Residential buildings directly and indirectly generate GHG emissions through the fuels and electricity used for heating, cooling, and other functions. These emissions accounted for 12.5% of global emissions in 2021 (Ge et al., 2026). Heating is the largest residential source of operational emissions, with cooling being another major contributor (Energy Transitions Commission, 2025).

Smart and programmable thermostats reduce energy use by allowing temperatures to drift when occupants are away or asleep and restoring optimal temperatures in anticipation of occupants returning or waking. Since heating systems often rely on burning fossil fuels for heat (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2023), the emissions affected are primarily CO₂. Similarly, the emissions affected when cooling demands are reduced are primarily CO₂ from the electricity generated to power heat pumps and air conditioners. 

The amount of CO₂ saved with smart and programmable thermostats can vary substantially with occupant behavior, set points, occupancy levels, and climate (Pritoni et al., 2015; Stopps & Touchie, 2021). We used the minimum performance standard for Energy Star–certified smart thermostats, namely 8% run-time reduction for heating and 10% for cooling (Energy Star, n.d.), with run time being used as a proxy for energy savings. This is a conservative value; many studies have measured or modeled higher savings (Alhamayani et al., 2021; Pang et al., 2021). 

Owning a smart or programmable thermostat does not guarantee it will be used to adjust temperatures to save energy (Pritoni et al., 2015; Stopps & Touchie, 2021). For example, while 53% of U.S. homes own a smart or programmable thermostat, only 16% report using a smart or programmable thermostat to automatically adjust temperatures (U.S. Energy Information Administration [U.S. EIA], 2023a). We also assumed that households that do not have a smart or programmable thermostat are not manually adjusting temperatures to save energy. 

As societies electrify, smart and programmable thermostats may play an increasingly important role in shifting demand away from grid peak periods (Stopps & Touchie, 2022). This can reduce emissions even further because grids often depend more on fossil fuel peaker plants during these times. This analysis does not include such emissions reductions. 

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, improving fuel-burning cooking equipment is an important strategy for reducing GHG emissions from stoves and unsustainable wood harvesting, especially in low-income countries where the additional social and health benefits are significant. However, the lack of quantitative data on the emissions impacts precludes a full analysis. We will “Keep Watching” this potential climate solution. 

What is it?

Improved fuel-burning cooking equipment reduces emissions from combustion and unsustainable biomass harvesting by switching to more efficient cooking equipment or cooking equipment that burn cleaner fuels. In many countries around the world, it is common to cook meals over open fires with solid fuels such as wood, charcoal, dung, and coal or over kerosene stoves Cooking using solid fuels occurs mainly in low-income countries and in rural areas, with one report estimating that 84% of people in sub-Saharan Africa lacked cleaner cooking solutions in 2020 (Stoner et al., 2021). Improved fuel-burning cooking equipment includes more efficient cookstoves and stoves that use cleaner fuels such as liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, biogas, and alcohol. Use of such equipment reduces emissions from combustion and unsustainable biomass harvesting (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2023). Improving fuel-burning cooking equipment is widely seen as a stepping stone toward cooking with electricity in regions lacking reliable and affordable access to electricity (Couture & Jacobs, 2019). Solar-powered cookstoves are not included here, and shifting to electric cooking is addressed in Deploy Electric Cooking Equipment. 

Does it work?

Improved fuel-burning cooking equipment is widely available, is proven to reduce GHG emissions, and can reduce unsustainable biomass harvesting. This is because cleaner fuels are less carbon intensive and make the cooking equipment more energy efficient, resulting in less emissions per unit of heat delivered (Johnson, 2009; Khavari et al., 2023). Meanwhile, more efficient solid-fuel cookstoves can reduce fuel usage by 25-40% (MacCarty et al., 2010). Using less biomass for cooking also means less unsustainable wood harvesting that can lead to deforestation (Bailis et al., 2015). The IEA (2023) estimates that 0.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr could be avoided by 2030 if all households cooked with cleaner cooking fuels or electricity, and a similar amount of emissions could be prevented by avoiding deforestation. 

Why are we excited?

Improving fuel-burning cooking equipment is a low-cost climate solution that has had high rates of adoption in some countries driven in part by the significant additional benefits. Most improved cooking equipment has up-front costs of less than $US100 (Modern Energy Cooking Services & Energy 4 Impact 2021), and there can be operational cost savings because the new equipment is more fuel efficient. China, India, and Indonesia saw 2–4% of their populations gain access to cleaner cooking technologies (including electric appliances) each year between 2010 and 2022 (IEA, 2023), highlighting how adoption can grow with supportive policies and funding. 

Improved cooking equipment provides numerous social benefits. The World Health Organization (2024) estimated that 2.9 million premature deaths occur per year from household air pollution, and inefficient cooking contributes to that. The World Bank (2020) estimated that cooking with solid fuels and kerosene causes US$1.4 trillion/yr in negative health impacts, mainly to women and girls. Women and girls also may be vulnerable to violence and assault when collecting biomass fuel. The IEA (2023) estimates that an average of 5 hours a day are spent on collecting biomass and cooking in some regions when inefficient cooking methods are used, time that might otherwise be spent on schooling or additional employment. Finally, biodiversity loss and deforestation are reduced when less biomass is used for cooking (Pearson et al., 2017). 

Why are we concerned?

Adoption of improved fuel-burning cooking equipment is held back by cost and cultural barriers, while lack of data hinders emissions impact analyses. Despite being low cost, improved fuel-burning cooking equipment and their fuels are financially inaccessible to many households in low-income countries, including half of households in sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank, 2020). Households using improved cooking equipment may revert to old equipment if fuel becomes unaffordable or cookstoves do not support traditional cooking practices (Jewitt et al., 2020). Finally, the full potential of this solution to reduce emissions cannot be assessed due to a lack of studies specific to improvements to fuel-burning equipment and the types of GHGs involved.

What is our assessment?

There is strong evidence that green roofs sequester carbon and may reduce building energy consumption, although emissions reduction data are limited and vary with geography, roof design, and other factors. The potential climate impact of increasing green roofs is likely too small to be globally significant (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). The solution, however, is considered “Worthwhile” because it can reduce energy use in buildings and sequester carbon while helping communities adapt to climate change and benefiting human health, the environment, and building owners.

What is it?

Vegetation planted on specially engineered rooftops sequesters CO₂ through photosynthesis and provides indirect cooling for buildings through evapotranspiration, reflecting heat back to the atmosphere, and shading. This cooling plus the added insulation inherent in the design can reduce the air conditioning loads of the building, particularly compared to dark rooftop surfaces, and therefore reduce emissions from the electricity used to power cooling systems. Green roofs can also reduce heating energy use and corresponding GHG emissions due to the insulation that soils and plant matter provide. Green roofs are in use in all regions of the globe, but concentrated in high-income countries. 

Does it work?

There is strong evidence that green roofs sequester carbon and can reduce the energy consumption and therefore emissions from cooling and heating buildings. Carbon sequestration by vegetation on green roofs has been documented in several studies. A study in Germany found that plants absorbed 141 g carbon/m²/yr (517 g CO₂ /m²/yr) over a 5-year period. However, carbon sequestration rates are difficult to generalize due to variations in design, plant types, and climates. 

Reported building energy savings from green roofs can range from negligible to 60% or more for cooling. For heating the savings can reach 45% or more, but some studies also show a roughly 10% increase in heating energy use with a green roof. The large variability in energy savings outcomes is due to differences in climate; existing insulation and other properties of buildings; green roof design, vegetation and maintenance practices; and measurement and modeling approaches. The highest energy savings potential has been calculated in dry-winter subtropical highlands for cooling and in humid subtropical climates for heating. Areas with short and mild winters are most likely to see heating energy use increase with green roofs, but these areas often have net energy savings when heating and cooling are combined, and most studies of green roofs show a reduction in heating energy use. 

When combined with the carbon sequestration effect of vegetation, green roofs appear to consistently reduce GHG emissions. 

Why are we excited?

Green roofs and other urban green spaces (see Increase Urban Vegetation) provide valuable climate adaptation, human health, environmental, and economic benefits. Green roofs can help cities adapt to climate change because the vegetation reduces heat exposure during extreme heat, while the soil and root systems absorb stormwater – thereby reducing runoff and flooding risks during extreme rainfall. Green roofs improve human health because vegetation filters the air and reduces noise transmission, and interactions with green spaces, including green roofs, have been shown to improve mental well-being. Green roofs can increase biodiversity and habitat and remove water pollution. They also can increase the property value of a building and prolong the longevity of the roof.

Why are we concerned?

Increasing green roofs can be challenging due to high up-front cost, lack of supportive policies, structural and climate limitations, maintenance requirements, and lack of awareness. A green roof can cost three to six times more than a conventional roof, and although it can save energy for cooling and heating, the returns on investment can be lengthy and savings may not be enough to fully offset the higher costs. In addition, not all roofs can support vegetation, rooftop plants can struggle to survive in hot and dry climates, and green roofs may increase heating energy use in buildings in climates with short and mild winters. A green roof also requires maintenance such as watering, plant care, weed control, pruning, and regular inspections. Finally, a lack of awareness is a major barrier to greater adoption. We also noted a lack of measured, rather than modeled emissions reduction data and on current and potential green roof adoption globally. 

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, we find that fishing vessel efficiency improvements are ready to deploy and feasible, but probably have limited climate impact because the wild capture fisheries sector contributes a relatively small share of global GHG emissions. These improvements will likely provide long-term cost savings and added benefits for ecosystems and air quality. We conclude this climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

What is it?

Improving fishing vessel efficiency reduces CO₂ emissions by using gear, vessel, or operational changes that lower fuel use in wild capture fisheries. Vessel upgrades include propulsion-related changes, such as installation of more efficient engines, and non-propulsion-related alterations, such as modified bows and hulls that reduce drag. Changing to low-fuel-use gear to catch fish, when and where possible, can also reduce CO₂ emissions. Operational changes, such as speed reductions or route optimization, can likewise lead to more efficient fuel use.

Does it work?

Vessel efficiency improvements are expected to deliver substantial fuel savings. An estimated 60–90% of emissions in wild capture fisheries, which emit roughly 0.18 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr in total, likely result from fuel consumption. Speed reductions alone can reduce fuel use by up to 30%. Vessel modifications could provide fuel savings of up to 20% in small fishing vessels, which comprise roughly 86% of all motorized fishing vessels globally. Upgrading engines and other propulsion-related equipment can reduce fuel use by up to 30%. Gear switching, when viable, can also be highly effective at improving fuel use efficiency, particularly if the target species are typically caught using methods such as trawling, which has a high carbon footprint. 

Why are we excited?

The average emissions per metric ton of landed fish in wild capture fisheries have grown by over 20% since 1990, highlighting the need for efficiency improvements. Many of these improvements can be implemented without sacrificing fishing effort or opportunities, and some operational changes, such as reducing vessel speed, can be done without any new equipment. All changes reduce fuel use, saving fishers money over time and likely resulting in fewer emissions of harmful air pollutants, such as sulfur oxides and black carbon. Some upgrades could deliver additional benefits to air quality and ocean ecosystems. Cleaner engines can further reduce air pollution through more complete combustion of fuel, and gear changes could benefit seafloor ecosystems, which can be damaged from bottom fishing practices, such as trawling and dredging. Additionally, some fishing gear has high bycatch rates, and switching to gear that allows for more exclusive capture of target species can reduce waste.

Why are we concerned?

Even with widespread adoption, efficiency improvements that reduce fuel use are unlikely to have a major climate impact. Efficiency improvements could also inadvertently encourage increases in fishing effort, which would increase fuel use and offset emissions cuts. Initial costs to upgrade can be highly variable, but might be high in some cases and therefore not feasible for some fishers. Gear switching can result in lower fish catches, as some methods might not be as efficient. Some operational changes, such as reducing speeds, could lead to fishers arriving at fishing grounds late.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, boosting appliance and equipment efficiency is a promising strategy for reducing GHG emissions, but significant leaps in efficiency and shifts in user behavior are needed to counteract the rebound effect and realize its impact. This potential climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

What is it?

Appliance and equipment efficiency typically refers to larger devices in residential buildings that run on electricity, such as refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, dishwashers, dryers, and televisions. Energy-efficient appliances or equipment consume less electricity when operated than do inefficient devices. Therefore, boosting appliance efficiency reduces the CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions from electricity generation. As of 2022, the energy consumed by household appliances globally was more than twice the total energy used to cool both residential and nonresidential buildings, and about half the energy used for heating. To drive higher efficiency for these devices, various countries have established regional energy efficiency standards, rating systems, and labeling programs. Currently, homeowners can readily access a variety of options on the appliance market, and less efficient devices can easily be replaced. However, income levels, especially in low- and middle-income countries, may affect people’s actual ability to purchase certain appliances, although these devices are increasingly becoming cheaper.

Does it work?

Improving the efficiency of appliances and equipment functionally reduces the energy required to run these devices. Various field studies have demonstrated the effect of efficiency gains on lowering electricity consumption. However, the rise in appliance ownership per household and the growing total number of households have offset the collective climate impact expected from efficiency improvements. Globally, the number of households grew from about 1.5 billion in 2000 to 2.2 billion in 2021. Considering the concurrent increase in the global average units owned per household, the number of appliances in use has essentially doubled over the same period. For example, we estimate that over two decades, the number of televisions owned grew from about 1.4 to 2.8 billion units, refrigerators grew from 0.9 to 1.7 billion units, and washing machines grew from about 0.6 to 1.1 billion units. This growth resulted in rising electricity consumption by appliances annually, from 2,880 TWh in 2000 to 5,734 TWh in 2022, which translates to a 99% global increase, largely driven by the Asia-Pacific region.

Why are we excited?

Boosting appliance and equipment efficiency allows homeowners to realize operational cost savings as a result of lower electricity consumption and utility bills. Compared with less efficient devices, using appliances with higher efficiency ratings functionally reduces peak electricity demand, alleviating strain on the electric grid. The advent of smart devices and the Internet of Things (IoT) also helps to automate the operation of these appliances, optimizing their runtime while minimizing the energy consumed. Initial purchasing costs are also declining, making efficient appliances more accessible and affordable. 

Access to high-efficiency appliances also yields additional benefits. For example, access to energy-efficient refrigerators and freezers means that food waste can be minimized with less energy, leading to better food security. Similarly, multimedia equipment, such as television sets, offers access to critical information. Further cuts in GHG emissions are also possible as the electric grid transitions to renewable energy sources.

Why are we concerned?

Despite the potential benefits, the efficiency improvements in household appliances and equipment have not effectively translated into a positive climate impact. This is largely due to the significant rebound effect, or the increase in appliances owned by households as these devices become cheaper and more efficient. Considering the role of appliances in providing a greater quality of life, limiting the increase in appliance purchases is dismissible. The markets for appliances and equipment in many countries also still consist of pre-owned devices, which are less efficient. Some countries, such as Ghana, have established legislation to prevent the importation of pre-owned devices. This approach ensures that the appliances bought by homeowners will run on the newest, most efficient technologies. Recent findings from regions with stringent energy rating systems also suggest that regulations and programs can lead to a 50% cut in the electricity consumed by appliances. Global initiatives, such as the United for Efficiency (U4E) partnership, which seeks to shift appliance markets in low- and middle-income countries into high-efficiency devices, are increasingly needed for the potential energy savings to be realized as a climate solution.

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, using low-flow fixtures is a cost-effective strategy for reducing water consumption, but has only a modest impact on GHG emissions. Therefore, this climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

What is it?

Low-flow fixtures lessen the total consumption of water by reducing flow rates through a household faucet or shower. Less hot water use means fewer emissions from the energy source used to heat the water, and it also means fewer emissions from pumping and treating tap water. Heating water for showers, sinks, and other domestic appliances is often the second largest source of emissions from buildings after space heating. Modern low-flow showerheads can produce comparable pressure and coverage to traditional showerheads through aeration and/or laminar flow. Aerators for faucets and low-flow showerheads are relatively low-cost investments that users can install themselves.

Does it work?

Low-flow fixtures reduce emissions from heating, delivering, and treating water by reducing hot water consumption. There is ample evidence for water savings with low-flow fixtures, as well as for the linkage between quantity and source of energy used for water heating and GHG emissions. Additionally, there is substantial research on the emissions from treating and pumping water, which can be reduced through water conservation. Low-flow fixtures are readily available, and performance labels are available to help consumers select quality products.

Why are we excited?

Low-flow fixtures conserve water, which reduces emissions, reduces energy demand, saves consumers money, and helps with sustainable water resource management. Households that adopt low-flow fixtures can enjoy significant utility bill savings because these fixtures reduce both water consumption and the energy used to heat water in the home. Faucet aerators also produce a smoother water stream with less splashing, and along with low-flow showerheads, are low-cost and simple to install. Household water conservation practices, such as low-flow fixtures, can help with regional sustainable water resource management and defer infrastructure expansion projects. This is particularly important in areas where water resources are increasingly strained due to climate change, growing populations, and other factors. In some regions, community water conservation efforts have had measurable impacts on water treatment costs, resulting in lower water rates for consumers.  

Why are we concerned?

Even with widespread adoption, low-flow fixtures would have a relatively small impact on GHG emissions. Moreover, the low cost and ease of replacement mean that low-flow fixtures can be easily reverted to less efficient fixtures, eliminating the emissions impact and other benefits. Lastly, although modern quality low-flow showerheads are comparable to traditional fixtures, the poor quality of early low-flow showerheads may have contributed to decreasing levels of adoption in some areas.