of MSW. The average across all countries/territories was 28% of MSW disposed of in landfills. Both controlled and sanitary landfills with gas capture systems are included in the total landfilled percentage.

Approximately 13% of MSW was treated through recycling and 13% through incineration, but slightly more waste was incinerated than recycled per year. Incineration was predominately used in upper-middle and high-income countries with negligible amounts of waste incinerated in low- and lower-middle income countries.

Globally, only about 5% of MSW was composted and nearly no MSW was processed via methane digestion. However, OW made up nearly 40% of global MSW, so most OW was processed through landfilling, open dumping, and incineration all of which result in significant GHG emissions and pollution. There is ample opportunity to divert more OW from polluting disposal methods toward composting. Due to lack of data on open dumping, and since incineration only accounts for 1% of global GHG emissions, we chose landfilling as our baseline disposal method for comparison.

In addition to MSW, other waste streams include medical waste, e-waste, hazardous waste, and agricultural waste. Global agricultural waste generation in 2018 was more than double total MSW (Kaza et al., 2018). Although these specialized waste streams are treated separately from MSW, integrated waste management systems with high-quality source separation programs could supplement organic MSW with agricultural waste. Rather than being burned or composted on-farm, agricultural waste can provide bulking materials that are critical for maintaining moisture levels and nutrient balance in the compost pile, as well as scaling up composting operations. 

left_text_column_width

Details of a Composting System and Process

Successful centralized composting starts with collection and separation of OW from other waste streams, ideally at the source of waste generation. Financial and regulatory barriers can hinder creation or expansion of composting infrastructure. Composting systems require both facilities and robust collection networks to properly separate OW from nonbiodegradable MSW and transport OW to facilities. Mixed waste streams increase contamination risks with incoming feedstocks, so separation of waste materials at the source of generation is ideal. 

Establishing OW collection presents a financial and logistical barrier to increased composting adoption (Kawai et al., 2020; Kaza et al., 2018). However, when considering a full cost-chain analysis that includes collection, transportation, and treatment, systems that rely on source-separated OW can be more cost-effective than facilities that process mixed organics. 

OW and inorganic waste can also be sorted at facilities manually or mechanically with automated techniques including electromagnetic separation, ferrous metal separation, and sieving or screening (Kawai et al., 2020). Although separation can be highly labor-intensive, it’s necessary to remove potential contaminants, such as plastics, heavy metals, glass, and other nonbiodegradable or hazardous waste components (Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). After removing contaminants, organic materials are pre-processed and mixed to achieve the appropriate combination of water, oxygen, and solids for optimal aerobic conditions during the composting process. 

Regardless of the specific composting method used, aerobic decomposition is achieved by monitoring and balancing key parameters within the compost pile. Key parameters are moisture content, temperature, carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, aeration, pH, and porosity (Cao et al., 2023; Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). The aerobic decomposition process can be split into distinct stages based on whether mesophilic (active at 20–40 oC) or thermophilic (active at 40–70 oC) bacteria and fungi dominate. Compost piles are constructed to allow for sufficient aeration while optimizing moisture content (50–60%) and the initial carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (25:1–40:1), depending on composting method and feedstocks (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al, 2024). Optimal carbon-to-nitrogen ratios are achieved through appropriate mixing of carbon-rich “brown” materials, such as sawdust or dry leaves, with nitrogen-rich “green” materials, such as food waste or manure (Manea et al., 2024). During the thermophilic stage, temperatures exceeding 62 oC are necessary to kill most pathogens and weed seeds (Amuah et al., 2022; Ayilara et al., 2020).

Throughout the composting process key nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium), are mineralized and mobilized and microorganisms release GHGs and heat as by-products of their activity (Manea et al., 2024; Nordahl et al., 2023). Water is added iteratively to maintain moisture content and temperature in the optimal ranges, and frequent turning and aeration are necessary to ensure microorganisms have enough oxygen. Without the proper balance of oxygen and water, anaerobic conditions can lead to higher methane emissions (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al., 2024). Although CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide are released during the process, these emissions are significantly lower than associated emissions from landfilling (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; FAO, 2019; Perez et al., 2023).

Once aerobic decomposition is completed, compost goes through a maturation stage where nutrients are stabilized before finished compost can be sold or used as a soil amendment. In stable compost, microbial decomposition slows until nutrients no longer break down, but can be absorbed by plants. Longer maturation phases reduce the proportion of soluble nutrients that could potentially leach into soils. 

The baseline waste management method of landfilling OW is cheaper than composting; however it also leads to significant annual GHG emissions. Composting, although more expensive due to higher labor and operating costs, reduces emissions and produces a valuable soil amendment. Establishing a composting program can have significant financial risks without an existing market for finished compost products (Bogner et al., 2007; Kawai et al., 2020; UNEP, 2024).

left_text_column_width

Example Calculation of Achievable Adoption

In 2018, Austria had the highest composting rate of 31.2%, and Vietnam composted 15% of MSW (World Bank, 2018). 

For low adoption, we assumed composting increases by 25% of the existing rate or until all OW in MSW is composted. In Austria, OW made up 31.4% of MSW in 2018, so the Adoption – Low composting rate was 31.4%. In Vietnam, the Adoption – Low composting rate came out to 18.75%, which is still less than the total OW percentage of MSW (61.9%).

For high adoption, we assumed that composting rates increase by 50% of the existing rate or until all OW in MSW is composted. So high adoption in Austria remains 31.4% (i.e., all OW generated in Austria is composted). In Vietnam, the high adoption composting rate increases to 22.5% but still doesn’t capture all OW generated (61.9% of MSW).

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Improve Materials
Image
Worker sprays insulation in building frame.
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials is defined as using alternative building insulation materials in place of conventional ones. In particular, we highlight the impact of using cellulose instead of glass, mineral, or plastic insulation in new and retrofit buildings. Cellulose insulation manufacture and installation emits fewer GHGs to reach the same operational insulating performance than does manufacture and installation of conventional materials.

Income & work,Health
Water resources
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Changing the materials we use to insulate buildings to alternatives like cellulose can reduce GHG emissions from energy-intensive insulation manufacturing and GHG-releasing installation procedures.
Overview

Thermal insulation materials are used in the walls, roofs, and floors of buildings to help maintain comfortable indoor temperatures. However, manufacture and installation of insulation materials produces GHG emissions. These are called embodied emissions because they occur before the insulation is used in buildings. Insulation embodied emissions offset a portion of the positive climate impacts from using insulation to reduce heating and cooling demand. A Canadian study found that over 25% of residential embodied emissions from manufacturing building materials can be due to insulation (Magwood et al., 2022). Using cellulose insulation made primarily from recycled paper avoids some embodied emissions associated with conventional insulation.

Insulation is manufactured in many different forms, including continuous blankets or boards, loose fill, and sprayed foam (Types of Insulation, n.d.). Most conventional insulation materials are nonrenewable inorganic materials such as stone wool and fiberglass. These require high temperatures (>1,300 °C) to melt the raw ingredients, consuming thermal energy and releasing CO₂ from fossil fuel combustion or grid power generation (Schiavoni et al., 2016). Other common insulations are plastics, including expanded polystyrene (EPS), extruded polystyrene (XPS), polyurethane (PUR), and polyisocyanurate (PIR). Producing these plastics requires the extraction of fossil fuels – primarily petroleum – for feedstocks, as well as high amounts of energy for processing (Harvey, 2007). 

F-gases are often used as blowing agents to manufacture rigid foam board insulation or install sprayed foam insulation. F-gases are GHGs with GWPs that can be hundreds or thousands of times higher than CO₂. High-GWP F-gases used in foam production are released into the atmosphere during all subsequent stages of the foam’s life cycle (Biswas et al., 2016; Waldman et al., 2023). The climate benefits of this solution during the installation stage are primarily due to avoiding these blowing agents. 

Alternative insulation is produced from plant or animal biomass (bio-based materials) or waste products (recycled materials). Alternative insulation materials provide climate benefits by consuming less manufacturing energy, using renewable materials in place of fossil fuels, and eliminating high-GWP blowing agents (Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance, 2024). 

Figure 1 compares a variety of conventional and alternative insulation materials. While many bio-based and recycled materials could be used as alternatives to these conventional materials, this solution focuses on cellulose due to its effectiveness in avoiding emissions, low cost, and wide availability. Cellulose insulation is made primarily from recycled paper fibers, newsprint, and cardboard. These products are made into fibers and blended with fire retardants to produce loose or batt cellulose insulation (Waldman et al., 2023; Wilson, 2021).

Figure 1. Properties and adoption of conventional and alternative insulation materials. Costs and emissions will vary from the values here depending on the insulation form (board, blanket, loose-fill, etc.).

Category Material High-GWP F-gases used? Median manufacturing and installation emissions* Mean product and installation cost** Estimated market share
(% by mass)
Conventional materials Stone wool No 0.31 623 20
Glass wool (fiberglass) No 0.29 508 34
EPS No 0.38 678 22
XPS Yes, sometimes 9.44 702 7
PUR/PIR Yes, sometimes 6.14 1,000 11
Alternative materials Cellulose No 0.05 441 2–13
Cork No 0.30 1,520 Commercially available, not widely used
Wood fiber No 0.13 814 Commercially available, not widely used
Plant fibers (kenaf, hemp, jute) No 0.18 467 Commercially available, not widely used
Sheep’s wool No 0.14 800 Commercially available, not widely used
Recycled PET plastic No 0.12 2,950 Commercially available, not widely used

*t CO₂‑eq (100-yr) to insulate 100m² to 1m²·K/W

**2023 US$ to insulate 100m² to 1m²·K/W. We use mean values for cost analysis to better capture the limited data and wide range of reported costs.

Although we are estimating the impact of using cellulose insulation in all buildings, the unique circumstances of each building are important when choosing the most appropriate insulation material. In this solution, we do not distinguish between residential and commercial buildings, retrofit or new construction, different building codes, or different climates, but these would be important areas of future study.

In this solution, the effectiveness, cost, and adoption are calculated over a specified area (100 m²) and thermal resistance (1 m²·K/W). The chosen adoption unit ensures that all data are for materials with the same insulating performance. Due to limited material information, we assumed that insulation mass scales linearly with thermal resistance.

To better understand the adoption unit, a one-story residential building of 130 m² floor area would require approximately 370 m² of insulation area (RSMeans, & The Gordian Group, 2023). For a cold climate like Helsinki, Finland, code requires insulation thermal resistance of 11 m²·K/W (The World Bank, n.d.). For a warm climate like Jerusalem, Israel, envelope thermal resistance requirements average 1.1 m²·K/W (The World Bank, n.d.). Therefore, depending on the location, anywhere from approximately 4–40 adoption units insulating 100 m² to 1 m²·K/W may be needed to insulate a small single-story home to the appropriate area and insulation level.

Take Action Intro

Would you like to help deploy alternative insulation? Below are some ways you can make a difference, depending on the roles you play in your professional or personal life.

These actions are meant to be starting points for involvement and may or may not be the most important, impactful, or doable actions you can take. We encourage you to explore, get creative, and take a step that is right for you!

Adams, M., Burrows, V., & Richardson, S. (2019). Bringing embodied carbon upfront: Coordinated action for the building and construction sector to tackle embodied carbon. World Green Building Council, Advancing Net Zero, Ramboll, & C40 Cities. Link to source: https://worldgbc.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/22123951/WorldGBC_Bringing_Embodied_Carbon_Upfront.pdf 

Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. (2016, October 15). Link to source: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2016/10/20161015%2003-23%20PM/Ch_XXVII-2.f-English%20and%20French.pdf 

Andersen, B., & Rasmussen, T. V. (2025). Biobased building materials: Moisture characteristics and fungal susceptibility. Building and Environment, 112720. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112720 

Asdrubali, F., D’Alessandro, F., & Schiavoni, S. (2015). A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 4, 1–17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2015.05.002 

Biswas, K., Shrestha, S. S., Bhandari, M. S., & Desjarlais, A. O. (2016). Insulation materials for commercial buildings in North America: An assessment of lifetime energy and environmental impacts. Energy and Buildings, 112, 256–269. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.12.013 

Cabeza, L. F., Boquera, L., Chàfer, M., & Vérez, D. (2021). Embodied energy and embodied carbon of structural building materials: Worldwide progress and barriers through literature map analysis. Energy and Buildings, 231, 110612. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110612 

Carbon Removals Expert Group Technical Assistance. (2023, December). Review of certification methodologies for long-term biogenic carbon storage in buildings. European Commission. Link to source: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/policy_carbon_expert_biogenic_carbon_storage_in_buildings_en.pdf 

Deer et al. (2007). Alaska Residential Building Manual. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Link to source: https://www.ahfc.us/application/files/2813/5716/1325/building_manual.pdf 

Esau et al. (2021). Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings: Low-Cost, High-Value Opportunities. RMI. Link to source: http://www.rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings 

The Freedonia Group. (2024). Global insulation report. Link to source: https://www.freedoniagroup.com/industry-study/global-insulation 

Fabbri, M., Rapf, O., Kockat, J., Fernández Álvarez, X., Jankovic, I., & Sibileau, H. (2022). Putting a stop to energy waste: How building insulation can reduce fossil fuel imports and boost EU energy security. Buildings Performance Institute Europe. Link to source: https://www.bpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Putting-a-stop-to-energy-waste_Final.pdf 

Forestry production and trade. (2023). [Dataset]. FAOSTAT. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO 

Füchsl, S., Rheude, F., & Röder, H. (2022). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of thermal insulation materials: A critical review. Cleaner Materials, 5, 100119. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2022.100119 

Gelowitz, M. D. C., & McArthur, J. J. (2017). Comparison of type III environmental product declarations for construction products: Material sourcing and harmonization evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 125–133. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.133 

Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, International Energy Agency, and the United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). GlobalABC roadmap for buildings and construction: Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. International Energy Agency. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/globalabc-roadmap-for-buildings-and-construction-2020-2050 

Grazieschi, G., Asdrubali, F., & Thomas, G. (2021). Embodied energy and carbon of building insulating materials: A critical review. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, 100032. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100032 

Harvey, L. D. D. (2007). Net climatic impact of solid foam insulation produced with halocarbon and non-halocarbon blowing agents. Building and Environment, 42(8), 2860–2879. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.028 

Insulation choices revealed in new study. (2019, June 19). Home Innovation Research Labs. Link to source: https://www.homeinnovation.com/trends_and_reports/trends/insulation_choices_revealed_in_new_study 

International Energy Agency. (2023). Building envelopes. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/building-envelopes 

International Energy Agency, International Renewable Energy Agency, & United Nations Climate Change High-Level Champions. (2023). Breakthrough agenda report 2023. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/breakthrough-agenda-report-2023 

Jelle, B. P. (2011). Traditional, state-of-the-art and future thermal building insulation materials and solutions – Properties, requirements and possibilities. Energy and Buildings, 43(10), 2549–2563. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.05.015 

Kumar, D., Alam, M., Zou, P. X. W., Sanjayan, J. G., & Memon, R. A. (2020). Comparative analysis of building insulation material properties and performance. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 131, 110038. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110038 

Magwood et al. (2022). Emissions of Materials Benchmark Assessment for Residential Construction Report. Passive Buildings Canada and Builders for Climate Action.

Malhotra, A., & Schmidt, T. S. (2020). Accelerating Low-Carbon Innovation. Joule, 4(11), 2259–2267. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.09.004 

Mályusz, L., & Pém, A. (2013). Prediction of the learning curve in roof insulation. Automation in Construction, 36, 191–195. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.04.004 

Mapping energy efficiency: A global dataset on building code effectiveness and compliance: Country profiles. (n.d.). [Dataset]. The World Bank. Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/buildinggreen/doc/building_green_country_profile.pdf 

Maskell, D., Da Silva, C., Mower, K., Rana, C., Dengel, A., Ball, R., Ansell, M., Walker, P., & Shea, A. (2015, June 22). Properties of bio-based insulation materials and their potential impact on indoor air quality. First International Conference on Bio-based Building Materials, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

McGrath et al. (2023). Embodied Carbon and Material Health in Insulation. Healthy Building Network, Perkins&Will. Link to source: https://habitablefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/96-Carbon-Health-Insulation.pdf 

Naldzhiev, D., Mumovic, D., & Strlic, M. (2020). Polyurethane insulation and household products – A systematic review of their impact on indoor environmental quality. Building and Environment, 169, 106559. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106559 

Northeast Bio-based Materials Collective 2023 summit proceedings. (2023). Link to source: https://massdesigngroup.org/sites/default/files/file/2024/Northeast%20Bio-Based%20Materials%20Collective%202023%20Summit%20Proceedings.pdf 

Petcu et al. (2023). Research on Thermal Insulation Performance and Impact on Indoor Air Quality of Cellulose-Based Thermal Insulation Materials. Materials, 16(15), Article 15. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16155458 

Rabbat, C., Awad, S., Villot, A., Rollet, D., & Andrès, Y. (2022). Sustainability of biomass-based insulation materials in buildings: Current status in France, end-of-life projections and energy recovery potentials. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 156, 111962. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111962 

Riverse. (2024, August). Methodology: Biobased construction materials. Link to source: https://www.riverse.io/methodologies/biobased-construction-materials 

RSMeans, & The Gordian Group. (2023, September). Installed cost of residential siding comparative study – September 2023 [Report]. The Brick Industry Association. Link to source: https://www.gobrick.com/content/userfiles/files/RSMeans%20Residential%20Siding%20Comparative%20Cost%20Wall%20System%20Study%20Final%202023-09-15.pdf

SaravanaPrabhu et al. (2021). Comparative Analysis of Learning Curve Models on Construction Productivity of Diaphragm Wall and Pile. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1197(1), 012004. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012004 

Schiavoni, S., D׳Alessandro, F., Bianchi, F., & Asdrubali, F. (2016). Insulation materials for the building sector: A review and comparative analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 988–1011. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.045 

Schulte, M., Lewandowski, I., Pude, R., & Wagner, M. (2021). Comparative life cycle assessment of bio-based insulation materials: Environmental and economic performances. GCB Bioenergy, 13(6), 979–998. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12825 

Stamm et al. (2022). Chemical and Environmental Justice Impacts in the Life Cycle of Building Insulation. Energy Efficiency for All, Healthy Building Network. Link to source: https://informed.habitablefuture.org/resources/research/20-chemical-and-environmental-justice-impacts-in-the-life-cycle-of-building-insulation-report-brief 

Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance. (2024, March). The use of natural insulation materials in retrofit. Link to source: https://stbauk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/The-use-of-natural-insulation-materials-in-retrofit.pdf 

The World Bank. (n.d.). Mapping Energy Efficiency: A Global Dataset on Building Code Effectiveness and Compliance. Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/buildinggreen/doc/building_green_main_findings.pdf 

Types of insulation. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Energy. Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/types-insulation 

Waldman et al. (2023). 2023 Carbon Leadership Forum North American Material Baselines. Carbon Leadership Forum, University of Washington. Link to source: https://carbonleadershipforum.org/clf-material-baselines-2023/ 

Wang et al. (2023). Can Paper Waste Be Utilised as an Insulation Material in Response to the Current Crisis. Sustainability, 15(22), Article 22. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215939 

Wi, S., Kang, Y., Yang, S., Kim, Y. U., & Kim, S. (2021). Hazard evaluation of indoor environment based on long-term pollutant emission characteristics of building insulation materials: An empirical study. Environmental Pollution, 285, 117223. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117223 

Wilson. (2021). The BuildingGreen Guide to Thermal Insulation: What You Need to Know About Performance, Health, and Environmental Considerations. BuildingGreen, Inc.

Zabalza Bribián, I., Valero Capilla, A., & Aranda Usón, A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 46(5), 1133–1140. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Sarah Gleeson, 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

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

To insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W using entirely cellulose insulation in place of the current baseline mix of insulation materials is expected to avoid 1.59 t CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Table 1). Since many of the avoided emissions are F-gases, the 20-yr effectiveness is higher, avoiding 4.07 t CO₂‑eq per unit of insulation. Effectiveness for this solution measures the one-time reduced emissions from manufacturing and installing insulation. Insulation also reduces the energy used while a building is operating, but those emissions are addressed separately in the Improve Building Envelopes solution. 

Conventional insulation effectiveness was considered to be a weighted average effectiveness of the current baseline insulation mix, including a small amount of cellulose insulation currently in use.

The largest contributor to conventional insulation embodied emissions is using high-GWP blowing agents to manufacture or install XPS, PUR, or PIR foam. We assumed the use of F-gas blowing agents for all foams, although these are already being regulated out of use globally (Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, 2016) and an unknown amount of low-GWP blowing agents are currently used (such as hydrocarbons or CO₂). Therefore, we anticipate the effectiveness of this solution will decrease as F-gases are used less in the future. We assumed that 100% of blowing agents are emitted over the product lifetime.

Cellulose has the greatest avoided emissions of all of the alternative materials we evaluated (Figure 1). The next most effective materials were recycled PET, wood fibers, and sheep’s wool. Conventional materials like XPS, PUR, and PIR that are foamed with F-gases had the highest GHG emissions. For bio-based materials, we did not consider biogenic carbon as a source of carbon sequestration due to quantification and permanence concerns. 

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /insulation required to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 0.98
mean 1.34
median (50th percentile) 1.59
75th percentile 1.81
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Available cost data are variable for all materials, particularly those in early-stage commercialization. The mean cost of purchasing and installing cellulose insulation is less than that of any other conventional or alternative insulation material (Figure 1). Compared with the average cost of conventional insulation, the mean cost savings for cellulose insulation is US$193/100 m² insulated to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W. Since most buildings are insulated over greater areas to higher thermal resistances, these savings would quickly add up. When considering the mean cost per median climate impact, cellulose insulation saves US$121/t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis), making it an economically and environmentally beneficial alternative (Table 2).

We considered conventional insulation cost to be a weighted average cost of the current baseline insulation mix, including a small amount of cellulose insulation currently in use.

For conventional insulation, material costs of purchasing the insulation are higher than costs for installation (US$540 and US$97, respectively, to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W). Cellulose has a lower product cost and comparable installation costs to conventional materials. We considered all costs to be up front and not spread over the lifetime of the material or building. For each material type, cost will vary based on the form of the insulation (board, loose, etc.), and this should be accounted for when comparing insulation options for a particular building. 

We determined net costs of insulation materials by adding the mean cost to purchase the product and the best estimation of installation costs based on available information. Installation costs were challenging to find data on and therefore represent broad assumptions of installation type and labor. Cost savings were determined by subtracting the weighted average net cost of conventional materials to the net cost of an alternative material. Although we used median values for other sections of this assessment, the spread of data was large for product cost estimates and the mean value was more appropriate in the expert judgment of our reviewers. 

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

estimate -121
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Little information is available about the learning rate for new insulation materials. Mályusz and Pém (2013) evaluated how labor time decreased with repetitive cycles for installing roof insulation. They found a learning rate of ~90%, but only for this specific insulation scenario, location, and material. Additionally, this study does not include any product or manufacturing costs that may decrease with scale.

In general, labor time for construction projects decreases with repetitive installation, including improved equipment and techniques and increased construction crew familiarity with the process (SaravanaPrabhu & Vidjeapriya, 2021). However, Malhotra and Schmidt (2020) classify building envelope retrofits as technologies that are highly customized based on user requirements, regulations, physical conditions, and building designs, likely leading to learning rates that are slow globally but where local expertise could reduce installation costs.

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 Alternative Insulation Materials 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

Manufacturing and installation emissions reductions due to the use of alternative building thermal insulation materials are both permanent and additional. 

Permanence: There is a low risk of the emissions reductions for this solution being reversed. By using cellulose insulation instead of inorganic or plastic-based insulation, a portion of the manufacturing and installation emissions are never generated in the first place, making this a permanent reduction. Emissions from high-temperature manufacturing, petroleum extraction, and blowing agent use are all reduced through this approach.

Additionality: The GHG emissions reductions from alternative insulation materials are additional because they are calculated here relative to a baseline insulation case. This includes a small amount of cellulose materials included in baseline building insulation. Therefore, avoided emissions represent an improvement of the current emissions baseline that would have occurred in the absence of this solution. 

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Adoption data are extremely limited for alternative insulation materials. All adoption data and estimates are assumed to apply to both residential and commercial buildings, although in reality the uptake of alternative insulation materials will vary by building type due to differences in structures, climate, use type, and regulations. We assume that future uptake of alternative insulation is used only during retrofit or new construction, or when existing insulation is at the end of its functional lifetime.

European sources report that 2–13% of the insulation market is alternative materials. Depending on the source, this could include renewable materials, bio-based insulation, or recycled materials. In 2018 in the United States, 5% of total insulation area in new single-family homes was insulated with cellulose (Insulation Choices Revealed in New Study, 2019).

To convert estimated cellulose adoption percentage into annual insulation use, we estimated 26 Mt of all installed global insulation materials in 2023 based on a report from The Freedonia Group (2024). We calculated an annual use of approximately 1.7 billion insulation units of 100 m² at a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W. Therefore, the median cellulose adoption is 14 million units/yr at 100 m² at 1 m²·K/W, calculated from the median of the 2–13% adoption range. 

Since this calculation is based on more alternative materials than just cellulose and is heavily reliant on European data where we assume adoption is higher, this estimate of current adoption (Table 3) is most likely an overestimate.

The little adoption data that were considered in this section are mostly for Europe, and some for the United States. 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

Table 3. Current (2017–2022) adoption level.

Unit: units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

25th percentile 9000000
mean 13000000
median (50th percentile) 14000000
75th percentile 17000000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Very few data are available that quantify adoption trends. In a regional study of several bio-based insulation materials, Rabbat et al. (2022) estimated French market annual growth rates of 4–10%, with cellulose estimated at 10%. Petcu et al. (2023) estimated the European adoption of recycled plastic and textile insulation, biomass fiber insulation, and waste-based insulation to have increased from 6% to 10% between 2012 and 2020.

When accounting for the calculated current adoption, these growth rates mean a median estimated annual increase of 500,000 insulation units/yr required to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W. The increasing adoption of bio-based insulation decreases the use of conventional insulation materials in those regions.

This adoption trend (Table 4) is likely an overestimate, as it is biased by high European market numbers and based on the likely high estimate we made for current adoption. 

left_text_column_width

Table 4. 2012–2020 adoption trend.

Unit: annual change in units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

25th percentile 500000
mean 800000
median (50th percentile) 500000
75th percentile 1300000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

No estimates have been found for the adoption ceiling of this solution, although we expect it to be high given low rates of current adoption and projected increases in building construction in the coming decades (International Energy Agency [IEA], International Renewable Energy Agency, & United Nations Climate Change High-Level Champions, 2023). Two physical factors that could influence adoption are availability of alternative materials and thickness of insulation.

For cellulose insulation, availability does not seem to limit adoption. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2023) reports that there is a much higher annual production of cellulose-based materials (>300 Mt annually of cartonboard, newsprint, and recycled paper) than the overall demand for insulation globally (>25 Mt annual demand; Global Insulation Report, 2024). However, other uses for cellulose products may create competition for this supply.

Increased thickness of insulation could also be a limiting factor because this would reduce adoption by decreasing building square footage, in particular making retrofits more challenging and expensive. Deer et al. (2007) reported that the average cellulose thermal resistance is similar to mineral and glass wool, and lower than plastic insulations made of polystyrene and other foams. If we assume that 50% of plastic insulation cannot be replaced with cellulose due to thickness limitations, this would represent ~20% of current insulation that could not be replaced without structural changes to the building. Therefore, we calculated the adoption ceiling to be 80% of the current insulation that would be reasonably replaceable, or 140 million units/yr required to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W (Table 5).

Uptake of cellulose insulation could also be limited by its susceptibility to absorbing moisture, limiting its use in wet climates or structures that retain moisture, such as flat roofs. Commercialization of alternative insulation materials beyond cellulose and in many different forms (e.g., board, loose-fill) will increase the adoption ceiling across more building types.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

25th percentile N/A
mean N/A
estimate 140000000
75th percentile N/A
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We found no estimates for feasible global adoption of this solution. Rabbat et al. (2022) estimated the adoption levels of several bio-based insulation materials in France in 2050. For cellulose wadding, this was estimated to be 2.1 times the commercialized volume in France in 2020. Although we do not expect France to be representative of the rest of the world, if the predicted adoption trend holds across the world then we expect low adoption in 2050 to be 2.1 times greater than 2023 adoption. This is 29 million units/yr to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W (Table 6).

The IEA (2023) claims that building envelopes need to have their retrofit rate increase by 2.5 times over the current rate in order to meet net zero targets (2023). This is a reasonable high-adoption scenario. Assuming that more retrofits of buildings occur and greater amounts of alternative insulation are installed in new buildings, we estimate that high future adoption of new insulation could occur at 2.5 times the rate of the low-adoption scenario. This is 73 million units/yr to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W (Table 6).

Adoption will be facilitated or limited by local regulations around the world. Building codes will determine the location and extent of use of cellulose or other bio-based insulation. We expect uptake to be different between residential and commercial buildings, but due to insufficient data, we have grouped them in our adoption estimates.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

Current Adoption 14000000
Achievable – Low 29000000
Achievable – High 73000000
Adoption Ceiling 140000000
Left Text Column Width

The climate impacts for this solution are modest compared to current global GHG emissions. Not all conventional insulations have a high environmental impact due to the use of a wide range of materials, forms, and installation methods as well as the recent adoption of lower-GWP blowing agents. Therefore, the potential for further emissions savings is limited.

We quantified the effectiveness and adoption of cellulose insulation, which has the lowest emissions and, therefore, the highest climate impacts of the insulation materials we evaluated. With high adoption, 1.2 Gt CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis could be avoided over the next decade (Table 7).

While we only considered the adoption of cellulose insulation in this analysis, a realistic future for lowering the climate impact of insulation may include other bio-based materials, too. Utilizing a greater range of materials should increase adoption and climate impact due to more available forms, sources, and thermal resistance values of bio-based insulation.

Note that we calculated the current climate impact using a current materials baseline that includes a small fraction of cellulose. This means that the reported current adoption impact is a slight underestimate compared with the impacts for replacing entirely conventional insulation with the current amount of cellulose insulation in use.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.022
Achievable – High 0.046
Achievable – Low 0.12
Achievable Ceiling 0.22
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Some alternative insulations can be cheaper than conventional materials. Although there is large variation in evaluation methods and reported costs, our analysis found that cellulose and plant fibers are cheaper than conventional insulation materials such as stone wool, glass wool, and EPS (Figure 1). Depending on the applicable climate conditions and insulation form, switching to alternative insulation materials can result in cost savings for consumers, including homeowners and business owners.

Health

Conventional insulation materials may contribute to poor indoor air quality, especially during installation, and contribute to eye, skin, and lung irritation (Naldzhiev et al., 2020; Stamm et al., 2022; Wi et al., 2021). Additionally, off-gassing of flame retardants and other volatile organic compounds and by-products of conventional insulation can occur shortly after installation (Naldzhiev et al., 2020). Using bio-based alternative insulation products can minimize the health risks during and after installation (McGrath et al., 2023).

Water Resources

Although there is not a scientifically consistent approach to compare the environmental impacts of conventional and alternative insulation materials, a review analysis of 47 studies on insulation concluded that bio-based insulation materials generally have lower impacts as measured through acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical ozone creation potentials than do conventional materials (Füchsl et al., 2022). Other alternative materials such as wood fiber and miscanthus also tend to have a lower environmental footprint (Schulte et al., 2021). The water demand for wood and cellulose is significantly lower than that for EPS (about 2.8 and 20.8 l/kg respectively compared with 192.7 l/kg for EPS) (Zabalza Bribián et al., 2011). While the limited evidence suggests that the alternative material tends to be better environmentally, there is an urgent need to conduct life cycle assessments using a consistent approach to estimate the impact of these materials.

left_text_column_width
Risks

Cellulose insulation is susceptible to water absorption, which can lead to mold growth in wet or humid environments (Andersen & Rasmussen, 2025; Petcu et al., 2023). Reducing this risk either requires an antifungal treatment for the material or limits adoption to particular climates. The thermal performance of cellulose insulation can decrease over time due to water absorption, settling, or temperature changes, but installing it as dense-packed or damp-spray can alleviate this problem (Wang & Wang, 2023; Wilson, 2021).

Bio-based insulation materials tend to be combustible, meaning they contribute more to the spread of a fire than non-combustible stone or glass insulation. Some bio-based materials are classified as having minimal contribution to a fire, such as some cellulose forms, rice husk, and flax (Kumar et al., 2020). These materials are less likely to contribute to a fire than very combustible plastic insulation such as EPS, XPS, and PUR. Fire codes – as well as other building and energy codes – could limit adoption, risking a lack of solution uptake due to regulatory setbacks (Northeast Bio-Based Materials Collective 2023 Summit Proceedings, 2023). 

Additives such as fire retardants and anti-fungal agents are added to bio-based insulation along with synthetic binders, which can lead to indoor air pollution from organic compounds, although likely in low concentrations (Maskell et al., 2015; Rabbat et al., 2022).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Upgrading insulation to lower-cost and lower-emitting alternative materials should increase the adoption of other building envelope solutions as they can be installed simultaneously to optimize cost and performance. 

left_text_column_width

Increasing the manufacturing of cellulose insulation, which contains large amounts of recycled paper, could increase the revenues for paper recycling.

left_text_column_width

Competing

The use of biomass as raw material for insulation will reduce the availability and increase the cost of using it for other applications. For cellulose, global production of cellulose materials (>300 Mt annually of cartonboard, newsprint, and recycled paper (Forestry Production and Trade, 2023) is an order of magnitude higher than the demand for insulation materials (>25 Mt annual demand (The Freedonia Group, 2024), so the overall impact should be small.

left_text_column_width

Reducing the demand for conventional insulation products and instead making insulation that produces fewer GHGs during manufacturing would slightly reduce the global climate impact of other industrial manufacturing solutions. This is because less energy overall would be used for manufacturing, and therefore other technologies for emissions reductions would be less impactful for insulation production.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

insulation units of 100 m² and 1 m²·K/W

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
00.981.59
units/yr
Current 1.4×10⁷ 02.9×10⁷7.3×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.022 0.0460.12
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-121
Emergency Brake

CO₂, F-gas

Trade-offs

Bio-based insulation materials including cellulose often have lower thermal resistance than some conventional insulation materials. In particular, bio-based materials may require a thicker layer than plastic insulation to reach the same insulating performance (Esau et al., 2021; Rabbat et al., 2022). Usable floor area within a building would need to be sacrificed to accommodate thicker insulation, which would potentially depreciate the structure or impact the aesthetic value (Jelle, 2011). This would be a more significant trade-off for retrofit construction and buildings in densely developed urban areas.

Sourcing bio-based materials has environmental trade-offs that come from cultivating biomass, such as increased land use, fertilizer production, and pesticide application (Schulte et al., 2021). Using waste or recycled materials could minimize these impacts. Binders and flame-retardants may also be required in the final product, leading to more processing and material use (Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance, 2024).

left_text_column_width
Maps Introduction

The effectiveness of deploying alternative insulation is not inherently dependent on geographic factors since it addresses emissions embodied in the manufacture and deployment of insulation materials. However, due to a lack of related data, we assumed a consistent global breakdown of currently used insulation materials when in reality, the exact mix of insulation currently used in different geographic locations will affect the emissions impact of switching to alternative materials.

Building insulation is used in higher quantities in cold or hot climates, so deploying alternative insulation is more likely to be relevant and adopted in such climates. Other geographic factors also impact adoption: Areas with higher rates of new construction will be better able to design for cellulose or other alternative insulation materials, and drier climates will face a lower risk of mold growth on these materials. Local building codes, including fire codes, can also affect the adoption of alternative materials.

There are no maps for the Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials solution. It is intended to address emissions embodied in the manufacture and deployment of insulation materials and has no intrinsic dependence on geographic factors.

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Alternative Insulation Materials
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Enact comprehensive policy plans that utilize all levers, including financial incentives, improved building and fire code regulations, and educational programs to advance the transition to alternative insulation.
  • Create government procurement policies that become stricter over time and mandate the use of alternative insulation or implement GWP limits in government buildings.
  • Update insulation installation regulations to encourage more sustainable practices and materials.
  • Offer financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for manufacturers, start-ups, and alternative insulation installers.
  • Remove financial and regulatory incentives for conventional insulation.
  • Create and enforce embodied carbon disclosure requirements for new commercial construction.
  • Create energy efficiency standards that periodically increase for insulation materials and buildings.
  • Regulate demolition of old buildings to require proper disposal of conventional insulation to ensure emissions are avoided and gases are destroyed.
  • Create reference standards for the performance and properties of alternative insulation materials.
  • Invest in R&D to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Create green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings, environmental benefits, and health benefits of alternative insulation.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Finance or develop only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for installing alternative insulation.
  • Seek or negotiate preferential loan agreements for developers utilizing alternative insulation and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Whenever possible, install insulation that does not use F-gas blowing agents.
  • During demolition, ensure proper disposal of conventional insulation to avoid emissions and destroy residual F-gases.
  • Integrate alternative insulation materials into construction databases, listing prices, and environmental benefits.
  • Enact company policies that disclose embodied carbon of commercial construction.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods from suppliers.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Utilize educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds.
  • Conduct research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Expand product lines to include alternative insulation materials.
  • Integrate alternative insulation materials into construction databases, listing prices and environmental benefits.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods.
  • Invest in R&D to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.
  • Create long-term purchasing agreements with alternative insulation manufacturers to support stable demand and improve economies of scale.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Conduct research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create, join, or administer green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Investors
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Invest in R&D and start-ups to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Issue green bonds to invest in projects that use alternative insulation.
  • Offer preferential loan agreements for developers utilizing alternative insulation and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods.
  • Join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Offer grants for developers utilizing alternative insulation and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Create financing programs for private construction in low-income or under-resourced communities.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Fund research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Conduct research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer or amplify educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create, join, or administer green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop and improve existing alternative insulation materials or innovate new materials with enhanced insulation performance.
  • Investigate ways to increase the durability of alternative insulation, such as resistance to moisture, pests, and fire.
  • Find uses for recycled materials in alternative insulation and ways to improve the circular economy.
  • Innovate new manufacturing methods that reduce electricity use and emissions.
  • Design new application systems for alternative insulation that can be done without much additional training or licensing/certification.
  • Create new methods of disposal for conventional insulation during demolitions.
  • Research adoption rates of alternative insulation materials across regions and environments.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Finance or develop only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for installing alternative insulation.
  • Whenever possible, install insulation that does not use F-gas blowing agents.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Conduct local research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Organize local “green home tours” and open houses to showcase climate-friendly builds and foster demand by highlighting cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.
  • Capture community feedback and share it with local policymakers to address barriers such as permitting logistics or upfront costs, helping to share policies that drive adoption.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing building sector emissions: Mixed

There is scientific consensus that using building insulation with lower embodied emissions will reduce GHG emissions, but expert opinions about the magnitude of possible emissions reductions as well as the accuracy of determining these reductions are mixed. 

Biswas et al. (2016) determined that, for insulation, avoided emissions from reduced heating and cooling energy tend to outweigh the embodied emissions. However, others emphasize that as buildings become more energy-efficient, material embodied emissions become a larger factor in their carbon footprint (Cabeza et al., 2021; Grazieschi et al., 2021). Embodied emissions from insulation can be substantial: Esau et al. (2021) analyzed a mixed-use multifamily building and found that selecting low-embodied-carbon insulation could reduce building embodied emissions by 16% at no cost premium.

Multiple studies have found that some sustainable insulation materials have lower manufacturing emissions than traditional insulation materials (Asdrubali et al., 2015; Füchsl et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2020; Schiavoni et al., 2016). However, researchers have highlighted the difficulty in evaluating environmental performance of different insulation materials (Cabeza et al., 2021; Grazieschi et al., 2021). Gelowitz and McArthur (2017) found that construction product Environmental Product Declarations contain many errors and discrepancies due to self-contradictory or missing data. Füschl et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis and cautioned that “it does not appear that a definitive ranking [of insulation materials] can be drawn from the literature.” In our analysis, we attempted to compare climate impact between materials, but we acknowledge that this can come from flawed and inconsistent data.

Despite the difficulties in comparing materials, there is high consensus that cellulose is a strong low-emissions insulation option due to its low embodied carbon, high recycled content, and good thermal insulating performance (Wilson, 2021).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from four reviews and meta-analyses, 14 original studies, three reports, 27 Environmental Product Declarations, and two commercial websites reflecting current evidence from eight countries as well as data representing global, North American, or European insulation materials. 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

Improve Landfill Management

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Cut Fugitive Emissions
Image
Methane tap valve from a landfill
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Landfill management is the process of reducing methane emissions from landfill gas (LFG). As bacteria break down organic waste in an environment without oxygen, they produce methane and release it into the atmosphere if there are no controls in place. This solution focuses on two methane abatement strategies: 1) methane capture/use/destruction and 2) biocovers. When methane is used or destroyed it is converted into CO₂ (Garland et al., 2023).

Income & work,Health,Equality
Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Improve Landfill Management is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It focuses on two strategies for abating methane from landfill gas: methane capture and biocovers.
Overview

Landfill management relies on several practices and technologies that prevent methane from being released into the atmosphere. When organic material is broken down, it creates LFG, which usually is half methane and half CO₂, and water vapor (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2024a). Methane that is directly released into the atmosphere has a GWP of 81 over a 20-yr basis and a GWP of 28 over a 100-yr basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2023). This means methane is 81 times more effective at trapping heat than CO₂. Because methane is a short-lived climate pollutant that has a much stronger warming effect than CO₂ over a given time period, abating methane will have a relatively large near-term impact on slowing global climate change (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2023). LFG contains trace amounts of oxygen, nitrogen, sulfides, hydrogen, and other organic compounds that can negatively affect nearby environments with odors, acid rain, and smog (New York State Government, 2024).

Methods for reducing methane emissions can be put into two broad strategies, with Figure 1 illustrating in which parts of a landfill the strategies can be used (Garland et al., 2023):

GCCS and methane capture utilizes pipes to route LFG to be used as an energy source or to flare. The gas can be used on-site for landfill equipment or refined into biomethane and sold; unrefined LFG can also be sold to local utilities or industries for their own use. In areas where electricity generation is carbon intensive, the LFG can help to reduce local emissions by displacing fossil fuels. Methane that cannot be used for energy is burned in a flare during system downtime or at the end of the landfill life, when LFG production has decreased and collecting it no longer makes economic sense. High-efficiency (enclosed) flares have a 99% methane destruction rate. Open flares can be used but research from Plant et al. (2022) has found that the methane destruction rate in practice is much lower than the 90% value the EPA assumes. 

Biocovers are a type of landfill cover designed to promote bacteria that convert methane to CO₂ and water. Biocovers have an organic layer that provides an environment for the bacteria to grow and a gas distribution layer to separate the landfill waste from the organic layer. Non-biocover landfill covers – made with impermeable material like clay or synthetic materials – can also be used to prevent methane from being released. The methane oxidation from these covers will be minimal – they mostly serve to limit LFG from escaping – but they can then be used in conjunction with GCCS to improve gas collection. Landfills also use daily and interim landfill covers. It is important to note that studies on biocover abatement potential and cost are limited and biocovers may not be appropriate for all situations.

Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) involves regularly monitoring for methane leaks and modifying or replacing leaking equipment. LDAR does not directly reduce emissions but is used to determine where to apply the above technology and practices and is considered a critical part of methane abatement strategies. Methane can be monitored through satellites, drones, continuous sensors, or on-site walking surveys (Carbon Mapper, 2024). LDAR is an important step in identifying where methane escapes from the gas collection infrastructure or landfill cover. Quick repairs help reduce GHG emissions while allowing more methane to be used for energy or fuel. The Appendix shows where methane can escape from landfills.

Figure 1. Areas where different on-site landfill methane abatement strategies can take place. Source: Garland et al., (2023)

Landfill Methane: Key Problems and Solutions diagram

Source: Garland E., Alves O., Frankiewicz T., & Ayandele E. (2023). Mitigating landfill methane. RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/landfill_monitoring_memo_series.pdf 

Abichou, T. (2020). Using methane biological oxidation to partially finance sustainable waste management systems and closure of dumpsites in the Southern Mediterranean region. Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-020-00157-z 

Auth, K., & Kincer, J. (2022). Untangling ‘stranded assets’ and ‘carbon lock-in.’ Energy for Growth Hub. Link to source: https://energyforgrowth.org/article/untangling-stranded-assets-and-carbon-lock-in/ 

Ayandele, E., Bodas, J., Gautam, S., & Velijala, V. (2024c). Sustainable organic waste management: A playbook for Lucknow, India. RMI. Link to source: https://www.teriin.org/policy-brief/sustainable-organic-waste-management-playbook-lucknow-india 

Ayandele, E., Bodas, J., Krishnakumar, A., & Orakwe, L. (2024b). Mitigating methane emissions from municipal solid waste: A playbook for Lagos, Nigeria. RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/insight/waste-methaneassessment-platform/

Ayandele, E., Frankiewicz, T., & Garland, E. (2024a). Deploying advanced monitoring technologies at US landfills. RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/03/wasteMAP_united_states_playbook.pdf

Ayandele, E., Frankiewicz, T., & Wu, Y. (2024d). A playbook for municipal solid waste methane mitigation. RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/03/wastemap_global_strategy_playbook.pdf

Barton, D. (2020). Fourth five-year review report for Fresno municipal sanitary landfill superfund site Fresno county, California. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Link to source: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/100021516.pdf 

Brender, J. D., Maantay, J. A., Chakraborty, J. (2011). Residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 101(S1). Link to source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3222489/pdf/S37.pdf 

Cai, B., Lou, Z., Wang, J., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., Liu, J., & Gao, Q. (2018). CH4 mitigation potentials from China landfills and related environmental co-benefits. Science Advances, 4(7). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8400 

Carbon Mapper (2024, March 28). Study finds landfill point source emissions have an outsized impact and opportunity to tackle U.S. waste methane. Link to source: https://carbonmapper.org/articles/studyfinds-landfill 

Casey, J. A., Cushing, L., Depsky, N., & Morello-Frosch, R. (2021). Climate justice and California's methane superemitters: Environmental equity assessment of community proximity and exposure intensity. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(21), 14746-14757. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04328 

City of Saskatoon. (2023). Landfill gas collection & power generation system. Retrieved September 2, 2024. Link to source: https://www.saskatoon.ca/services-residents/power-water-sewer/saskatoon-light-power/sustainable-electricity/landfill-gas-collection-power-generation-system 

DeFabrizio, S., Glazener, W., Hart, C., Henderson, K., Kar, J., Katz, J., Pratt, M. P., Rogers, M., Ulanov, A., & Tryggestad, C. (2021). Curbing methane emissions: How five industries can counter a major climate threat. McKinsey Sustainability. Link to source: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/sustainability/our%20insights/curbing%20methane%20emissions%20how%20five%20industries%20can%20counter%20a%20major%20climate%20threat/curbing-methane-emissions-how-five-industries-can-counter-a-major-climate-threat-v4.pdf 

Dobson, S., Goodday, V., & Winter, J. (2023). If it matters, measure it: A review of methane sources and mitigation policy in Canada. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 16(3-4), 309–429. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000146

Fries, J. (2020, March 26). Unique landfill gas solution found. Penticton Herald. Link to source: https://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/article_874b5c9c-6fb5-11ea-87ce-2b2aedf77300.html 

Garland E., Alves O., Frankiewicz T., & Ayandele E. (2023). Mitigating landfill methane. RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/landfill_monitoring_memo_series.pdf 

Global Climate & Health Alliance. (2024). Methane & health. Retrieved September 24, 2024. Link to source: https://climateandhealthalliance.org/initiatives/methane-health/ 

Global Methane Initiative. (2022). Policy maker’s handbook for measurement, reporting, and verification in the biogas sector. Link to source: https://www.globalmethane.org/resources/details.aspx?resourceid=5182

Global Methane Initiative (2024). 2023 accomplishments in methane mitigation, recovery, and use through U.S.-supported international efforts. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/gmi/us-government-global-methane-initiative-accomplishments 

Global Methane Pledge (2023). Lowering organic waste methane initiative (LOW-Methane). Retrieved March 6, 2025. Link to source: https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/news/lowering-organic-waste-methane-initiative-low-methane 

Gómez-Sanabria, A., & Höglund-Isaksson, L. (2024). A comprehensive model for promoting effective decision-making and sustained climate change stabilization for South Africa. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Link to source: https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/19897/1/Final_Report_SAFR.pdf

Government of Canada. (2024). Canada gazette, part I, volume 158, number 26: Regulations respecting the reduction in the release of methane (waste sector). Retrieved September 2, 2024. Link to source: https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2024/2024-06-29/html/reg5-eng.html 

Industrious Labs. (2024a). The hidden cost of landfills. Link to source: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/xdjws328/production/657706be7f29a20fe54692a03dbedce8809721e8.pdf 

Industrious Labs. (2024b). Turning down the heat: How the U.S. EPA can fight climate change by cutting landfill emissions. Link to source: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/xdjws328/production/b562620948374268b8c6da61ec1c44960a8d5879.pdf 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Sixth assessment report (AR6).Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ 

International Energy Agency. (2021). Global methane tracker 2021: Methane abatement and regulation. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2021/methane-abatement-and-regulation 

International Energy Agency. (2023). Net zero roadmap: A global pathway to keep the 1.5℃ goal in reach - 2023 update. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the-15-0c-goal-in-reach 

International Energy Agency. (2025). Methane tracker: Data tools. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker 

IPCC (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories volume 5 waste. Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.html   

Krause, M. Kenny, S., Stephensons, J. & Singleton, A (2023). Food waste management: Quantifying methane emissions from landfilled food waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/food-waste-landfill-methane-10-8-23-final_508-compliant.pdf

Malley, C. S., Borgford-Parnell, N. Haeussling, S., Howard, L. C., Lefèvre E. N., & Kuylenstierna J. C. I. (2023). A roadmap to achieve the global methane pledge. Environmental Research: Climate, 2(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/acb4b4 

Martin Charlton Communications. (2020). Features: Landfill biocovers. APEGS. Link to source: https://www.apegs.ca/features-landfill-biocovers 

Martuzzi, M., Mitis, F., & Forastiere, F. (2010). Inequalities, inequities, environmental justice in waste management and health. European Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 21-26. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp216 

MethaneSAT. (n.d.). Solving a crucial climate challenge. Retrieved September 2, 2024. Link to source: https://www.methanesat.org/satellite/ 

Nesser, H., Jacob, D. J., Maasakkers, J. D., Lorente, A., Chen, Z., Lu, X., Shen, L., Qu, Z., Sulprizio, M. P., Winter, M., Ma, S., Bloom, A. A., Worden, J. R., Stavins, R. N., & Randles, C. A. . (2024). High-resolution US methane emissions inferred from an inversion of 2019 TROPOMI satellite data: Contributions from individual states, urban areas, and landfills. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 24, 5069–5091 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5069-2024 

New York State Government. (2024). Important things to know about landfill gas. Retrieved September 3, 2024. Link to source: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/landfill_gas.htm 

Nisbet, E. G., Fisher, R. E., Lowry, D., France, J. L., Allen, G., Bakkaloglu, S., Broderick, T. J., Cain, M., Coleman, M., Fernandez, J., Forster, G., Griffiths, P. T., Iverach, C. P., Kelly, B. F. J., Manning, M. R., Nisbet-Jones, P. B. R., Pyle, J. A., Townsend-Small, A., al-Shalaan, A., Warwick, N., & Zazeri, G. (2020). Methane mitigation: Methods to reduce emissions,on the path to the Paris agreement. Review of Geophysics, 58(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000675 

Ocko, I. B., Sun, T., Shindell, D., Oppenheimer, M. Hristov, A. N., Pacala, S. W., Mauzerall, D. L., Xu, Y. & Hamburg, S. P. (2021). Acting rapidly to deploy readily available methane mitigation measures by sector can immediately slow global warming. Environmental Research, 16(5). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf9c8 

Olaguer, E. P. (2021). The potential ozone impacts of landfills. Atmosphere, 12(7), 877. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12070877 

Plant, G., Kort, E. A., Brandt, A. R., Chen, Y., Fordice, G., Negron, A. M. G., Schwietzke, S., Smith, M., & Zavala-araiza, D. (2022). Estimates of solid waste disposal rates and reduction targets for landfill gas emissions. Science, 377(6614), 1566–1571 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq0385 

Powell J. T., Townsend, T. G., & Zimmerman, J. B. (2015). Estimates of solid waste disposal rates and reduction targets for landfill gas emissions. Nature Climate Change, 6, 162-165 Link to source: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2804

Raniga, K., (2024). Waste Sector: Estimating CH4 Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal Sites [Data set]. WattTime, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from Link to source: https://climatetrace.org

SaveOnEnergy. (2024). Landfills: The truths about trash dumps by the numbers. Retrieved September 2, 2024. Link to source: https://www.saveonenergy.com/resources/landfill-statistics/ 

Scarapelli, T. R., Cusworth, D. H., Duren, R. M., Kim, J., Heckler, J., Asner, G. P., Thoma, E., Krause, M. J., Heins, D., & Thorneloe, S. (2024). Investigating major sources of methane emissions at US landfills. Environmental Science & Technology. 58(29). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c07572

Scharff, H. Soon, H., Taremwa, S. R., Zegers, D., Dick, B., Zanon, T. V. B., & Shamrock, J. (2023). The impact of landfill management approaches on methane emissions. Waste Management & Research. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X231200742 

Scheutz, C., Pedersen, R. B., Petersen, P. H., Jørgensen, J. H. B., Ucendo, I. M. B., Mønster, J. G., Samuelsson, J., Kjeldsen, P. (2014). Mitigation of methane emission from an old unlined landfill in Klintholm, Denmark using a passive biocover system. Waste Management. 34(7), 1179-1190. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.015 

Siddiqua, A., Hahladakis, J.N. & Al-Attiya, W.A.K.A. (2022). An overview of the environmental pollution and health effects associated with waste landfilling and open dumping. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29, 58514–58536 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21578-z 

Sperling Hansen Associates (2020). 7 Mile landfill operational biocover study. Link to source: https://www.rdmw.bc.ca/media/2020%2003%2017%207Mile%20Landfill%20Operational%20Biocover%20Study.pdf 

Stern, J. C., Chanton, J., Ahicou, T., Powelson, D., Yuan, L., Escoriza, S. & Bogner, J.. (2007). Use of a biologically active cover to reduce landfill methane emissions and enhance methane oxidation. Waste Management 27(9), 1248–1258 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.07.018 

Stone, E. (2023, September 7). Landfills: 'Zombie' landfills emit tons of methane decades after shutting down. Here's why that's a big problem. LAist. Link to source: https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/zombie-landfills-emit-tons-of-methane-decades-after-shutting-down-heres-why-thats-a-big-problem 

Sweeptech. (2022). What is a landfill site’s environmental impact?. Retrieved March 7, 2025. Link to source: https://www.sweeptech.co.uk/what-is-a-landfill-site-and-how-does-landfill-impact-the-environment/#:~:text=The%20average%20size%20of%20a,for%20these%20massive%20waste%20dumps. 

Tangri, N. (2010). Respect for recyclers: Protecting the climate through zero waste. Gaia. Link to source: https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Respect-for-Recyclers-English_1.pdf 

Towprayoon, S., Ishigaki, T., Chiemchaisri, C., & Abdel-Aziz, A. O. (2019). Chapter 3: Solid waste disposal. In 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. International Panel on Climate Change. Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/5_Volume5/19R_V5_3_Ch03_SWDS.pdf

Trashcans Unlimited. (2022). Biggest landfill in the world. Retrieved March 7, 2025. Link to source: https://trashcansunlimited.com/blog/biggest-landfill-in-the-world/ 

UN Environment Program. (2021). Global methane assessment: Benefits and costs of mitigating methane emissions. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Global non-CO2 greenhouse gas emission projections & mitigation 2015–2050. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/transitioning-low-gwp-alternatives-residential-and-commercial-air

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024a). Basic information about landfill gas. Retrieved September 2, 2024. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024b). Benefits of landfill gas energy projects. Retrieved September 23, 2024. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/lmop/benefits-landfill-gas-energy-projects 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Accomplishments of the landfill methane outreach program. Retrieved March 5, 2025. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/lmop/accomplishments-landfill-methane-outreach-program 

Van Dingenen, R., Crippa, M., Maenhout, G., Guizzardi, D., & Dentener, F. (2018). Global trends of methane emissions and their impacts on ozone concentrations. European Commission. Link to source: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c40e6fc4-dbf9-11e8-afb3-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

Vasarhelyi, K. (2021, April 15). The hidden damage of landfills. University of Colorado Boulder. Link to source: https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2021/04/15/hidden-damage-landfills#:~:text=The%20average%20landfill%20size%20is,liners%20tend%20to%20have%20leaks 

Waste Today. (2019, June 26). How landfill covers can help improve operations. Retrieved April 13, 2025. Link to source: https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/news/interim-daily-landfill-covers/ 

Zhang, T. (2020, May 8). Landfill earth: A global perspective on the waste problem. Universitat de Barcelona. Link to source: https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/170328/1/Landfill%20Eart.%20A%20Global%20Perspective%20on%20the%20Waste%20Problem.pdf 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Jason Lam

Contributors

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Erika Luna

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

Effectiveness

According to the IPCC, preventing 1 Mt of emitted methane avoids 81.2 Mt CO₂‑eq on a 20-yr basis and 27.9 Mt CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Smith et al., 2021, Table 1). If the methane is burned (converted into CO₂), the contribution to GHG emissions is still less than that of methane released directly into the atmosphere. Methane abatement can immediately limit future global climate change because of methane’s outsized impact on global temperature change, especially when looking at a 20-yr basis.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/Mt of methane abated

100-yr GWP 27,900,000
Left Text Column Width
Cost

To abate 1 Mt of methane, GCCS and methane capture have an initial cost of around US$410 million, an operating cost of roughly US$191 million, and revenue in the neighborhood of US$383 million. The net savings over a 30-yr amortization period is US$179 million. This means capturing and selling landfill methane will be a net economic gain for most landfill operators. We included LDAR operating costs in the overall operating costs for GCCS and methane use/destruction, although LDAR can be used prior to installation or with other strategies such as biocovers. We split the median costs for GCCS and methane use/destruction between 20-yr and 100-yr GWP (Table 2a).

Biocovers have an initial cost to abate 1 Mt of methane around US$380 million, operating costs of roughly US$0.4 million, and revenue of about US$0 million, and an overall net cost over a 30-yr amortization period of US$13 million. This means that using biocovers to abate landfill methane has a net cost. If a carbon credit system is in place, biocovers can recoup the costs or generate profits. Biocovers are reported to have lower installation and operation costs than GCCS because they are simpler to install and maintain, and can be used where local regulations might limit a landfill operator’s ability to capture and use methane (Fries, 2020). Table 2b shows that the median costs for biocovers are split between 20-yr and 100-yr GWP.

We found very limited data for the baseline scenario, which follows current practices without methane abatement. We considered the baseline costs to be zero for initial costs, operational costs, and revenue because landfills without management – such as open landfills or sanitary landfills with no methane controls – release methane as part of their regular operations, do not incur added maintenance or capital costs, and lack any energy savings from capturing and using methane.

Few data were available to characterize the initial costs of implementing landfill methane capture. We referenced reports from Ayandele et al. (2024a), City of Saskatoon (2023), DeFabrizio et al. (2021), and Government of Canada (2024), but the context and underlying assumptions costs were not always clear. 

Landfills are typically 202–243 ha (Sweeptech, 2022); however, the size can vary greatly, with the world’s largest landfill covering 890 ha (Trashcans Unlimited, 2022). Because larger landfills make more methane, facility size helps determine which methane management strategies make the most sense. We assumed the average landfill covered 243 ha when converting costs to our common unit. 

Data on revenues from the sale of collected LFG are also limited. We found some reports of revenue generated at a municipal level or monetized benefits from GHG emission reductions priced according to a social cost of methane or carbon credit system (Abichou, 2020; Government of Canada, 2024). These values may not apply at a global scale, especially when the credits are supported by programs such as the United States’ use of Renewable Identification Numbers.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq

Median (100-yr basis) -6.42
Median (20-yr basis) -2.21

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq

Median (100-yr basis) 0.47
Median (20-yr basis) 0.16
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Landfill GCCSs are mature; we do not foresee declining implementation costs for these solutions due to extensive use of the same installation equipment and materials in other industries and infrastructure. Automation of GCCS settings and monitoring may improve efficiencies, but installation costs will stay largely the same. 

Landfill covers are a mature technology, having been used to control odors, fires, litter, and scavenging since 1935 (Barton, 2020). Biocover landfill cover costs could decrease as recycled organic materials are increasingly used in their construction. It is not clear how the cost of biocovers might decrease as adoption grows. 

Though LDAR might provide gains around efficiencies, little research offers insights here.

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 Landfill Management 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

Approximately 61% of methane generated from food waste happens within 3.6 years of being landfilled (Krause, et al., 2023). In the United States, the EPA requires GCCS to be installed after five years of the landfill closing, meaning that much of the food waste methane will evade GCCS before it is installed (Industrious Labs, 2024b). In contrast, biocovers can quickly (up to three months) reduce methane emissions once the bacteria have established (Stern et al., 2007). GCCS and biocovers should be installed as soon as possible to capture as much of the early methane produced from food waste. Due to unstable methane production during early- and end-of-life gas production, low-calorific flares or biocovers may be needed to destroy any poor-quality gas that has collected. Strategies that prevent organic waste from being deposited at landfills are captured in other Project Drawdown solutions: Deploy Methane Digesters, Increase Composting, and Reduce Food Loss & Waste.

The effectiveness of landfill management depends on methane capture and destruction efficiency. The EPA previously assumed methane capture efficiency to be 75% and then revised it to 65%; however, the actual recovery rate in the United States is closer to 43% (Industrious Labs, 2024b). 

Our assessment does not include the impact of the CO₂ created from the destruction of methane.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

We found little literature quantifying the current adoption of LFG methane abatement. We estimate that methane capture/use/destruction accounts for approximately 1.6 Mt/yr of abated global methane. 

We did not find unaggregated data about current adoption of biocovers or global data for landfill methane abatement that we could use to allocate the contribution to each landfill methane abatement strategy. A large portion of data for current adoption is from sources focused on landfills in the United States. Around 70 Mt of methane is currently being emitted globally from landfills in 2024 (IEA, 2025; Ocko et al., 2021). 

Table 3a shows the statistical ranges among the sources we found for current adoption of methane capture/use/destruction. We were not able to find sources measuring the current adoption of biocovers and the amount of methane abated and therefore report it as not determined (Table 3b)."

The EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program helps reduce methane emissions from U.S. landfills. The program has worked with 535 of more than 3,000 U.S. landfills (EPA, 2024; Vasarhelyi, 2021). Global Methane Initiative (GMI) members abated 4.7 Mt of methane from 2004 to 2023 (GMI, 2024). Because GMI members cover only 70% of human-caused methane emissions overall – including wastewater and agricultural emissions this is an overestimate of current landfill methane abatement. Holley et al. (2024) determined that while some methane abatement was occuring in Mexico, only 0.13 Mt of methane was abated from 2018 to 2020, which is about 12% of Mexico’s 2021 solid waste sector methane emissions. India and Nigeria recently installed some methane capture/use/destruction systems, but these are excluded from our analysis due to unclear data (Ayandele et al., 2024b; Ayandele et al., 2024c). Industrious Labs (2024b) found that GCCS were less common than expected – the EPA assumes a 75% gas recovery rate for well-managed landfills. A study on Maryland landfills found that only half had GCCS in place, with an average collection efficiency of 59% (Industrious Labs, 2024b). 

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2023) adoption level.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 1.26
mean 1.64
median (50th percentile) 1.59
75th percentile 2.00

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile not determined
mean not determined
median (50th percentile) not determined
75th percentile not determined
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Few studies explicitly quantify the adoption of methane abatement technologies over time; we estimated the adoption trend to be 0.22 Mt/yr of methane abated – mainly from methane capture/use/destruction. We were not able to find unaggregated data for the adoption trend of biocovers, so we estimated adoption from EPA (2024), GMI (2024), Industrious Labs (2024b), and Van Dingenen et al. (2018). The EPA (2024) provided adoption data for a limited number of U.S. landfills that showed increasing methane abatement 2000–2013, a plateau 2013–2018, and slower progress 2018–2023 (Figure 2).

left_text_column_width

GMI (2024) show a gradual increase in methane abatement 2011–2022. However, these data do not differentiate landfill methane abatement from other abatement opportunities, and even include wastewater systems and agriculture. When the GMI (2024) data are used to estimate adoption trends, they result in an overestimate. Van Dingenen et al. (2018) attributed a decreasing trend in landfill methane emissions 1990–2012 to landfill regulations implemented in the 1990s. Table 4a shows statistical ranges among the sources we found for the adoption trend of landfill methane strategies. Due to a lack of sources, we assume a zero value for the adoption trend of biocovers (and the amount of methane abated) as shown in Table 4b.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. 2011–2022 adoption trend.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 0.05
mean 0.38
median (50th percentile) 0.22
75th percentile 0.54

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 0
mean 0
median (50th percentile) 0
75th percentile 0
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

GCCS and methane capture have an estimated adoption ceiling of 70 Mt/yr of methane abated based on the IEA’s (2025) estimate for methane emissions from the landfill waste sector. We assumed that current landfill methane emissions would remain the same into the future with no changes in waste produced or waste diversion employed.

Biocovers have an estimated adoption ceiling of 70 Mt/yr of methane based on the IEA’s (2025) estimate for methane emissions from the landfill waste sector. We assumed that current landfill methane emissions would remain the same into the future with no changes in waste produced or waste diversion employed.

The maximum possible abatement of LFG methane critically depends on the efficiency of the abatement technology; Powell et al. (2015) found that closed landfills (those not actively receiving new waste) were 17% more efficient than open landfills. Even so, research from Nesser et al. (2024) found that the gas capture efficiency among United States landfills was significantly lower than EPA assumptions – closer to 50% rather than 75%. Industrious Labs (2024b) found that landfill methane emissions could be reduced by up to 104 Mt of methane 2025–2050. Using biocovers and installing GCCS earlier (with consistent operation standards) may help reduce emissions throughout the landfill’s lifespan. Tables 5a and 5b show the adoption ceiling for GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies, and for biocovers when used separately.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

median (50th percentile) 70

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

median (50th percentile) 70
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The amount of methane that can be abated from landfills is highly uncertain due to the difficulty in quantifying where and how much methane is emitted and how much of those emissions can be abated. 

GCCS and methane capture strategies have an achievable adoption range of 5–35 Mt/yr of methane (Table 6a). These values are aligned with estimates from DeFabrizio et al. (2021) and Scharff et al. (2023) for landfill methane abatement. 

Biocovers have an achievable adoption range of 35–57 Mt/yr of methane (Table 6b). This value is aligned with estimates of biocover gas destruction efficiency from Duan et al. (2022) and Scheutz et al. (2014). 

The use of these methane abatement strategies would still release around 13–65 Mt/yr of methane into the atmosphere (IEA, 2025). The amount of methane abated from both GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies and biocovers will vary with what kind of waste reduction and organic diversion is used (which can increase or decrease depending on the amount of organics sent to landfills). 

We referenced CCAC (2024), EPA (2011), Fries (2020), Industrious Labs (2024b), Lee et al. (2017), and Sperling Hansen (2020) when looking at the achievable adoption for global landfill methane abatement. Several resources focused on landfills in Canada, Denmark, South Korea, and the United States. We based the adoption achievable for biocovers only on sources that include the percentage of gas capture (destruction) efficiency over landfill sites. We exclude studies that include the percentage of biogas oxidized because they focus on specific areas where biocovers were applied. It is important to note that biocovers do not capture methane – they destroy it through methane oxidation. In addition, biocovers’ gas capture efficiency will not reach its optimal rate until the bacteria establishes. It may take up to three months (Stern et al., 2007) for methane oxidation rates to stabilize, and – because environmental changes can impact the bacteria’s methane oxidation rate – the value presented here likely overestimates biocover methane abatement potential in practice. Stern et al. (2007) found that biocovers can be a methane sink and oxidation rates of 100% have been measured at landfills. 

Few studies have examined how methane abatement is affected when all strategies are combined. A single landfill’s total methane abatement would likely increase with each added strategy, the total methane abatement is not expected to be additive between the strategies. For example, If a GCCS system can capture a large portion of LFG methane, then adding a biocover to the same landfill will play a reduced role in methane abatement. The values presented do not consider which geographies are best suited for specific methane abatement strategies. Compared with reality, those values may appear generous. 

Long-term landfill methane abatement will be necessary to manage emissions from previously deposited organic waste. Strong regulations for waste management can encourage methane abatement strategies at landfills and/or reduce the amount of organics sent their way. The infrastructure for these methane abatement strategies can still be employed in geographies without strong regulations. Tables 6a and 6b show the statistical low and high achievable ranges for GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies and for biocovers (when used separately) based on different reported sources for adoption ceilings.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

Current Adoption 1.60
Achievable – Low 4.50
Achievable – High 34.78
Adoption Ceiling 69.56

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

Current Adoption not determined
Achievable – Low 35.13
Achievable – High 57.04
Adoption Ceiling 69.56
Left Text Column Width

Landfill methane abatement has a high potential for climate impact. 

GCCS and methane capture strategies can significantly reduce landfill GHG emissions (Table 7a).

Biocovers can be a useful strategy for controlling LFG methane (Table 7b) because they can oxidize methane in areas where GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies are not applicable. In addition, this strategy can help destroy methane missed from GCCS and even remove methane from the atmosphere (Stern et al., 2007). The lower cost for installation and operation when compared to installing GCCS systems and increased applicability at landfills large and small are encouraging factors for broadening their use around the world. 

LDAR can help identify methane leaks,allowing for targeted abatement (Industrious Labs, 2024a). 

Research has not quantified how methane abatement is affected by combining these strategies. We anticipate that the total methane abatement would increase with each additional strategy, but we do not expect them to be additive. The general belief is that biocovers are useful for reducing methane emissions in areas where a GCCS cannot be installed and will also help to remove residual methane emissions from GCCS systems. If there is a large increase in waste diversion, the abatement potential could be 0.13–1.59 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for landfill methane abatement (DeFabrizio et al, 2021; Duan et al., 2022). In this scenario there will also be reduced sources of revenue due to lower LFG methane production affecting the economics.

UNEP (2021) underscored the need for additional methane measures to stay aligned with 1.5 °C scenarios. Meeting these goals requires the implementation of landfill GCCS and biocovers as well as improved waste diversion strategies – such as composting or reducing food loss and waste – to reduce methane emissions. The amount of landfill methane available to abate will grow or shrink depending on the amount of organic waste sent to landfills. Previously deposited organic waste will still produce methane for many years and will still require methane abatement.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.04
Achievable – Low 0.13
Achievable – High 0.97
Adoption Ceiling 1.94

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.13
Achievable – Low 0.37
Achievable – High 2.82
Adoption Ceiling 5.65

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption not determined
Achievable – Low 0.98
Achievable – High 1.59
Adoption Ceiling 1.94

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis

Current Adoption not determined
Achievable – Low 2.85
Achievable – High 4.63
Adoption Ceiling 5.65
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Generating electricity from LFG can create local jobs in drilling, piping, design, construction, and operation of energy projects. In the United States, LFG energy projects can create 10–70 jobs per project (EPA, 2024b).

Health

Landfill emissions can contribute to health issues such as cancer, respiratory and neurological problems, low birth weight, and birth defects (Brender et al., 2011; Industrious Labs, 2024a; Siddiqua et al. 2022). By reducing harmful air pollutants, capturing landfill methane emissions minimizes the health risks associated with exposure to these toxic landfill compounds. Capturing LFG can reduce malodorous landfill emissions – pollutants such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide – that impact human well-being (Cai et al., 2018).

Equality

Landfill management practices that reduce community exposure to air pollution have implications for environmental justice (Casey et al., 2021). A large review of waste sites in the United States and Europe found that landfills are disproportionately located near low-income communities and near neighborhoods with racially and ethnically marginalized populations (Marzutti et al., 2010). Reducing disproportionate exposures to air pollution from landfills may reduce poor health outcomes in surrounding communities (Brender et al., 2011).

Air Quality

Using LFG for energy in place of other non-renewable sources – such as coal or fuel oil – reduces emissions of air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and particulate matter (EPA, 2024b; Siddiqua et al., 2022). Untreated LFG is also a source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in low concentrations. Capturing and burning LFG to generate electricity reduces the hazards of these air pollutants. Methane emissions can contribute to landfill fires, which pose risks to the health and safety of nearby communities by releasing black carbon and carbon monoxide (Global Climate & Health Alliance [GCHA], 2024). Reducing landfill fires by capturing methane can also help improve local air quality. Landfill methane emissions can contribute to ozone pollution, particularly when other non-methane ozone precursors are present (Olaguer, 2021). 

left_text_column_width
Risks

GCCS can be voluntarily implemented with sufficient methane generated by the landfill and favorable natural gas prices, but when natural gas prices are low, it makes less economic sense (IEA, 2021). There is also a risk of encouraging organics to be sent to landfills in order to maintain methane capture rates. Reducing the amount of waste made in the first place will allow us to better utilize our resources and for the organic waste that is created; it can be better served with waste diversion strategies such as composting or methane digesters. 

Without policy support, regulation, carbon pricing mechanism, or other economic incentives – biocover adoption may be limited by installation costs. Some tools (like the United Nations’ clean development mechanism) encourage global landfill methane abatement projects. There have been criticisms of this mechanism’s effectiveness for failing to support waste diversion practices and focusing solely on GCCS and incinerator strategies (Tangri, 2010). Collected LFG methane can be used to reduce GHG emissions for hard to abate sectors but continued reliance on methane for industries where it is easier to switch to clean alternatives could encourage new natural gas infrastructure to be built which risks becoming a stranded asset and locking infrastructure to emitting forms of energy (Auth & Kincer, 2022).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Landfill management can have a reinforcing impact on other solutions that reduce the amount of methane released to the atmosphere. By using strategies like GCCS, methane destruction, and LDAR, the landfill waste sector can help demonstrate the effectiveness and economic case for abating methane. This would build momentum for widespread adoption of methane abatement because successes in this sector can be leveraged in others as well. For example, processes and tools for identifying methane leaks are useful beyond landfills; LDAR as a key strategy for identifying methane emissions can be applied and studied more widely.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Landfill management can have a competing impact with solutions that provide clean electricity. Capturing methane uses natural gas infrastructure and can reduce the cost of using methane and natural gas as a fuel source. As a result, it could prolong the use of fossil fuels and slow down the transition to clean electricity sources.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

Mt methane abated

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
2.79×10⁷
units/yr
Current 1.59 04.534.78
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.04 0.130.97
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-6
Emergency Brake

CH₄, N₂O, BC

Solution Basics

Mt methane abated

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
2.79×10⁷
units/yr
Current Not Determined 035.1357.04
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.981.59
US$ per t CO₂-eq
0
Emergency Brake

CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

Landfill management strategies outlined in this solution can help to reduce methane emissions that reach the atmosphere. However, the methane used as fuel or destroyed will still emit GHGs. Strategies to capture CO₂ emissions from methane use will be needed to avoid adding any GHG emissions to the atmosphere. Research on this topic takes global methane emissions from landfills in 2023, and assumes they were fully combusted and converted to CO₂ emissions.

left_text_column_width
Mt CO2–eq/yr
< 0.5
0.5–1
1–3
3–5
> 5

Annual emissions from solid waste disposal sites, 2024

Landfills release methane when organic material breaks down. Globally, municipal solid waste was responsible for about 70 Mt out of the 354 Mt of anthropogenic methane emissions in 2024. This methane contributed 18% of total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2024, and is equivalent to 1,941 Mt CO2-eq based on a 100-year time scale.

Raniga, K., (2024). Waste sector: Estimating CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal sites [Data set]. WattTime, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from Link to source: https://climatetrace.org

International Energy Agency. (2025). Global methane tracker 2025: Data tools. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker

Mt CO2–eq/yr
< 0.5
0.5–1
1–3
3–5
> 5

Annual emissions from solid waste disposal sites, 2024

Landfills release methane when organic material breaks down. Globally, municipal solid waste was responsible for about 70 Mt out of the 354 Mt of anthropogenic methane emissions in 2024. This methane contributed 18% of total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2024, and is equivalent to 1,941 Mt CO2-eq based on a 100-year time scale.

Raniga, K., (2024). Waste sector: Estimating CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal sites [Data set]. WattTime, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from Link to source: https://climatetrace.org

International Energy Agency. (2025). Global methane tracker 2025: Data tools. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker

Maps Introduction

Methane emissions from landfills can vary geographically (IPCC, 2006) since rates of organic matter decomposition and methane generation depend on climate. In practice, however, landfill management has a more significant impact on related emissions and is correlated with country income levels.  

Many high-income countries have landfills that are considered sanitary landfills (where waste is covered daily and isolated from the environment) and have high waste collection rates. Basic covers are placed on the landfills to reduce the risk of odor, scavenging, and wildlife accessing the waste, and regulations are in place to manage and capture LFG emissions. These landfills are better prepared to install GCCS and methane use/destruction infrastructure than are other landfills. 

For landfills in low- and middle-income countries, existing waste management practices and regulations vary widely. In countries such as the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nigeria, waste may not be regularly collected; when it is, it is often placed in open landfills where waste lies uncovered, as documented by Ayandele et al. (2024d). This can harm the environment by attracting scavengers and pest animals to the landfill. When this occurs, methane is more easily released to the atmosphere or burned as waste. the latter process creates pollutants that impact the nearby environment and generate additional GHG emissions.

Overall, managing methane emissions from landfills can be improved everywhere. In high-income countries, stronger regulations can ensure the methane generated from landfills is captured with GCCS and used or destroyed. In low- and middle-income countries, regular waste collection and storage of waste in sanitary landfills need to be implemented first before GCCS technology can be installed. Biocovers can be used around the world but may have the most impact in low- and middle-income countries that lack the expertise or infrastructure to effectively use GCCS methane use or destruction strategies (Ayandele et al., 2024d).

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Landfill Management
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set standards for landfill emissions and goals for reductions.
  • Improve LDAR and emissions estimates by setting industry standards and investing in public research.
  • Mandate early installation of landfill covers and/or GCCSs for new landfills; mandate immediate installation for existing landfills.
  • Set standards for landfill covers and GCCS.
  • Invest in infrastructure to support biogas production and utilization.
  • Regulate industry practices for timely maintenance, such as wellhead turning and equipment monitoring.
  • Set standards for methane destruction, such as high-efficiency flares.
  • Conduct or fund research to fill the literature gap on policy options for landfill methane.
  • Reduce public food waste and loss, invest in infrastructure to separate organic waste before reaching the landfill (see Reduce Food Loss and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Improve LDAR at landfills for surface and fugitive emissions.
  • Install landfill biocovers as well as GCCSs.
  • Invest in infrastructure to support biogas production and utilization.
  • Ensure timely maintenance, such as wellhead turning and equipment monitoring.
  • Improve methane destruction practices, such as using high-efficiency flares.
  • Set goals to reduce landfill methane emissions from operations and help set regional, national, international, and industry reduction goals.
  • Conduct, contribute to, or fund research on technical solutions (e.g., regional abatement strategies) and policy options for landfill methane.
  • Separate food and organic waste from non-organic waste to create separate disposal streams (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Require suppliers to meet standards for low-carbon waste management.
  • If your company participates in the voluntary carbon market, fund high-integrity projects that reduce landfill emissions.
  • Proactively collaborate with government and regulatory actors to support policies that abate landfill methane.
  • Reduce your company’s food waste and loss (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Assist with monitoring and estimating landfill emissions.
  • Help design policies and regulations that support landfill methane abatement.
  • Publish research on policy options for landfill methane abatement.
  • Join or support efforts such as the Global Methane Alliance.
  • Encourage policymakers to create ambitious targets and regulations.
  • Pressure landfill companies and operators to improve their practices.
  • Reduce your organization’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Investors
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Invest in projects that abate landfill methane emissions.
  • Pressure and influence private landfill operators within investment portfolios to implement methane abatement strategies, noting that some strategies, such as selling captured methane, can be sources of revenue and add value for investors.
  • Pressure and influence other portfolio companies to incorporate waste management and landfill methane abatement into their operations and/or net-zero targets.
  • Provide capital for nascent or regional landfill methane abatement technologies and LDAR instruments.
  • Seek impact investment opportunities, such as sustainability-linked loans in entities that set landfill methane abatement targets.
  • Reduce your company’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Provide capital for methane monitoring, de-risking, and abatement in the early stages of implementing landfill methane reduction technologies.
  • Support global, national, and local policies that reduce landfill methane emissions.
  • Support accelerators or multilateral initiatives like the Global Methane Hub.
  • Explore opportunities to fund landfill methane abatement strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, proper methane destruction, monitoring technologies, and other equipment upgrades.
  • Advance awareness of the air quality, public health, and climate benefits of landfill methane abatement.
  • Reduce your organization’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • If applicable, contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Provide technical assistance (e.g., monitoring and reporting landfill emissions) to businesses, government agencies, and landfill operators working to reduce methane emissions.
  • Help design policies and regulations that support landfill methane abatement.
  • Educate the public on the urgent need to abate landfill methane.
  • Join or support joint efforts such as the Global Methane Alliance.
  • Advocate to policymakers for more ambitious targets and regulations for landfill emissions.
  • Pressure landfill operators to improve their practices.
  • Reduce your food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop new LDAR technologies that reduce cost and required capacity.
  • Develop new biocover technologies sensitive to regional supply chains and/or availability of materials.
  • Improve methane destruction practices to reduce CO₂ emissions.
  • Research and improve estimates of landfill methane emissions.
  • Create new mechanisms to reduce public food waste and loss, and separate organic waste from landfill waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • If possible, contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • If harmful landfill management practices impact you, document your experiences.
  • Share documentation of harmful practices and/or other key messages with policymakers, the press, and the public.
  • Advocate to policymakers for more ambitious targets and regulations for landfill emissions.
  • Support public education efforts on the urgency and need to address landfill methane.
  • Reduce your food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in abating landfill methane emissions: High

There is a high consensus that methane abatement technologies are effective; they can often be deployed cost effectively with an immediate mitigating effect on climate change. 

Though many strategies are universally agreed-upon as effective, waste management practices vary between countries from what we found in our research. China, India, and the United States are the three largest G20 generators of municipal solid waste, though much of the data used in our assessment are from Western countries (Zhang, 2020). Ocko et al. (2021) found that economically feasible methane abatement options (including waste diversion) could reduce 80% of landfill methane emissions from 2020 levels by 2030. Methane abatement can reduce methane emissions from existing organic waste – which Stone (2023) notes can continue for more than 30 years. 

Scharff et al. (2023) found capture efficiencies of 10–90% depending on the LFG strategy used. They compared passive methods, late control of the landfill life, and early gas capture at an active landfill. The EPA (Krause et al., 2023) found that 61% of methane generated by food waste – which breaks down relatively quickly – evades gas capture systems at landfills. This illustrates how early installation of these capture systems can greatly help reduce the total amount of methane emitted from landfills. The EPA findings also highlight the potential impact of diverting organic waste from landfills, preventing LFG from being generated in the first place. 

Ayandele et al. (2024c) found that the working face of a landfill can be a large source of LFG and suggest that timely landfill covers – biocover-style or otherwise – can reduce methane released; timing of abatement strategies is important. Daily and interim landfill covers can prevent methane escape before biocovers are installed. 

Biocovers have a reported gas destruction rate of 26–96% (EPA, 2011; Lee et al., 2017). They could offer a cost-effective way to manage any LFG that is either missed by GCCS systems or emitted in the later stages of the landfill when LFG production decreases and is no longer worth capturing and selling (Martin Charlton Communications, 2020; Nisbet et al., 2020; Sperling Hansen Associates, 2020). Biocovers can also be applied soon after organic waste is deposited at a landfill as daily or interim covers where it is not as practical to install GCCS infrastructure and gas production has not yet stabilized (Waste Today, 2019). Scarapelli et al. (2024) found in the landfills they studied that emissions from working faces are poorly monitored and 79% of the observed emissions originated from landfill work faces. Covering landfill waste with any type of landfill cover (biocover or not), will reduce the work face emissions. 

LDAR can reduce landfill methane emissions by helping to locate the largest methane leaks and so allowing for more targeted abatement strategies. LDAR can also help identify leaks in landfill covers or in the GCCS infrastructure (Industrious Labs, 2024a). 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 24 reviews and meta-analyses and 26 original studies reflecting current evidence from six countries, Canada, China, Denmark, Mexico, South Korea, and the United States, and from sources examining global landfill methane emissions. 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
Appendix

The following figures provide examples of where methane can escape from landfills and where sources of emissions have been found. This shows the difficulty in identifying where methane emissions are coming from and the importance of well maintained infrastructure to ensure methane is being abated.

left_text_column_width

Figure A1. Sources of methane emissions at landfills. Source: Garland et al. (2023).

Diagram of landfill components and emissions sources

Source: Garland E., Alves O., Frankiewicz T., & Ayandele E. (2023). Mitigating landfill methane. RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/landfill_monitoring_memo_series.pdf 

Enable Download
On

Figure A2. Source of methane leaks at landfills. Source: Ayandele et al. (2024a).

Pie chart

Source: Ayandele, E., Frankiewicz, T., & Garland, E. (2024a). Deploying advanced monitoring technologies at US landfills. RMI. 

Enable Download
On
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 the race to scale it will test our ingenuity against the forces of nature, high costs, and competing uses of the seas.
Overview

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 

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 International Energy Agency (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 and funding with onshore wind turbines, potentially slowing deployment in regions where onshore resources are also viable. Also, increased development and installation of offshore wind turbines could potentially compete with the deployment of those onshore, due to competition for raw materials.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

MW installed capacity

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
1,900
units
Current 73,000 01×10⁶1.6×10⁶
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 co-ops 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 LED Lighting

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Enhance Efficiency
Image
Office building exterior showing many floors of indoor lit offices
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Deploy LED Lighting solution as replacing energy-inefficient light sources with light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Lighting accounts for 15–20% of electricity use in buildings. Using LEDs reduces the electricity that building lighting consumes, and thereby cuts GHG emissions from global electricity generation.

Income & work,Health
Water quality,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Using LEDs reduces the electricity that building lighting consumes, and thereby cuts GHG emissions from global electricity generation.
Overview

LED technology for lighting indoor and outdoor spaces is more energy-efficient than other lighting sources currently on the market (Zissis et al., 2021). This is because LEDs are solid-state semiconductors that emit light generated through a direct conversion of the flow of electricity (electroluminescence) rather than heating a tungsten filament to make it glow. More of the electrical energy goes to producing light in an LED lamp than in less-efficient alternative lighting technologies such as incandescent light bulbs or compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) (Koretsky, 2021; Nair & Dhoble, 2021a). This difference offers significant energy-efficiency gains (see Figure 1).

Globally, lighting-related electricity consumption can account for as much as 20% of the total annual electricity used in buildings (Gayral, 2017; Pompei et al., 2020; Pompei et al., 2022). In 2022, the IEA estimated that total electricity consumption for lighting buildings globally was 1,736 TWh (Lane, 2023). Schleich et al. (2014) and others have argued that buildings consume more electricity for lighting due to a rebound effect when occupants perceive a lighting source as efficient. However, the growing adoption of LED lighting over the years has significantly optimized electricity consumption from building lighting, especially in residential buildings (Lane, 2023).

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2006), generating electricity from fossil fuels emits CO₂,  methane, and nitrous oxide. Replacing inefficient lamps with LEDs cuts these emissions by reducing electricity demand. LEDs often have a power rating of 4–10 W, which is 3–10 times lower than alternatives. LEDs also last significantly longer: With a lifespan that can exceed 25,000 hours, they vastly outperform incandescent bulbs (1,000 hours) and CFLs (10,000 hours), as shown in Figure 1. LED’s longevity leads to potential long-term savings due to fewer replacements. The amount of light produced per energy input (luminous efficacy) is up to 10 times greater than alternative lighting sources. This means substantially more lighting for less energy.

Figure 1. A comparison of light sources for building lighting (data from Lane, 2023; Mathias et al., 2023; Nair & Dhoble, 2021b; Xu, 2019).

Light source type Power rating (watts) Luminous efficacy (lumens/watt) Lifespan (hours)
Incandescent 40–100 10–15 1,000
CFL 12–20 60–63 10,000
LED 4–10 110–150 25,000–100,000

The International Energy Agency (IEA) and other international bodies report LED market penetration in terms of percentages of the global lighting market (Lane, 2023). We chose this approach to track the impact of adopting LEDs.

Take Action Intro

Would you like to help deploy LED lighting? Below are some ways you can make a difference, depending on the roles you play in your professional or personal life.

These actions are meant to be starting points for involvement and may or may not be the most important, impactful, or doable actions you can take. We encourage you to explore, get creative, and take a step that is right for you!

Albatayneh, A., Juaidi, A., Abdallah, R., & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. (2021). Influence of the advancement in the LED lighting technologies on the optimum windows-to-wall ratio of Jordanians residential buildings. Energies, 14(17), 5446. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/17/5446

Amann, J. T., Fadie, B., Mauer, J., Swaroop, K., & Tolentino, C. (2022). Farewell to fluorescent lighting: How a phaseout can cut mercury pollution, protect the climate, and save money. https://www.aceee.org/research-report/b2202

Behar-Cohen, F., Martinsons, C., Viénot, F., Zissis, G., Barlier-Salsi, A., Cesarini, J. P.,Enouf, O., Garcia, M., Picaud, S., & Attia, D.. (2011). Light-emitting diodes (LED) for domestic lighting: Any risks for the eye? Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, 30(4), 239–257. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2011.04.002

Booysen, M. J., Samuels, J. A., & Grobbelaar, S. S. (2021). LED there be light: The impact of replacing lights at schools in South Africa. Energy and Buildings, 235, 110736. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110736

Bose-O'Reilly, S., McCarty, K. M., Steckling, N., & Lettmeier, B. (2010). Mercury exposure and children's health. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 40(8), 186–215. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2010.07.002

Build Up. (2019). Overview_Decarbonising the non-residential building stock. European Commission. Retrieved 05 March 2025 from https://build-up.ec.europa.eu/en/resources-and-tools/articles/overview-decarbonising-non-residential-building-stock

Cenci, M. P., Dal Berto, F. C., Schneider, E. L., & Veit, H. M. (2020). Assessment of LED lamps components and materials for a recycling perspective. Waste Management, 107, 285-293. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.028

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2024). Power sector programs - progress report. https://www.epa.gov/power-sector/progress-report

Forastiere, S., Piselli, C., Silei, A., Sciurpi, F., Pisello, A. L., Cotana, F., & Balocco, C. (2024). Energy efficiency and sustainability in food retail buildings: Introducing a novel assessment framework. Energies, 17(19), 4882. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/19/4882

Fu, X., Feng, D., Jiang, X., & Wu, T. (2023). The effect of correlated color temperature and illumination level of LED lighting on visual comfort during sustained attention activities. Sustainability, 15(4), 3826. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3826

Gao, W., Sun, Z., Wu, Y., Song, J., Tao, T., Chen, F., Zhang, Y., & Cao, H.(2022). Criticality assessment of metal resources for light-emitting diode (LED) production – a case study in China. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 6, 100380. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100380

Gasparotto, J., & Da Boit Martinello, K. (2021). Coal as an energy source and its impacts on human health. Energy Geoscience, 2(2), 113–120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engeos.2020.07.003

Gayral, B. (2017). LEDs for lighting: Basic physics and prospects for energy savings. Comptes Rendus Physique, 18(7), 453–461. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2017.09.001

Hasan, M. M., Moznuzzaman, M., Shaha, A., & Khan, I. (2025). Enhancing energy efficiency in Bangladesh's readymade garment sector: The untapped potential of LED lighting retrofits. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 19(3), 569–588. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijesm-05-2024-0009

Henneman, L., Choirat, C., Dedoussi, I., Dominici, F., Roberts, J., & Zigler, C. (2023). Mortality risk from United States coal electricity generation. 382(6673), 941–946. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.adf4915

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories volume 2: Energy; Chapter 2: Stationary combustion. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdf

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2022). Targeting 100% LED lighting sales by 2025. https://www.iea.org/reports/targeting-100-led-lighting-sales-by-2025

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). Global floor area and buildings energy intensity in the net zero scenario, 2010-2030. Retrieved 06 March 2025 from https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-floor-area-and-buildings-energy-intensity-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2010-2030

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2024). World energy balances. IEA. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-balances

Iskra-Golec, I., Wazna, A., & Smith, L. (2012). Effects of blue-enriched light on the daily course of mood, sleepiness and light perception: A field experiment. 44(4), 506-513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153512447528

Kamat, A. S., Khosla, R., & Narayanamurti, V. (2020). Illuminating homes with LEDs in India: Rapid market creation towards low-carbon technology transition in a developing country. Energy Research & Social Science, 66, 101488. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101488

Khan, N., & Abas, N. (2011). Comparative study of energy saving light sources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 296–309. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.072

Koretsky, Z. (2021). Phasing out an embedded technology: Insights from banning the incandescent light bulb in europe. Energy Research & Social Science, 82, 102310. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102310

Lane, K. (2023, 11 July 2023). Lighting. International Energy Agency (IEA). Retrieved 13 December 2024 from https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/lighting

Lee, K., Donnelly, S., & Phillips, G. (2024). 2020 U.S. Lighting market characterization. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2371534

Lee, K., Nubbe, V., Rego, B., Hansen, M., & Pattison, M. (2021). 2020 LED manufacturing supply chain. U. S. DOE. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/ssl-2020-led-mfg-supply-chain-mar21.pdf

Mathias, J. A., Juenger, K. M., & Horton, J. J. (2023). Advances in the energy efficiency of residential appliances in the US: A review. Energy Efficiency, 16(5), 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-023-10114-8

Miah, M. A. R., & Kabir, R. (2023). Energy savings forecast for solid-state lighting in residential and commercial buildings in Bangladesh. IEEE PES 15th Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), pp. 1-6, Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/APPEEC57400.2023.10561921

Moadab, N. H., Olsson, T., Fischl, G., & Aries, M. (2021). Smart versus conventional lighting in apartments - electric lighting energy consumption simulation for three different households. Energy and Buildings, 244, 111009. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111009

Moyano, D. B., Moyano, S. B., López, M. G., Aznal, A. S., & Lezcano, R. A. G. (2020). Nominal risk analysis of the blue light from LED luminaires in indoor lighting design. Optik, 223, 165599. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2020.165599

Nair, G. B., & Dhoble, S. J. (2021a). 2 - fundamentals of LEDs. In G. B. Nair & S. J. Dhoble (Eds.), The fundamentals and applications of light-emitting diodes (pp. 35–57). Woodhead Publishing. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819605-2.00002-1

Nair, G. B., & Dhoble, S. J. (2021b). 6 - general lighting. In G. B. Nair & S. J. Dhoble (Eds.), The fundamentals and applications of light-emitting diodes (pp. 155–176). Woodhead Publishing. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819605-2.00006-9

Pattison, M., Hansen, M., Bardsley, N., Elliott, C., Lee, K., Pattison, L., & Tsao, J. (2020). 2019 lighting R&D opportunities. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1618035

Periyannan, E., Ramachandra, T., & Geekiyanage, D. (2023). Assessment of costs and benefits of green retrofit technologies: Case study of hotel buildings in Sri Lanka. Journal of Building Engineering, 78, 107631. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107631

Placek, M. (2023). LED lighting in the United States - statistics & facts. Statista. Retrieved 09 February 2025 from https://www.statista.com/topics/1144/led-lighting-in-the-us/#topicOverview

Pompei, L., Blaso, L., Fumagalli, S., & Bisegna, F. (2022). The impact of key parameters on the energy requirements for artificial lighting in Italian buildings based on standard en 15193-1:2017. Energy and Buildings, 263, 112025. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112025

Pompei, L., Mattoni, B., Bisegna, F., Blaso, L., & Fumagalli, S. (2020, 9–12 June 2020). Evaluation of the energy consumption of an educational building, based on the uni en 15193–1:2017, varying different lighting control systems. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2020 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS Europe), Madrid, Spain, 2020, pp. 1-6 https://doi.org/10.1109/EEEIC/ICPSEurope49358.2020.9160588.

Sarigiannis, D. A., Karakitsios, S. P., Antonakopoulou, M. P., & Gotti, A. (2012). Exposure analysis of accidental release of mercury from compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Science of The Total Environment, 435–436, 306–315. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.07.026

Saunders, H. D., & Tsao, J. Y. (2012). Rebound effects for lighting. Energy Policy, 49, 477-478. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.050

Schleich, J., Mills, B., & Dütschke, E. (2014). A brighter future? Quantifying the rebound effect in energy efficient lighting. Energy Policy, 72, 35–42. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.028

Schratz, M., Gupta, C., Struhs, T. J., & Gray, K. (2016). A new way to see the light: Improving light quality with cost-effective led technology. IEEE Industry Applications Magazine, 22(4), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIAS.2015.2459089

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2021). SADC member states welcome the introduction of new efficient lighting standards. UNIDO. Retrieved 05 March 2025 from https://www.unido.org/news/sadc-member-states-welcome-introduction-new-efficient-lighting-standards

U.S. Department of Energy. (2016). Solid-state lighting R&D plan. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/06/f32/ssl_rd-plan_%20jun2016_2.pdf

U.S. Department of Energy (2024). 2020 U.S. lighting market characterization. Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/ssl-lmc2020_apr24.pdf

World Furniture Online (2017). The lighting fixtures market in Australia and New Zealand. Link to source: https://www.worldfurnitureonline.com/report/the-lighting-fixtures-market-in-australia-and-new-zealand/

Xiong, Y., Guo, H., Nor, D. D. M. M., Song, A., & Dai, L. (2023). Mineral resources depletion, environmental degradation, and exploitation of natural resources: Covid-19 aftereffects. Resources Policy, 85, 103907. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103907

Xu, Y. (2019). Chapter 2.1 - nature and source of light for plant factory. In M. Anpo, H. Fukuda, & T. Wada (Eds.), Plant factory using artificial light (pp. 47–69). Elsevier. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813973-8.00002-6

Zhang, H., Cai, J., & Braun, J. E. (2023). A whole building life-cycle assessment methodology and its application for carbon footprint analysis of U.S. commercial buildings. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 16(1), 38–56. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2022.2107071

Zissis, G., Bertoldi, P., & Serrenho, T. (2021). Update on the status of LED-lighting world market since 2018. Publications Office of the European Union. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC122760

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Henry Igugu, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Replacing 1% of the building lighting market with LED lamps avoids approximately 7.09 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr emissions on a 100-yr basis (Table 1) or 7.15 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr on a 20-yr basis.

We estimated this solution’s effectiveness (Table 1) by multiplying the global electricity savings intensity (kWh/%) by an emissions intensity for each GHG emitted (in g/kWh)  due to electricity generation. Using the IEA (2024)’s energy balances data, we estimated emissions intensities of approximately 529 g/kWh for CO₂, 0.07 g/kWh for methane, and 0.01 g/kWh for nitrous oxide. Country-specific data were limited. Therefore, we developed the savings intensity using the IEA’s adoption trend (%/yr) and electricity consumption reduction (kWh/yr) for residential buildings globally (Lane, 2023). We then scaled up the savings intensity to represent all buildings (since LEDs are applicable in all types of buildings), but we could not find global data specifying the energy savings potential of converting the lighting market in nonresidential buildings to LEDs. Notably, artificial lighting’s energy consumption varies across building types (Moadab et al., 2021) and is typically greater in nonresidential buildings (Build Up, 2019). This presents some level of uncertainty, but also suggests that our estimates could be conservative – and that there is potential for even greater savings in nonresidential buildings.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/% lamps LED/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 7090000
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Our lifetime initial cost estimate of switching 1% of the global building lighting market to LEDs is approximately US$1.5 billion. Because LEDs use less electricity than alternative lamps, they cost less to operate, resulting in operating costs of –US$1.3 billion/yr (i.e., cost savings). Building owners typically are not paid to use LED lighting; therefore, the revenue is zero. After we amortize the initial cost over 30 years, the net annual cost for this solution is –US$1.2 billion/yr globally. Thus, replacing other bulbs with LEDs saves money despite the initial cost.

We estimated the cost (Table 2) by first identifying initial and operating costs from studies that retrofitted buildings with LEDs, such as Periyannan et al. (2023), Hasan et al. (2025), and Forastiere et al. (2024). We then divided the costs by the impact of the LED retrofit on the amount of electricity consumed by lighting in each study and multiplied this by the global electricity savings intensity (kWh/%) we estimated during the effectiveness analysis. The result was the cost per percent of lamps in buildings converted to LED lighting (US$/% lamps LED).

We estimated the cost per unit climate impact by dividing the annual cost savings per adoption unit by the CO₂‑eq emissions reduced yearly per adoption unit (Table 2).

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

median -175.0

Negative values reflect cost savings.

Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

As LEDs became more common in building lighting, costs dropped significantly in recent years.

Trends based on LED adoption data (Lane, 2023) and the cost of LED lighting (Pattison et al., 2020) showed a 29.7% drop in cost as LED adoption doubled between 2016 and 2019.

The cost data we used to identify the learning curve for this solution (Table 3) are specific to the United States and limited to pre-2020. More recent LED cost data may show additional benefits with respect to cost, but this value may not be applicable for other countries. However, the cost data we analyzed do provide a useful sample of the broader LED cost-reduction trend.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of the installed solution base

Units: %

Estimate 29.7
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 LED Lighting 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

Our effectiveness analysis is based on the current state of LED technology. If the adoption ceiling is attained, further improvements to the amount of light that LEDs generate per unit electricity could enhance the solution’s impact through further reductions in electricity use.

The rebound effect – where building occupants use more lighting in response to increased energy-efficiency of lamps – is a well-established concern (Saunders and Tsao, 2012; Schleich et al., 2014). We attempted to address this concern by using IEA data on actual electricity consumption originating from building lighting to determine both its effectiveness and cost implications (Lane, 2023).

We did not fully account for the cost savings that potentially arise from fewer bulb replacements, since LEDs may replace various types of lamps. Because LEDs last significantly longer than all alternative lamp technologies, building owners may require fewer replacements when using LED lamps compared with other lighting sources.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Lane (2023) found that LED lamps represented 50.5% of the lighting market globally for residential buildings in 2022, but does not provide adoption data specific to nonresidential buildings. Studies that provide global or geographically segmented LED adoption data for all building types are also limited. Therefore, we assume 50.5% to be representative of LED adoption across all buildings globally (Table 4).

Other studies highlight adoption levels across various countries. The data captured in these studies and reports provide context with specific adoption levels from different regions (see Geographic Guidance).

The IEA and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report that LEDs are increasingly the preferred choice of homeowners and the general building lighting market. This preference is evident in the growing market share of LED lamps sold and installed annually (Lane, 2023; Lee et al., 2024).

In general, the solution’s current adoption globally is substantial, and we recognize that some countries possess more room for the solution to scale. While adoption barriers vary across regions, many countries are establishing lighting standards to drive LED adoption, especially across Africa [(IEA, 2022; United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), 2021].

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Current (2022) adoption level.

Units: % lamps LED

Estimate 50.5
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Adoption of LEDs has grown approximately 3.75%/yr over the past two decades.

Lane (2023) found that the proportion of lamps sold annually for building lighting that are LEDs grew from 1.1% in 2010 to 50.5% in 2022 (Figure 2). We estimated the adoption trend (Table 5) by determining the percentage growth between successive years, and calculating the variances.

left_text_column_width

Figure 2. Trend in LED adoption between 2010 and 2022 (adapted from Lane, 2023).

Source: Lane, K. (2023, 11 July 2023). Lighting. International Energy Agency (IEA). Retrieved 13 December 2024 from https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/lighting

Enable Download
On

Data on the growth of LEDs across regional building lighting markets are limited. Lee et al. (2024)’s analysis of the U.S. lighting market found 46.5% growth 2010–2020, which translates to 4.65% annually. Zissis et al. (2021) reported 26% growth for France for 2017–2020, which averages 8.67% annually.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. 2010–2022 adoption trend.

Units: % lamps LED market share growth/yr

25th percentile 2.85
mean 4.12
median (50th percentile) 3.75
75th percentile 5.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

The adoption ceiling (Table 6) is 100%, meaning all lamps in buildings are LEDs. Lane (2023) projects 100% LED market penetration by 2030. If current adoption trends continue, 100% LED adoption is a practical and achievable upper limit. However, countries will need to overcome challenges such as regulatory enforcement, financial, and technology access issues, while preventing the entrance of inferior quality LEDs into their lighting market (IEA, 2022).

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Adoption ceiling

Units: % lamps LED

Estimate 100
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We estimate a low achievable adoption scenario of 87% based on Statista’s projections about LED lighting market penetration by 2030 (Placek, 2023). The values were similar in Zissis et al. (2021).

For the high achievable scenario, we projected 10 years beyond the 2022 adoption level using the mean adoption trend of 4.12%/yr. This translates to a 41% growth on top of the current adoption level of 50.5%, summing up to a 92% LED adoption level (Table 7).

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: % lamps LED

Current Adoption 50.5
Achievable – Low 87
Achievable – High 92
Adoption Ceiling 100
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that current adoption cuts about 0.36 Gt CO₂‑eq emissions on a 100-yr basis compared with the previous alternative lighting sources (Table 8). The low achievable adoption scenario of 87% LED lamps could cut emissions 0.62 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr due to reduced electricity consumption, while a high achievable adoption scenario of 92% LED lamps could cut emissions 0.65 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. If the adoption ceiling of 100% LEDs for lighting buildings is reached, we estimate that 0.71 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr could be avoided (Table 8).

LED lighting could further cut electricity consumption as LED technology continues to improve. However, the technology’s future climate impacts will depend on the emissions of future electricity-generation systems.

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.36
Achievable – Low 0.62
Achievable – High 0.65
Adoption Ceiling 0.71
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Because LEDs use less electricity than fluorescent and incandescent light bulbs (Khan & Abas, 2011), households and businesses using LED technology can save money on electricity costs. The payback period for the initial investment from lower utility bills is about one year for residential buildings and about two months for commercial buildings (Amann et al., 2022). LED lighting can contribute to savings by minimizing energy demand for cooling, since LEDs emit less heat than fluorescent and incandescent bulbs (Albatayneh et al., 2021; Schratz et al., 2016). However, it could also lead to a greater need for space heating in some regions. LED lights also last longer than alternative lighting technologies, which can lead to lower maintenance costs (Schratz et al., 2016).

Health

Reductions in air pollution due to LED lighting’s lower electricity demand decrease exposures to pollutants such as mercury and fine particulate matter generated from fossil fuel-based power plants, improving the health of nearby communities [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2024]. These pollutants have been linked to increased morbidity from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, asthma, infections, and cancer, and to increased risk of mortality (Gasparotto & Martinello, 2021; Henneman et al., 2023). Because LEDs do not contain mercury, they can mitigate small health risks associated with mercury exposure when fluorescent light bulbs break (Bose-O’Reilly et al., 2010; Sarigiannis et al., 2012). Switching to LEDs can also enhance a visual environment and improve occupants’ well-being, visual comfort, and overall productivity when lamps with the appropriate lighting quality and correlated color temperature are selected (Fu et al., 2023; Iskra-Golec et al., 2012; Nair & Dhoble, 2021b).

Air and Water Quality

The lower electricity demand of LEDs could help reduce emissions from power plants and improve air quality (Amann et al., 2022). Additionally, LEDs can mitigate small amounts of mercury found in fluorescent lights (Amann et al., 2022). Mercury contamination from discarded bulbs in landfills can leach into surrounding water bodies and accumulate in aquatic life. LEDs also have longer lifespans than fluorescent and incandescent bulbs (Nair & Dhoble, 2021b) which can reduce the amount of discarded bulbs and further mitigate environmental degradation from landfills. 

left_text_column_width
Risks

We found limited data indicating risks with choosing LEDs over other lighting sources. Concerns about eye health raised in the early days of LED adoption (Behar-Cohen et al., 2011) have been allayed by studies that found that LEDs do not pose a greater risk to the eye than comparable lighting sources (Moyano et al., 2020). 

LED manufacturing uses metals like gold, indium, and gallium (Gao et al., 2022). This creates environmental risks due to mining (Xiong et al., 2023) and makes LED supply chains susceptible to macroeconomic uncertainties (Lee et al., 2021). With growing adoption of LED lights, there is also the risk of greater electronic waste at the end of the LED’s lifespan. Therefore, recycling is increasingly important (Cenci et al., 2020). 

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Other lighting sources such as incandescent lamps are known to produce some heat, thus adding to the cooling load. LEDs are more energy-efficient, and therefore could reduce the cooling requirements of a space. 

left_text_column_width

Competing

Some studies demonstrate an increase in the indoor heating requirements when switching to LED lighting from other lighting sources, such as incandescent lamps, that produce more heat than LEDs. The difference is often small, but worth taking into account when adopting LEDs in a building with previously energy-inefficient lighting.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

% lamps LED

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
7.09×10⁶
units
Current 50.5 08792
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.36 0.620.65
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-175
Gradual

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

LED lamp manufacturing creates more emissions than manufacturing other types of lamps. For example, Zhang et al. (2023) compared the manufacturing emissions of a 12.5W LED lamp with a 14W CFL and a 60W incandescent bulb. These light sources provided similar levels of illumination (850–900 lumens). The production of one LED bulb resulted in 9.81 kg CO₂‑eq emissions, while the CFL and incandescent resulted in 2.29 and 0.73 kg CO₂‑eq emissions, respectively. However, LEDs are preferred because their longevity results in fewer LED lamps required to provide the same amount of lighting over time. LEDs can last 25 times longer than incandescent lamps with an identical lumen output (Nair & Dhoble, 2021b; Xu, 2019; Zhang et al., 2023). 

left_text_column_width
% lamps LED
< 20
20–40
40–60
> 60
No data

Percentage of lamps that are LEDs, circa 2020

The percentage of lamps used to light buildings that are LEDs varies around the world, with limited data available on a per-country basis.

Miah, M. A. R., & Kabir, R. (2023). Energy savings forecast for solid-state lighting in residential and commercial buildings in Bangladesh. IEEE PES 15th Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), pp. 1-6, Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/APPEEC57400.2023.10561921

U.S. Department of Energy (2024). 2020 U.S. lighting market characterization. Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/ssl-lmc2020_apr24.pdf

World Furniture Online (2017). The lighting fixtures market in Australia and New Zealand. Link to source: https://www.worldfurnitureonline.com/report/the-lighting-fixtures-market-in-australia-and-new-zealand/

Zissis, G., Bertoldi, P., & Serrenho, T. (2021). Update on the status of LED-lighting world market since 2018. Publications Office of the European Union. Link to source: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC122760

% lamps LED
< 20
20–40
40–60
> 60
No data

Percentage of lamps that are LEDs, circa 2020

The percentage of lamps used to light buildings that are LEDs varies around the world, with limited data available on a per-country basis.

Miah, M. A. R., & Kabir, R. (2023). Energy savings forecast for solid-state lighting in residential and commercial buildings in Bangladesh. IEEE PES 15th Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), pp. 1-6, Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/APPEEC57400.2023.10561921

U.S. Department of Energy (2024). 2020 U.S. lighting market characterization. Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/ssl-lmc2020_apr24.pdf

World Furniture Online (2017). The lighting fixtures market in Australia and New Zealand. Link to source: https://www.worldfurnitureonline.com/report/the-lighting-fixtures-market-in-australia-and-new-zealand/

Zissis, G., Bertoldi, P., & Serrenho, T. (2021). Update on the status of LED-lighting world market since 2018. Publications Office of the European Union. Link to source: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC122760

Maps Introduction

The Deploy LED Lighting solution can be equally effective at reducing electricity use across global regions because the efficiency gained by replacing other bulbs with LEDs is functionally identical. However, its climate impact will vary with the emissions intensity of each region’s electricity grid. Secondary considerations associated with uptake of LED lighting also can vary with climate and hence geography. In particular, the decrease in heating associated with LED lighting can reduce demands on air conditioning, leading to increased incentive for solution uptake in warmer climates.

Historically, a few countries typically account for the bulk of LEDs purchased. For example, 30% of the 5 billion LEDs sold globally in 2016 were sold in China. In the same period, North America accounted for 15% while Western Europe, Japan, and India represented 11%, 10%, and 8% of the LEDs sold, respectively (Kamat et al., 2020; U.S. DOE, 2016). Essentially, the growing sales of LEDs drove global adoption levels from 17.6% of the building lighting market in 2016 to 50.5% in 2022 (Lane, 2023). However, current adoption still varies considerably around the world. For instance, Lee et al. (2024) reported that LED market penetration in the U.S. was 47.5% in 2020, compared with 43.3% globally in the same period (Lane, 2023). Meanwhile, LED adoption in France was 35% in 2017, and countries in the Middle East such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey had over 70% LED adoption that same year; residential buildings in the United Kingdom had 13% LED adoption in 2018, while Japan had 60% LED adoption as of 2019 (Zissis et al., 2021). This demonstrates potential to scale LED adoption in the future, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the bulk of new building occurs (IEA, 2023).

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
LED Lighting
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Use regulations to phase out and replace energy-inefficient lighting sources with LEDs.
  • Set regulations that encourage sufficient lighting to limit the overuse of LEDs (or rebound effects).
  • Require that public lighting use LEDs.
  • Use financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LEDs.
  • Revise building energy-efficiency standards to reflect energy savings of LEDs.
  • Develop production standards and mandate labeling for LEDs.
  • Build sufficient inspection capacity for LED manufacturers and penalize noncompliance with standards.
  • Use energy-efficiency purchase agreements to help support utility companies during the transition to LED lighting.
  • Invest in research and development that improves the cost and efficiency of LED lighting.
  • Develop a certification program for LED lighting.
  • Create exchange programs or buy-back programs for inefficient light bulbs.
  • Start demonstration projects to promote LED lighting.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Take advantage of or advocate for financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the production of LED lighting.
  • Help develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing materials.
  • Invest in research and development to improve efficiency and cost of LEDs.
  • Adhere to, or advocate for, national LED standards.
  • Develop, produce, and sell LED lighting that imitates incandescent or other familiar lighting.
  • Consider bundling services with retrofitting companies and collaborating with utility companies to offer rebates or other incentives.
  • Improve self-service of LEDs by reducing obstacles to installation and ensuring LEDs can be easily replaced.
  • Help create positive perceptions of LED lighting by showcasing usage, cost savings, and emissions reductions.
  • Create feedback mechanisms, such as apps that alert users to real-time benefits such as energy and cost savings.
  • Start demonstration projects to promote LED lighting.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Retrofit existing operations for LEDs, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Help develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing LED lighting materials.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Invest in research and development that improves the cost and efficiency of LED lighting.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Retrofit existing operations for LEDs, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Help develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing LED lighting materials.
  • Take advantage of, or advocate for, financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Advocate for regulations to phase out and replace energy-inefficient lighting sources with LEDs.
  • Advocate for production standards and labeling for LEDs.
  • Call for regulations that encourage sufficient lighting to limit the overuse of LEDs (or rebound effects).
  • Start demonstration projects to promote LED lighting.
  • Help develop, support, or administer a certification program for LED lighting.
  • Create national catalogs of LED manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Investors
  • Retrofit existing operations for LEDs, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Invest in LED manufacturers, supply chains, and supportive industries.
  • Support research and development to improve the efficiency and cost of LEDs.
  • Invest in LED companies.
  • Fund companies that provide retrofitting services (energy service companies).
  • Invest in businesses dedicated to advancing LED use.
  • Ensure portfolio companies do not produce or support non-LED lighting supply chains.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Retrofit existing operations for LEDs, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Provide financing such as low-interest loans, grants, and micro-grants to help accelerate LED adoption.
  • Fund companies that provide retrofitting services (energy service companies).
  • Advocate for regulations to phase out energy-inefficient lighting sources and replace them with LEDs.
  • Call for regulations that encourage sufficient lighting to limit the overuse of LEDs (or rebound effects).
  • Start demonstration projects to promote LED lighting.
  • Help develop, support, or administer a certification program for LED lighting.
  • Create national catalogs of LED manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Retrofit buildings for LED lighting, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Help create positive perceptions of LED lighting by highlighting your personal usage, cost and energy savings, and emissions reductions.
  • Help develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing materials.
  • Take advantage of, or advocate for, financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Advocate for regulations to phase out energy-inefficient lighting sources and replace them with LEDs.
  • Advocate for LED standards.
  • Advocate for regulations that encourage sufficient lighting and guard against overuse of LEDs (or rebound effects).
  • Start demonstration projects to promote LED lighting.
  • Help develop, support, or administer a certification program for LED lighting.
  • Create national catalogs of LED manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers.
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing materials.
  • Improve the efficiency and cost of LEDs.
  • Improve LED lighting to imitate familiar lighting, offer customers settings, and augment color rendering.
  • Improve self-service of LEDs by reducing obstacles to installation and ensuring LEDs can be replaced individually.
  • Help develop standards for LEDs.
  • Create feedback mechanisms, such as apps that alert users to real-time benefits such as energy and cost savings.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Retrofit for LEDs, replace inefficient bulbs, and purchase only LEDs going forward.
  • Help create positive perceptions of LED lighting by highlighting your personal usage, cost and energy savings, and emissions reductions.
  • Help develop circular supply chains in renovating, remanufacturing, reusing, and redistributing materials.
  • Take advantage of or advocate for financial incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and grants to facilitate the transition to LED lighting.
  • Advocate for regulations to phase out and replace energy-inefficient lighting sources with LEDs.
  • Advocate for LED standards.
  • Advocate for regulations that encourage sufficient lighting to limit the overuse of LEDs (or rebound effects).
  • Join, support, or create educational programs that raise public awareness about the cost savings and energy-efficiency gains associated with LEDs.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation: High

Using LEDs significantly minimizes the electricity required to light buildings, thereby reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation. Many countries are phasing out other lighting sources to reduce GHG emissions (Lane, 2023).

The IEA reported that global adoption of LEDs drove a nearly 30% reduction in annual electricity consumption for lighting in homes between 2010 and 2022 (Lane, 2023). Hasan et al. (2025) indicated that LEDs could reduce the lighting energy usage of buildings (and their resulting GHG emissions) in Bangladesh by 50%. Periyannan et al. (2023) recorded significant electricity savings after evaluating the impact of retrofitting hotels in Sri Lanka with LEDs. Forastiere et al. (2024)’s analysis of the retail buildings in Italy showed an 11% reduction in energy consumption from replacing other lamps with LEDs. Booysen et al., (2021) also achieved significant energy reduction with lighting retrofits in South African educational buildings.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from six original studies and three public sector/multilateral agency reports, which collectively reflect current evidence both globally and from six countries on four different continents. 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

Use Heat Pumps

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Buildings & Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Enhance Efficiency Shift Energy Sources
Image
Heat pumps
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Heat pumps use electricity to efficiently move heat from one place to another. This solution focuses on the replacement of fossil fuel–based heating systems with electric heat pumps. Heat pumps are remarkably efficient because they collect heat from the outside air, ground, or water using a refrigerant and use a pump to move the heat into buildings to keep them warm in colder months. Heat pumps typically replace heating systems such as boilers, furnaces, and electric resistance heaters. Many will also replace air conditioners, because the same pump can move heat out of a building in warmer months. 

Heat stress
Income & work,Health
Description for Social and Search
Heat pumps are a Highly Recommended climate solution. They replace heating systems that burn fossil fuels to reduce emissions; many can also provide cooling in hotter months.
Overview

Heat pumps use a refrigerant cycle to move heat. When the liquid refrigerant enters a low pressure environment, it absorbs heat from the surrounding air (air-source heat pumps), water, or ground (ground-source heat pumps) as it evaporates. When the refrigerant vapor is compressed, it condenses back into a liquid, releasing the stored heat into the building. By passing the refrigerant through this cycle, a heat pump can move heat from outside to inside a building. 

Absorbing heat from the outside gets more difficult as temperatures drop. However, modern cold-climate heat pumps are designed to work effectively at temperatures approaching –30 °C (–22 °F) (Gibb et al., 2023). The freezer in your home uses the same technology, moving heat out of the cold box into the warm room to keep your food frozen. In most systems, the refrigerant cycle in a heat pump can be reversed in warmer months, moving heat out of a building to ensure its occupants are comfortable year-round. 

Heat pumps are very efficient at using electricity for heating. This is because they move heat rather than generating heat (e.g., by combustion). For example, a heat pump may have a seasonal coefficient of performance (SCOP) of 3, meaning it can move an average of three units of heat energy for every unit of electrical energy that it consumes. Conventional combustion and electric resistance heaters cannot produce more than one unit of heat energy for every unit of fuel energy or electrical energy provided. 

Heat pump systems may be all-electric or hybrid, where a secondary fossil fuel-based heating system takes over in colder weather. 

A heat pump’s potential to reduce GHG emissions depends on the heating source it replaces and the emissions intensity of the electricity used to run it. When heat pumps replace fossil fuel-based heating, they displace the GHG emissions – primarily CO₂ – generated when the fuel is burned. When replacing electric resistance heaters, heat pumps reduce the GHG emissions from the electricity to power the system because heat pumps are much more energy efficient. As electrical grids decarbonize, the GHG emissions from operating heat pumps will decrease. 

All-electric heat pumps provide the most climate benefit because they can be powered with clean energy, but hybrid heat pumps also play an important emissions-reduction role. Hybrids consist of a smaller electric heat pump system that switches to fuel-based heating systems in colder weather. They may be attractive due to lower up-front costs and because they have lower peak power demand on cold days, but hybrids also have a smaller emissions impact. Our cost and emissions analyses assumed all-electric air-source heat pumps, while the data used in the adoption analysis included all types of heat pumps with the expectation that all-electric versions will dominate in the longer term. 

In this analysis, we calculated effectiveness and cost outcomes from specific countries with high heat-pump adoption (European countries, Canada, the United States, Japan, and China) to avoid comparing research studies that use different assumptions. The analysis used global assumptions for heating system efficiency: 90% for fueled systems (International Gas Union, 2019), 100% for electric resistance (U.S. Department of Energy [U.S. DOE], n.d.), and SCOP of 3 for heat pumps (Crownhart, 2023). We also assumed all existing fueled systems use natural gas, which is currently the dominant fossil fuel used for space heating globally (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2023b). The analysis did not include emissions or costs from cooling but did assume the heat pump is replacing both a heating and cooling system. 

The cost and effectiveness analyses focused on residential heating systems due to availability of data and also because large variations in the cost and size of commercial systems make it more challenging to estimate their global impacts. Commercial heating systems are typically larger than residential systems, and their emissions impacts are expected to be proportionally greater per unit. Cost savings may be different due the greater complexity of heating and cooling systems (Tejani & Toshniwal, 2023). Available data on heat pump adoption, on the other hand, typically include both residential and commercial units. Our adoption analysis therefore included both residential and commercial buildings, with greater adoption assumed in the residential sector. 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. (2025). AHRI releases November 2024 U.S. heating and cooling equipment shipment data. Link to source: https://www.ahrinet.org/sites/default/files/Stat%20Release%20Nov%2024/November%202024%20Statistical%20Release.pdf 

Asahi, T. (2023, July 3). The role of heat pumps toward decarbonization [PowerPoint slides]. Japan Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Industry Association. Link to source: https://www.jraia.or.jp/english/relations/file/2023_July_OEWG45_JRAIA_side_event_Presentation_4.pdf 

Benz, S. A., & Burney, J. A. (2021). Widespread race and class disparities in surface urban heat extremes across the United States. Earth’s Future, 9(7), Article e2021EF002016. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002016 

Bloess, A., Schill, W.-P., & Zerrahn, A. (2018). Power-to-heat for renewable energy integration: A review of technologies, modeling approaches, and flexibility potentials. Applied Energy, 212, 1611–1626. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.073 

Canadian Climate Institute. (2023). Heat pumps pay off [Report]. Link to source: https://climateinstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Heat-Pumps-Pay-Off-Unlocking-lower-cost-heating-and-cooling-in-Canada-Canadian-Climate-Institute.pdf 

Carella, A., & D’Orazio, A. (2021). The heat pumps for better urban air quality. Sustainable Cities and Society, 75, Article 103314. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103314 

City of Vancouver. (n.d.). Climate change adaptation strategy [Report]. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Link to source: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-climate-change-adaptation-strategy-2024-25.pdf 

Congedo, P. M., Baglivo, C., D’Agostino, D., & Mazzeo, D. (2023). The impact of climate change on air source heat pumps. Energy Conversion and Management, 276, Article 116554. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116554 

Cooper, S. J. G., Hammond, G. P., McManus, M. C., & Pudjianto, D. (2016). Detailed simulation of electrical demands due to nationwide adoption of heat pumps, taking account of renewable generation and mitigation. IET Renewable Power Generation, 10(3), 380–387. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2015.0127 

Crownhart, C. (2023, February 14). Everything you need to know about the wild world of heat pumps. MIT Technology Review. Link to source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/14/1068582/everything-you-need-to-know-about-heat-pumps/ 

Davis, L. W., & Hausman, C. (2022). Who will pay for legacy utility costs? Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 9(6), 1047-1085. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1086/719793 

European Commission. (2022). REPowerEU: Joint European action for more affordable, secure and sustainable energy. Link to source: https://build-up.ec.europa.eu/en/resources-and-tools/publications/repowereu-joint-european-action-more-affordable-secure-and 

European Heat Pump Association. (2024, February 27). Heat pump sales fall by 5% while EU delays action. Link to source: https://www.ehpa.org/news-and-resources/news/heat-pump-sales-fall-by-5-while-eu-delays-action/ 

Gaur, A. S., Fitiwi, D. Z., & Curtis, J. (2021). Heat pumps and our low-carbon future: A comprehensive review. Energy Research & Social Science, 71, Article 101764. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101764 

Gibb, D., Rosenow, J., Lowes, R., & Hewitt, N. J. (2023). Coming in from the cold: Heat pump efficiency at low temperatures. Joule, 7(9), 1939–1942. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2023.08.005 

Global Petrol Prices. (2024). Retail energy price data. Retrieved Feb 2, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/ 

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (Ed.). (2023). Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Working group III contribution to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926 

International Energy Agency. (2020). Sustainable recovery—World energy outlook special report (revised version). Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/c3de5e13-26e8-4e52-8a67-b97aba17f0a2/Sustainable_Recovery.pdf 

International Energy Agency. (2022). The future of heat pumps. Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4713780d-c0ae-4686-8c9b-29e782452695/TheFutureofHeatPumps.pdf 

International Energy Agency. (2023a). Net zero roadmap: A global pathway to keep the 1.5 °C goal in reach—2023 update (revised version). Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/8ad619b9-17aa-473d-8a2f-4b90846f5c19/NetZeroRoadmap_AGlobalPathwaytoKeepthe1.5CGoalinReach-2023Update.pdf 

International Energy Agency. (2023b, June 15). Buildings-related energy demand for heating and share by fuel in the Net Zero Scenario 2022-2030. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/buildings-related-energy-demand-for-heating-and-share-by-fuel-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2022-2030 

International Energy Agency. (2024). Clean energy market monitor. Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/d718c314-c916-47c9-a368-9f8bb38fd9d0/CleanEnergyMarketMonitorMarch2024.pdf 

International Energy Agency. (2025). Electricity 2025 (revised version). Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/0f028d5f-26b1-47ca-ad2a-5ca3103d070a/Electricity2025.pdf 

International Gas Union. (2019). Global gas insights 2019 gas & efficiency. Link to source: https://www.igu.org/advocacy/graphics-data/ggi-energy-efficiency 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2022). Renewable solutions in end-uses: Heat pump costs and markets [Report]. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2022/Nov/IRENA_Heat_Pumps_Costs_Markets_2022.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024). World energy transitions outlook 2024: 1.5°C pathway [Report]. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Nov/IRENA_World_energy_transitions_outlook_2024.pdf 

Jakob, M., Reiter, U., Krishnan, S., Louwen, A., & Junginger, M. (2020). Chapter 11 - Heating and cooling in the built environment. In M. Junginger & A. Louwen (Eds.), Technological learning in the transition to a low-carbon energy system (pp. 189–219). Academic Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818762-3.00011-X 

Kim, B., Lee, S. H., Lee, D., & Kim, Y. (2020). Performance comparison of heat pumps using low global warming potential refrigerants with optimized heat exchanger designs. Applied Thermal Engineering, 171, Article 114990. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.114990 

Knobloch, F., Hanssen, S. V., Lam, A., Pollitt, H., Salas, P., Chewpreecha, U., Huijbregts, M. A. J., & Mercure, J.-F. (2020). Net emission reductions from electric cars and heat pumps in 59 world regions over time. Nature Sustainability, 3(6), 437–447. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0488-7 

Malmquist, A., Hjerpe, M., Glaas, E., Karlsson-Larsson, H., & Lassi, T. (2022). Elderly people’s perceptions of heat stress and adaptation to heat: An interview study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), Article 3775. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073775 

Mattiuzzi, C., & Lippi, G. (2020). Worldwide epidemiology of carbon monoxide poisoning. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 39(4), 387-392. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0960327119891214 

McDiarmid, H. (2023). An analysis of the impacts of all-electric heat pumps and peak mitigation technologies on peak power demand in Ontario [Report]. Ontario Clean Air Alliance. Link to source: https://www.cleanairalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Heat-Pump-Peak-Report-ONLINE-dec-11.pdf 

McDiarmid, H., & Parker, P. (2024). Retrofitting homes in Ontario entails significant embodied emissions: New policies needed. Climate Policy, 25(3), 388–400. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2024.2390520 

Renaldi, R., Hall, R., Jamasb, T., & Roskilly, A. P. (2021). Experience rates of low-carbon domestic heating technologies in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy, 156, Article 112387. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112387 

Romanello, M., Walawender, M., Hsu, S.-C., Moskeland, A., Palmeiro-Silva, Y., Scamman, D., Ali, Z., Ameli, N., Angelova, D., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Basart, S., Beagley, J., Beggs, P. J., Blanco-Villafuerte, L., Cai, W., Callaghan, M., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Chambers, J. D., Chicmana-Zapata, V., … Costello, A. (2024). The 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: Facing record-breaking threats from delayed action. The Lancet, 404(10465), 1847–1896. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01822-1 

Sandoval, N., Harris, C., Reyna, J. L., Fontanini, A. D., Liu, L., Stenger, K., White, P. R., & Landis, A. E. (2024). Achieving equitable space heating electrification: A case study of Los Angeles. Energy and Buildings, 317, Article 114422. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114422 

Sovacool, B. K., Evensen, D., Kwan, T. A., & Petit, V. (2023). Building a green future: Examining the job creation potential of electricity, heating, and storage in low-carbon buildings. The Electricity Journal, 36(5), Article 107274. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2023.107274 

Tejani, A., & Toshniwal, V. (2023). Differential energy consumption patterns of HVAC systems in residential and commercial structures: A comparative study. International Journal of Advancements in Science & Technology, 1(3), 47–58. 

U.S. Department of Energy. (2022). Residential cold-climate heat pump technology challenge. Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/residential-cold-climate-heat-pump-technology-challenge-fact-sheet 

U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). Electric resistance heating. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/electric-resistance-heating 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023). Updated buildings sector appliance and equipment costs and efficiencies [Report]. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/buildings/equipcosts/pdf/full.pdf 

Van Someren, C., Visser, M., & Slootweg, H. (2021). Impacts of electric heat pumps and rooftop solar panels on residential electricity distribution grids. 2021 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe), 01–06. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISGTEurope52324.2021.9640090 

Wilson, E. J. H., Munankarmi, P., Less, B. D., Reyna, J. L., & Rothgeb, S. (2024). Heat pumps for all? Distributions of the costs and benefits of residential air-source heat pumps in the United States. Joule, 8(4), 1000–1035. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2024.01.022 

Zahiri, S., & Gupta, R. (2023). Examining the risk of summertime overheating in UK social housing dwellings retrofitted with heat pumps. Atmosphere, 14(11), Article 1617. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14111617 

Zhang, Q., Zhang, L., Nie, J., & Li, Y. (2017). Techno-economic analysis of air source heat pump applied for space heating in northern China. Applied Energy, 207, 533–542. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.083 

Zhou, M., Liu, H., Peng, L., Qin, Y., Chen, D., Zhang, L., & Mauzerall, D. L. (2022). Environmental benefits and household costs of clean heating options in northern China. Nature Sustainability, 5(4), 329–338. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00837-w 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Stephen Agyeman, Ph.D.

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Jason Lam

  • Cameron Roberts, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

  • Eric Wilczynski

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Jason Lam

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Our analysis showed that each all-electric residential heat pump for space heating reduces emissions by an average of 0.95 t CO₂‑eq /heat pump system/yr (20-yr and 100-yr basis, Table 1). 

Heat pumps reduce emissions by reducing the amount of fossil fuels burned for space heating or by reducing the use of less efficient electric resistance heating. Operating a heat pump generates no on-site emissions except refrigerant leaks, which are addressed by the Improve Refrigerant Management solution. Our analysis included the emissions from the electricity used to power heat pumps. Thus, the emissions reduction from heat pump adoption is expected to improve as electricity generation incorporates more renewable energy (Knobloch et al., 2020). 

There are significant regional differences in heat pump effectiveness due to the electricity mix, climate, and types of heating systems used today (Knobloch et al., 2020). The global average is weighted based on regional heating requirements and existing heating technologies. 

We did not quantify the reduction in pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter, which are released when fossil fuels are burned for space heating. We also refrained from estimating the global warming impacts of refrigerant leaks associated with the use of heat pumps, which is addressed by our Improve Refrigerant Management solution, or natural gas leaks associated with the use of fossil fuels for heating. 

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions from space heating.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/heat pump system/yr, 100-yr basis

mean 0.95
Left Text Column Width
Cost

A residential air-source heat pump has a mean initial installed cost of US$6,800 and an estimated US$540/yr operational cost for heating. Over a 15-year lifespan, this results in a net cost of US$990/yr. A heat pump generally replaces both a heating and cooling system with a combined mean installed cost of US$5,300. Operating a baseline heating system costs US$830/yr (operational cooling cost was not included in this analysis). Over a 15-year lifespan, the baseline case has a net cost of US$1,180/yr. This results in a net US$190 savings for households that switch to a heat pump. This translates to US$200 savings/t CO₂‑eq reduced (Table 2).

These values include the average annual cost to operate the equipment for heating and the annualized up-front cost of a heat pump relative to both a heating and cooling system that it replaces. There can be significant variability in the up-front cost of equipment based on the type of heat pump installed, the size of the building, and the climate in which it is designed to operate. We assumed the cost to operate the equipment for cooling to be the same with heat pumps and the air conditioners they replace. 

There are significant regional differences in the operational cost of heating systems due to climate, utility rates, and the heating systems in use today. The global average outcomes described here are weighted averages from Europe, Canada, the United States, China, and Japan based on regional heating requirements and existing heating technologies. 

Utility cost estimates are from June 2023 (Global Petrol Prices, 2024) and may vary substantially over time due to factors such as volatile fossil fuel prices, changing carbon prices, and heat pump incentives. Additional installation costs, such as upgrades to electrical systems, ductwork, or radiators, are not included. 

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact. Negative values reflect cost savings.

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

mean –200
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Insufficient data exist to quantify the learning curve for heat pumps. 

The cost of installing a heat pump includes both equipment costs and the labor cost of installation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration ([U.S. EIA] 2023), retail equipment costs are 60–80% of the total installed cost of residential air-source heat pumps (central and ductless). 

Equipment costs can decrease with economies of scale and as local markets mature, but may be confounded by technological advances as well as equipment and/or refrigerant regulations that can also increase costs (IEA, 2022). European estimated learning rates for heat pump equipment costs range from 3.3% for ground-source heat pumps (Renaldi et al., 2021) to 18% for air-source heat pumps (Jakob et al., 2020). Ease and cost of installation is a research and development goal for manufacturers (IEA, 2022). 

The installed cost is also affected by rising labor costs and projected labor shortages (IEA, 2022). Renaldi et al. (2021) showed negative learning rates for the total installed costs in the United Kingdom due to increasing installation costs: –2.3% and –0.8% for air-source and ground-source heat pumps, respectively.

Heat pump manufacturer efforts to improve the performance of the technology may impact learning curves as well. In North America, the Residential Heat Pump Technology Challenge has supported the development of heat pumps with improved cold-climate performance (U.S. DOE, 2022). 

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.

Use Heat Pumps 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

Heat pumps can increase demand for electricity and can therefore increase demand for fossil fuel-based power generation. In areas where power generation relies heavily on fossil fuels, heat pumps may generate more emissions than gas heating systems. As the electricity sector adopts more renewables and phases out fossil fuel-based generation, the emissions impact of heat pumps will decrease. Once a building has been designed or retrofitted to accommodate a heat pump it is likely that new heat pumps will be installed at the end of equipment life, perpetuating the benefit.

Efforts are underway to retrofit buildings by improving insulation, air-sealing, and upgrading windows. When done alongside heat pump adoption, retrofits can reduce the size of heat pump needed and increase total energy, emissions, and cost savings. 

As heat pump adoption grows, so too will the manufacture of refrigerants, some of which have high global warming potentials when they escape to the atmosphere. See Deploy Alternative Refrigerants and Improve Refrigerant Management solutions for more on accelerating change in this sector.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Our analysis suggests that 130 million heat pumps for heating are currently in operation primarily based on data in Europe, Canada, the United States, China, and Japan (Table 3). These include both all-electric heat pumps and hybrid heat pumps. The IEA (2023a) estimated that 12% of global space heating demand was met by heat pumps in 2022. 

This value is based on market reports and national data sources plus IEA (2022) estimates of total GW of installed capacity. To convert installed capacity to the number of heat pumps, we used the median from the range of suggested average capacities (7.5 kW for Europe and North America, 4 kW in Japan and China, 5 kW global average). In Japan, where heat pump units typically heat only one room, we assumed 2.4 units per heat pump (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], 2022).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current heat pump adoption level (2020–2022).

Unit: Heat pump systems in operation

mean 130,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Our estimates put the median adoption trend at 17 million new all-electric and hybrid heat pumps in operation per year (Table 4). This analysis is based on product shipment data (used as a proxy for installed heat pumps), market reports, national statistics, and IEA data for growth in installed capacity. For the IEA data (2010–2023), we assumed a global average of 5 kW of heat capacity per heat pump unit (IEA, 2024).

Shipment and market analysis reports consistently show growing markets for heat pumps in much of the world (Asahi, 2023; European Heat Pump Association, 2024; IEA, 2024). In the United States, shipments of heat pumps have outnumbered gas furnaces since at least 2022 (Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2025).

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Heat pump adoption trend (2010–2023).

Unit: Heat pump systems in operation/yr

25th percentile 12,000,000
mean 15,000,000
median (50th percentile) 17,000,000
75th percentile 18,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

Our adoption ceiling is set at 1.200 billion heat pumps for space heating by 2050 (Table 5), most of which are expected to be in residential buildings. This is based on the IEA’s Net Zero Roadmap projection that heat pumps will represent 6,500 GW of heating capacity globally by 2050, covering 55% of space heating demand (IEA, 2023a). Our adoption ceiling assumes all-electric heat pumps cover all space heating demand. 

We assumed that average heat pump sizes (capacities) will increase over time as heat pumps cover a greater portion of a building’s heating load and as more commercial buildings with larger heating loads install heat pumps. Using a global average of 10 kW per heat pump, the IEA projections imply 650 million heat pumps will be in operation by 2050 with the technical adoption ceiling for 1,200 million heat pumps if all heating demand were met by heat pumps.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Heat pump adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption level.

Unit: Heat pump systems in operation by 2050

mean 1,200,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We estimate the achievable range for heat pump adoption to be 600–960 million heat pumps in operation by 2050 (Table 6).

Most existing space heating systems will be replaced at least once between now and 2050 because this equipment typically has lifetimes of 15–30 years (U.S. EIA, 2023). Policies that encourage high efficiency heat pumps alongside insulation upgrades have the potential to provide lifetime savings, greater comfort, and energy efficiency benefits (Wilson et al., 2024). Given the available timelines and potential benefits, near full adoption is technically feasible. 

We have set the Achievable – High heat pump adoption at 80% of the adoption ceiling to account for systems that are difficult to electrify due to very cold climates, policy, economic barriers, and grid constraints. This high achievable value assumes that some systems may be replaced before their end of life to meet climate and/or financial goals. 

We have set the Achievable – Low heat pump adoption at 50% of the adoption ceiling. This is roughly consistent with the current adoption trend continuing out to 2050. 

Our heat pump units adopted include both all-electric and hybrid heat pumps. This analysis assumes that hybrid heat pumps will become less common as fuels are phased out and that all-electric heat pumps will dominate by 2050. 

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Heat pump systems installed

Current Adoption 130,000,000
Achievable – Low 600,000,000
Achievable – High 960,000,000
Adoption Ceiling 1,200,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Our estimates show the global impact of existing heat pumps for space heating to be a reduction of 0.12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-yr basis) based on current adoption and today’s electricity grid emissions (Table 7). Because electricity grid emissions are decreasing for each kWh of electricity generated (IEA, 2025), the actual impact will be greater than our estimates when future electricity generation emissions are lower.

For the adoption ceiling, assuming heat pumps supply all of the IEA’s projected global heating demand in 2050 (IEA, 2023a), 1.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-yr basis) could be avoided per year with today’s electricity grid emissions.

A high-end achievable target is 80% of the adoption ceiling, accounting for systems that might continue to use fossil fuels for heating due to factors such as cold climates, economic barriers, and grid constraints. This would result in avoiding 0.91 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-yr basis) with today’s electricity grid emissions. 

A low-end achievable target is 50% of the adoption ceiling, roughly equivalent to heat pump adoption continuing at today’s rate. This would result in avoiding 0.57 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-yr basis) with today’s electricity grid emissions. 

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of heat pump systems adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.12
Achievable – Low 0.57
Achievable – High 0.91
Adoption Ceiling 1.1
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Heat Stress

Heat waves and extreme heat are becoming increasingly significant factors of morbidity and mortality worldwide (Romanello et al., 2024). Some buildings that replace heating systems with heat pumps will gain access to cooling (Congedo et al., 2023; Wilson et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2017). This can provide protection from heat stress in regions experiencing increasingly hotter summers (where air conditioning was not previously necessary) and for populations that are vulnerable to heat stress, such as the elderly (Malmquist et al., 2022). Some jurisdictions incentivize heat pumps for this reason. For example, the United Kingdom plans to install 600,000 heat pumps by 2028 (Zahiri & Gupta, 2023), and local climate adaptation plans in Canada recommend the installation of heat pumps to provide space cooling that can reduce morbidity and mortality during heat waves (Canadian Climate Institute, 2023; City of Vancouver, n.d.). Because exposure to extreme heat is disproportionately higher for minority communities – particularly in urban environments – access to cooling has important implications for environmental justice (Benz & Burney, 2021). 

Income and Work

Installing heat pumps can lead to greater household savings on electricity. Research has shown that across the United States, heat pumps can reduce electricity bills for 49 million homes with an average savings of US$350–600 per year, depending on the efficiency of the heat pump (Wilson et al., 2024). Wilson et al. (2024) found that higher efficiency heat pumps could be cost-effective for about 65 million households in the United States. Heat pumps also create jobs (Sovacool et al., 2023). In its post-COVID-19 recovery plan, the IEA (2020) estimated that every US$1 million investment in heat pumps could generate 9.1 new jobs and reduce 0.8 jobs in the fossil fuel industry. About half of the new jobs will be in manufacturing, with the remaining distributed between installation and maintenance.

Health

Burning fossil fuels for heating directly emits health-harming particulates and can generate carbon monoxide. Replacing fossil gas heating with heat pumps can reduce air pollution (Carella & D’Orazio, 2021) and contribute to improving health outcomes (Zhou et al., 2022). A study in China showed that as the power grid moves to incorporate renewable energy, the air quality and health benefits of heat pumps will increasingly outweigh the benefits of gas heaters (Zhou et al., 2022). The risk of carbon monoxide poisoning also decreases in buildings that switch from fuel-burning space heating to heat pumps. In buildings that burn fuels for applications such as space heating, carbon monoxide can pose serious health risks, including poisoning and death (Mattiuzzi & Lippi, 2020). 

left_text_column_width
Risks

Heat pumps contain refrigerants that often have high global warming potentials. Refrigerant leaks can occur during installation, operation, and end of life (McDiarmid & Parker, 2024). As more heat pumps are adopted, there is a risk of increased emissions from refrigerant leaks during operation as well as refrigerant release at the end of equipment life. Alternate refrigerants with lower global warming potentials are being phased in due to an international agreement to reduce hydrofluorocarbons, including many refrigerants (Kigali Amendment). 

Higher rates of heat pump installation will require upscaling heat pump manufacturing and training, plus certification of skilled labor to install them. Skilled labor shortages are already creating bottlenecks for heat pump adoption in some countries, some of which can be met by reskilling other heating technicians (IEA, 2022).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Advancements in heat pump technology will support the development and adoption of heat pump technology for industrial applications. 

left_text_column_width

Increased adoption of heat pumps will increase the market for alternative refrigerants and refrigerant management.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Alternative refrigerants require design changes (Kim et al., 2020) that could increase the up-front cost of heat pumps.

left_text_column_width

Heat pumps could compete with alternatives such as fossil fuel-based district heating and cooling systems that lack heat pumps as well as low-carbon biofuels.

left_text_column_width

Adoption of heat pumps for space heating is likely to generate seasonal peaks in power demand during cold days that may require building out extra generating capacity that decreases grid efficiency (Bloess et al., 2018). Heat pumps can compete with electric cars for power during peak times (Van Someren et al., 2021).

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

heat pump systems

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.95
units
Current 1.3×10⁸ 06×10⁸9.6×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.12 0.570.91
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-200
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

Enhanced grid infrastructure will be required to support widespread building electrification and the greater demand for electricity, especially on cold days when heat pumps are less efficient at moving heat (Cooper et al., 2016). Demand-side management, thermal storage, home batteries, bidirectional chargers, and greater adoption of ground-source heat pumps can all help to reduce this increased demand (Cooper et al., 2016; McDiarmid, 2023).

In general, heat pumps have higher up-front costs than do fueled alternatives but will save a building owner money over the lifetime of the system. This can create economic barriers to accessing the benefits of heat pumps, with low-income homeowners and renters who pay for their utilities being particularly vulnerable to being left behind in the transition (Sandoval et al., 2024). Equity advocates are also concerned that the cost of maintaining gas and other fossil fuel infrastructure may increasingly fall on lower-income building owners who struggle to afford the upfront cost of electrifying with heat pumps (Davis & Hausman, 2022). 

left_text_column_width
°C day
015,275

Space heating demand

Heating degree days are a measure of total space heating demand to maintain an indoor temperature above 18°C.

Fick, S.E. & Hijmans, R.J. (2017). WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas (Version 2.1) [Data set]. International Journal of Climatology 37 (12): 4302-4315. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086

°C day
015,275

Space heating demand

Heating degree days are a measure of total space heating demand to maintain an indoor temperature above 18°C.

Fick, S.E. & Hijmans, R.J. (2017). WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas (Version 2.1) [Data set]. International Journal of Climatology 37 (12): 4302-4315. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086

Maps Introduction

In this solution, heat pumps replace space-heating options that rely on fossil fuels. This primarily applies to North America, Asia, and Europe. Limited data are available for some regions, so this analysis focuses on European countries, Canada, the United States, Japan and China. 

The effectiveness of heat pumps at reducing GHG emissions is influenced by the heating needs of the region and the generation mix of the electricity grid. Areas with higher heating needs will generally show greater emissions reduction because more energy is needed to keep buildings warm. However, this is partially offset because heat pumps are less energy efficient on colder days. The local electricity grid mix matters because heat pumps are powered by electricity. Given the same outside temperature, regions with a largely emissions-free grid (e.g., France or Canada) will have higher emissions impacts from heat pump adoption than areas where electricity is  largely generated from fossil fuels (e.g., China). The type of heat pumps (all-electric vs. hybrid) best suited to each region depends on technological and economic factors.

Action Word
Use
Solution Title
Heat Pumps
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Introduce zero-carbon ready building codes, clearly designating heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Incentivize purchases with grants, loans, or tax rebates.
  • Increasing training and support for heat pump installers.
  • Expand the electrical grid and increase renewable energy generation.
  • Streamline permitting processes.
  • Incentivize complementary solutions such as better insulation, thermal storage, and air sealing.
  • Institute a clean heat standard (similar to a renewable energy standard) with a well-defined implementation timeline.
  • Launch performance labels for heating technology.
  • Roll out new energy efficiency programs.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Commit to zero-carbon construction, clearly designating heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Increase the available workforce by encouraging trade organizations to promote career and workforce development programs.
  • Design heat pumps that are simpler, faster, and cheaper to install.
  • Educate customers on the benefits and train them on usage.
  • Connect with users and early adopters to understand and adapt to consumer sentiment.
  • Create appealing incentives and financing programs.
  • Partner with builders and developers to improve product adoption and increase market demand for heat pumps.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Commit to zero-carbon construction, clearly designating heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Deploy heat pumps in all owned and operated facilities.
  • Encourage building owners and managers to switch to heat pumps in leased facilities.
  • Promote the benefits of heat pumps and share government incentives with leased facilities and networks.
  • Encourage employees to reduce emissions at home by providing educational resources on the benefits of domestic heat pumps.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for zero-carbon construction and building codes that clearly designate heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Deploy heat pumps in owned and operated facilities.
  • Encourage building owners and managers to switch to heat pumps in leased facilities.
  • Educate businesses and communities on the benefits of installing heat pumps and any tax incentives in their region.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved policies and incentives.
  • Educate community leaders on the need for adoption.

Further information:

Investors
  • Commit to only finance zero-carbon construction with clear requirements for heat pumps as the default for all new development investments.
  • Deploy capital to efforts that improve heat pump performance and reduce material, installation, and maintenance costs.
  • Explore investment opportunities that address supply chain concerns.
  • Consider investments that mitigate non-manufacturing barriers to scaling.
  • Finance heat pump installations via low-interest loans.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Directly distribute heat pumps, prioritizing locations where heat pumps maximize emissions reductions, and improve housing affordability.
  • Advocate for zero-carbon construction and building codes that clearly designate heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Fund R&D efforts and competitions to improve technology, reduce costs, and address supply chain concerns.
  • Support consumer advocacy and education campaigns on heat pumps and how to maximize regulatory incentives.
  • Support training or incentive programs for distributors and installers.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for zero-carbon construction and building codes that clearly designate heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Highlight the need to transition away from fossil-fuel-fired heating.
  • Educate the public on the benefits of heat pumps and how they work.
  • Provide case studies that present successes and lessons learned.
  • Increase consumer comfort by including heat pumps in communication content on topics such as home remodeling and construction, technology, health, self-sufficiency, and personal finance.
  • Provide up-to-date user information on available models.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Identify safe, cost-effective, and suitable alternative refrigerants.
  • Design systems that require less refrigerant.
  • Work to increase the longevity of heat pumps.
  • Improve heat pumps’ efficiency and capacity at low temperatures as well as their ability to deliver higher temperature heat.
  • Research external social factors critical to adoption.
  • Identify appropriate methods for recycling and disposing of heat pumps and responsibly recovering their refrigerant chemicals at the end of the product life cycle. 

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Install heat pumps when possible and encourage local heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) retailers and installers to sell services and equipment.
  • Increase consumer comfort by sharing your experience and tips for troubleshooting technologies.
  • Advocate for zero-carbon construction and building codes that clearly designate heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Build support networks for new users and connect to explore innovations.
  • Encourage your property management company, employers, and government officials to accelerate adoption. 

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions: High

Electric heat pumps are generally viewed as the primary strategy for reducing GHG emissions from buildings. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ([IPCC] 2023) noted that heat pumps drive electrification in buildings and help decrease emissions. The European Commission (2022) claimed that heat pumps are an essential way of decreasing reliance on gas in heating while increasing the use of renewable energy in the heating sector. The IEA (2022) reported that heat pumps powered by electricity generated with renewable energy “are the central technology in the global transition to secure and sustainable heating.” IRENA (2024) claimed heat pumps in buildings “will play a crucial role in reducing reliance on fossil fuels.” 

In one of the largest scientific reviews on the topic, Gaur et al. (2021) concluded that heat pumps “have the potential to play a substantial role in the transition to low carbon heating,” and noted that emissions impacts of heat pumps are dependent on the type of heat pump technology, their location, and the electricity grid mix. Knobloch et al. (2020) studied 59 world regions and found that electrification of the heating sector via heat pumps will reduce emissions in most world regions where they are adopted.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 46 reports, reviews and meta-analyses and 13 original studies reflecting current evidence from 30 countries, primarily European countries, Canada, the United States, Japan, and China. We recognize this limited geographic and technology scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions and in the commercial sector.

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
Replacing unclean fuel and cookstoves with cleaner approaches can drastically reduce GHG emissions while offering health and biodiversity benefits.
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 20 June 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 13 September 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 16 January 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 13 September 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 1, May 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 17 June 2024, 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 17 June 2024, 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

Shifting to cleaner cooking reduces the need to burn biomass and so contributes positively to protecting and restoring forests, grasslands, and savannas. 

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 (2025). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies for cooking (%) [Data set]. The Global Health Observatory Indicators. Retrieved May 8, 2025 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 (2025). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies for cooking (%) [Data set]. The Global Health Observatory Indicators. Retrieved May 8, 2025 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), and 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 forests, since people in such locations would have to travel further to harvest the 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 Income &amp; work

Support Climate Action

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.
back to top