Boosting the efficiency of appliances and equipment cuts GHG emissions by reducing the amount of electricity used to operate these devices. Efficiency improvements also lead to reduced peak demand, less strain on the electric grid, and potential utility savings for homeowners due to the reduced electricity use. Despite this potential, the increase in the total number of households and average ownership of appliances, especially in low- and middle-income countries, has offset the impact of efficiency gains and resulted in increased electricity consumption from devices globally. We conclude that Boost Appliance and Equipment Efficiency is “Worthwhile” because it functionally reduces the energy consumed by these devices, but significant leaps in efficiency and shifts in user behavior are needed to realize its full potential as a climate solution.
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 mitigate the rebound effect and realize its impact. This potential climate solution is “Worthwhile.”
| Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | Yes |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Yes |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | Yes |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | No |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | Yes |
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 will consume less electricity when operated compared to 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.
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 television units 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.
Boosting appliance and equipment efficiency allows homeowners to realize operational cost savings as a result of lower electricity consumption and utility bills. Compared to 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, and thereby optimize 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.
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.
CLASP. (2023). Net zero heroes: Scaling efficient appliances for climate change mitigation, adaptation & resilience. CLASP. Link to source: https://www.clasp.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CLASP-COP28-FullReport-V8-012424.pdf
Darshan, A., Girdhar, N., Bhojwani, R., Rastogi, K., Angalaeswari, S., Natrayan, L., & Paramasivam, P. (2022). Energy audit of a residential building to reduce energy cost and carbon footprint for sustainable development with renewable energy sources. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2022(1), 4400874. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4400874
de Ayala, A., Foudi, S., Solà, M. d. M., López-Bernabé, E., & Galarraga, I. (2020). Consumers’ preferences regarding energy efficiency: A qualitative analysis based on the household and services sectors in Spain. Energy Efficiency, 14(1), 3. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-020-09921-0
de Ayala, A., & Solà, M. d. M. (2022). Assessing the EU energy efficiency label for appliances: Issues, potential improvements and challenges. Energies, 15(12), 4272. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124272
IEA. (2022, 22 September 2022). Worldwide average household ownership of appliances and number of households in the net zero scenario, 2000-2030. Retrieved 20 April 2025 from Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/worldwide-average-household-ownership-of-appliances-and-number-of-households-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2000-2030
IEA. (2023). Space cooling: Net zero emissions guide. IEA. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/space-cooling-2
IEA/4E TCP. (2021). Achievements of energy efficiency appliance and equipment standards and labeling programmes. IEA. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/achievements-of-energy-efficiency-appliance-and-equipment-standards-and-labelling-programmes
Lane, K., & Camarasa, C. (2023, 11 July 2023). Appliances and equipment. IEA. Retrieved 13 May 2025 from Link to source: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/appliances-and-equipment
Stasiuk, K., & Maison, D. (2022). The influence of new and old energy labels on consumer judgements and decisions about household appliances. Energies, 15(4), 1260. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15041260
United for Efficiency (U4E). (2025). About the partnership. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Retrieved 15 May 2025 from Link to source: https://united4efficiency.org/about-the-partnership/
Low-flow fixtures reduce GHG emissions by reducing the volume of hot water that is used and therefore reducing the emissions from the energy used to heat that water. Reduced water usage also leads to fewer emissions from treating and pumping water for domestic use. Low-flow fixtures are low-cost and simple to install. They generate utility bill savings for households and support sustainable water resource management. Modern quality low-flow fixtures have resolved many of the performance issues of earlier versions. Even with significant adoption, however, the total emissions reduction potential for low-flow fixtures is relatively small. We conclude that, despite its modest emissions impact, Use Low Flow Fixtures is “Worthwhile” due to its relative ease, low cost, and additional benefits.
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.”
| Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | Yes |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Yes |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | Yes |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | No |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | Yes |
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.
Low-flow fixtures reduce emissions from heating, delivering, and treating water by reducing the 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.
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.
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.
Alliance for water efficiency. (2017). Conservation keeps rates low in Tucson, Arizona. Link to source: https://allianceforwaterefficiency.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/AWE_Tucson_ConsRates_FactSheet_final.pdf
Dieu-Hang, T., Grafton, R. Q., Martínez-Espiñeira, R., & Garcia-Valiñas, M. (2017). Household adoption of energy and water-efficient appliances: An analysis of attitudes, labelling and complementary green behaviours in selected OECD countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 197, 140–150. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.070
Environmental protection agency. (2022). WaterSense performance overview: Showerheads. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/ws-products-perfomance-showerheads.pdf
Kenway, S. J., Pamminger, F., Yan, G., Hall, R., Lam, K. L., Skinner, R., Olsson, G., Satur, P., & Allan, J. (2023). Opportunities and challenges of tackling Scope 3 “Indirect” emissions from residential hot water. Water Research X, 21, 100192. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wroa.2023.100192
Maas, A., Puri, R., & Goemans, C. (2024). A review of residential water conservation policies and attempts to measure their effectiveness. PLOS Water, 3(8), e0000278. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000278
Paraschiv, S., Paraschiv, L. S., & Serban, A. (2023). An overview of energy intensity of drinking water production and wastewater treatment. Energy Reports, 9, 118–123. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.08.074
Pomianowski, M. Z., Johra, H., Marszal-Pomianowska, A., & Zhang, C. (2020). Sustainable and energy-efficient domestic hot water systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 128, 109900. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109900
Tomberg, L. (2024). Resource conservation through improved efficiency, behavioral change, or both: Willingness to pay for (smart) efficient shower heads. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 203, 107387. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107387
Yateh, M., Li, F., Tang, Y., Li, C., & Xu, B. (2024). Energy consumption and carbon emissions management in drinking water treatment plants: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 437, 140688. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140688
Zhou, Y., Essayeh, C., Darby, S., & Morstyn, T. (2024). Evaluating the social benefits and network costs of heat pumps as an energy crisis intervention. iScience, 27(2), Article 2. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.108854
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.
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). Scopus. 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, 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/
Bell-Pasht, A. (2024). Combined Energy Burdens: Estimating Total Home and Transportation Energy Burdens | ACEEE. Link to source: https://www.aceee.org/topic-brief/2024/05/combined-energy-burdens-estimating-total-home-and-transportation-energy-burdens
Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (2024). Electric Vehicle Outlook 2024. Bloomberg. Link to source: https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/
Carey, J. (2023). The other benefit of electric vehicles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(3), e2220923120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2220923120
Castelvecchi, D. (2021). Electric cars and batteries: How will the world produce enough? 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, 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. 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
Electric vehicle database. (2024). Energy consumption of full electric vehicles. Electric Vehicle Database. Link to source: https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electric-car
Element Energy for BEUC. (2021). Electric cars: Calculating the total cost of ownership for consumers (technical report). Link to source: https://www.beuc.eu/reports/electric-cars-calculating-total-cost-ownership-consumers-technical-report
Fortune Business Insights. (2025). Hybrid Vehicle Market Size, Share & Growth Report [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 10. 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), 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, 161761. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161761
IEA. (2021). Global Fuel Economy Initiative 2021 Data Explorer – Data Tools. IEA. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/global-fuel-economy-initiative-2021-data-explorer
IEA. (2022). Electric Vehicles: Total Cost of Ownership Tool. IEA. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/electric-vehicles-total-cost-of-ownership-tool
IEA. (2023). Energy Technology Perspectives 2023 – Analysis—IEA. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-perspectives-2023
IEA. (2024). Global EV Outlook 2024. International Energy Agency. 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). OECD. 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. 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., Goldberg, D., & Anenberg, S. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic reveals persistent disparities in nitrogen dioxide pollution | PNAS. Link to source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2022409118
Kittner, N., Tsiropoulos, I., Tarvydas, D., Schmidt, O., Staffell, I., & Kammen, D. M. (2020). Chapter 9—Electric vehicles. In M. Junginger & A. Louwen (Eds.), Technological Learning in the Transition to a Low-Carbon Energy System (pp. 145–163). Academic Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818762-3.00009-1
Larson, E., Grieg, C., Jenkins, J., Mayfield, E., Pascale, A., Zhang, C., Drossman, J., Williams, R., Pacala, S., Socolow, R., Baik, E., Birdesy, R., Jones, R., Haley, B., Leslie, E., Paustain, K., & Swan, A. (2021). Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts. LPDD. Link to source: https://lpdd.org/resources/princeton-report-net-zero-america/
Lutsey, N., Cui, H., & Yu, R. (2021). Evaluating electric vehicle costs and benefits in China in the 2020–2035 time frame—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. (2022). 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, 1–6. 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), Article 13-05-02–0013. 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 13. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135303
OICA. (2024). 2024 Statistics | www.oica.net. Link to source: https://www.oica.net/category/production-statistics/2024-statistics/
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, 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, 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), 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 2. 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—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., Mohamed, M., Higgins, C., 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—ScienceDirect. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231018302711
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., & Frank, A. (2006). Hybrid Vehicles Gain Traction. Scientific American. Link to source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hybrid-vehicles-gain-trac/
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), 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
WHO. (2022). Number of registered vehicles. Link to source: 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, 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, 104691. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2025.104691
Heather Jones, Ph.D.
Cameron Roberts, Ph.D.
Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.
James Gerber, Ph.D.
Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.
Daniel Jasper
Alex Sweeney
Aiyana Bodi
Hannah Henkin
Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.
Ted Otte
Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.
Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Each million pkm shifted from fossil fuel–powered cars to hybrid cars saves 27.1 t CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (27.1 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 (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.
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 |
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 (Element Energy for 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$266/t CO₂‑eq avoided emissions on a 20-yr basis, Table 2).
This analysis did not include costs that are the same for both hybrid and fossil fuel–powered ICE cars, including taxes, insurance costs, public costs of building road infrastructure, etc.
Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.
Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis
| median | 264 |
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).
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 |
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.
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 (Plötz, 2022).
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.
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 (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 vkm (vehicle kilometer)/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).
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.
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 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, 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).
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.
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).
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.
The achievable adoption of hybrid car travel is about 12–21 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.
Table 7. Range of achievable adoption levels.
Unit: million pkm/yr
| Current Adoption | 1,317,000 |
| Achievable – Low | 11,830,000 |
| Achievable – High | 29,570,000 |
| Adoption Ceiling | 59,140,000 |
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 Bloomberg (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 Bloomberg 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 1.614 Gt CO₂‑eq GHG/yr emissions on a 100-yr basis (1.603 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.
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 |
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).
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., 2021; 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).
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).
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.
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.
Hybrid cars compete directly with electric cars for adoption as well as for batteries, public resources, and infrastructural investment.
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).
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 (APEC, 2024).
million passenger kilometers (million pkm)
CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O, BC
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.
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 of 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 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 Electric Vehicle Outlook (2024) and Electric Vehicles: Total Cost of Ownership Tool (2022) and the International Transportation 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.
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.
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.
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
Henry Igugu, Ph.D.
Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.
James Gerber, Ph.D.
Daniel Jasper
Alex Sweeney
Aiyana Bodi
Hannah Henkin
Megan Matthews, Ph.D.
Ted Otte
Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.
Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
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.
Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.
Unit: t CO₂‑eq/% lamps LED/yr, 100-yr basis
| Estimate | 7090000 |
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).
Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.
Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis
| median | -175.0 |
Negative values reflect cost savings.
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.
Table 3. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of the installed solution base
Units: %
| Estimate | 29.7 |
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.
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.
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].
Table 4. Current (2022) adoption level.
Units: % lamps LED
| Estimate | 50.5 |
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.
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
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.
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 |
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).
Table 6. Adoption ceiling
Units: % lamps LED
| Estimate | 100 |
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).
Table 7. Range of achievable adoption levels.
Unit: % lamps LED
| Current Adoption | 50.5 |
| Achievable – Low | 87 |
| Achievable – High | 92 |
| Adoption Ceiling | 100 |
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.
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 |
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).
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
% lamps LED
CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, BC
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).
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
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
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).
The level of consensus about the effectiveness of replacing other lighting sources with LEDs is 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.
