Use Smart & Programmable Thermostats

Sector
Buildings & Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Enhance Efficiency
Image
Hand pointing to smart thermostat on the wall
Coming Soon
On
Summary

We define Use Smart & Programmable Thermostats as reducing energy use and associated GHG emissions from heating and cooling by automatically making adjustments to the set temperature of a residential building. Smart thermostats can be remotely controlled and can adjust indoor temperature settings in response to learned occupancy patterns, while programmable thermostats require a user to manually program a temperature schedule.

Income & work,Health
Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Using smart or programmable thermostats to regularly adjust residential temperature settings for energy savings also reduces the emissions from heating and cooling residential buildings.
Overview

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. 

Solution in Action

References

Alhamayani, A. D., Sun, Q., & Hallinan, K. P. (2021). Estimating smart Wi-Fi thermostat-enabled thermal comfort control savings for any residence. Clean Technologies, 3(4), 743–760. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol3040044  

Allcott, H., & Rogers, T. (2014). The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation. American Economic Review, 104(10), 3003–3037. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.10.3003  

Bergeron, R. (2024, May 9). Installation obligatoire d’un thermostat connecté en 2027. Expertise Rénovation. Link to source: https://www.expertise-renovation.com/actualites/installation-thermostat-connecte  

Bielig, M., Kutzner, F., Klingert, S., & Kacperski, C. (2025). Understanding intention to adopt smart thermostats: The role of individual predictors and social beliefs across five EU countries: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems, 1, 36–47. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5220/0013356200003953  

Blonz, J., Palmer, K., Wichman, C. J., & Wietelman, D. C. (2025). Smart thermostats, automation, and time-varying prices. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 17(1), 90–125. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20210618  

Chassin, D. P., Stoustrup, J., Agathoklis, P., & Djilali, N. (2015). A new thermostat for real-time price demand response: Cost, comfort and energy impacts of discrete-time control without deadband. Applied Energy, 155, 816–825. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.048 

EGIA Contractor University. (2025). Average service life of residential HVAC equipment. Link to source: https://library.mycontractoruniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/EGIA-AverageServiceLife.pdf  

Ellsworth, R. (2026, February 12). Residential HVAC industry statistics. ZipDo Education Reports. Link to source: https://zipdo.co/residential-hvac-industry-statistics/  

Energy Star. (n.d.). Energy Star® program requirements for connected thermostat products: Partner commitments. Link to source: https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Program%20Requirements%20for%20Connected%20Thermostats%20Version%201.0_0.pdf  

Energy Transitions Commission. (2025). Achieving zero-carbon buildings: Electric, efficient and flexible [Report]. Link to source: https://static.energy-transitions.org/uploads/resources/ETC_Buildings-Decarbonisation-Report_DIGITALFINAL.pdf  

Falchetta, G., Cian, E. D., Pavanello, F., & Wing, I. S. (2024). Inequalities in global residential cooling energy use to 2050. Nature Communications, 15(1), Article 7874. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-52028-8  

Fine, J. P., & Touchie, M. F. (2020). A grouped control strategy for the retrofit of post-war multi-unit residential building hydronic space heating systems. Energy and Buildings, 208, Article 109604. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109604  

Ge, M., Friedrich, J., & Vigna, L. (2026, April 27). Where do emissions come from? These charts explain greenhouse gas emissions by sector. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-countries-and-sectors   

Government of Canada. (2025). Heating and cooling with a heat pump. Link to source: https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-efficiency/energy-star/heating-cooling-heat-pump#hds  

Hendron, R., German, A., & Pereira, J. (2021). Modeling savings for Energy Star smart home energy management systems. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy21osti/79534.pdf 

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

International Energy Agency. (2023). Space heating. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/space-heating#dashboard  

Kini, R. L., Vlachokostas, A., Brambley, M. R., & Rogers, A. (2025). Occupant-centric demand response for thermostatically-controlled home loads. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 16(3), 2234–2245. Link to source: http://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2025.3540427  

Lee, Z. E., & Max Zhang, K. (2022). Unintended consequences of smart thermostats in the transition to electrified heating. Applied Energy, 322, Article 119384. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119384  

Lee, Z. E., Sun, Q., Ma, Z., Wang, J., MacDonald, J. S., & Max Zhang, K. (2020). Providing grid services with heat pumps: A review. ASME Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Buildings and Cities, 1(1), Article 011007. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4045819  

Lu, J., Sookoor, T., Srinivasan, V., Gao, G., Holben, B., Stankovic, J., Field, E., & Whitehouse, K. (2010). The smart thermostat: Using occupancy sensors to save energy in homes. Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys ’10, 211–224. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1145/1869983.1870005

Mourshed, M. (2016). Climatic parameters for building energy applications: A temporal-geospatial assessment of temperature indicators. Renewable Energy, 94, 55–71. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.021  

Nägele, F., Kasper, T., & Girod, B. (2017). Turning up the heat on obsolete thermostats: A simulation-based comparison of intelligent control approaches for residential heating systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75, 1254–1268. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.112  

Lockheed Martin Energy. (2017). Home energy management system savings validation pilot [NYSERDA Report 17-16]. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Link to source: https://www.ashb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/IS-2019-05.pdf  

Pang, Z., Chen, Y., Zhang, J., O’Neill, Z., Cheng, H., & Dong, B. (2021). How much HVAC energy could be saved from the occupant-centric smart home thermostat: A nationwide simulation study. Applied Energy, 283, Article 116251. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116251  

Peffer, T., Perry, D., Pritoni, M., Aragon, C., & Meier, A. (2013). Facilitating energy savings with programmable thermostats: Evaluation and guidelines for the thermostat user interface. Ergonomics, 56(3), 463–479. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.718370  

Pew Research Center. (2019). Religion and living arrangements around the world. Link to source: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2019/12/PF_12.12.19_religious.households.FULL_.pdf  

Pritoni, M., Meier, A. K., Aragon, C., Perry, D., & Peffer, T. (2015). Energy efficiency and the misuse of programmable thermostats: The effectiveness of crowdsourcing for understanding household behavior. Energy Research & Social Science, 8, 190–197. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.002  

Pritoni, M., Woolley, J. M., & Modera, M. P. (2016). Do occupancy-responsive learning thermostats save energy? A field study in university residence halls. Energy and Buildings, 127, 469–478. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.05.024  

Statistics Canada. (2025). Use of thermostats [Data set]. Link to source: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3810004901  

Stopps, H., & Touchie, M. F. (2021). Residential smart thermostat use: An exploration of thermostat programming, environmental attitudes, and the influence of smart controls on energy savings. Energy and Buildings, 238, Article 110834. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110834  

Stopps, H., & Touchie, M. F. (2022). Load shifting and energy conservation using smart thermostats in contemporary high-rise residential buildings: Estimation of runtime changes using field data. Energy and Buildings, 255, Article 111644. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111644  

Tamas, R., O’Brien, W., & Quintero, M. S. (2021). Residential thermostat usability: Comparing manual, programmable, and smart devices. Building and Environment, 203, Article 108104. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108104  

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

United Nations. (2024). World population prospects 2024 - Special aggregates [Data set]. Link to source: https://population.un.org/wpp/downloads?folder=Special%20Aggregates&group=UN-related%20groups   

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2018a). Table HC6.1 Space heating in U.S. homes, by housing unit type, 2015 [Data set]. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/  

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2018b). Table HC7.1 Air conditioning in U.S. homes by housing unit type, 2015 [Data set]. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/  

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023a). Table HC6.1 Space heating in U.S. homes, by housing unit type, 2020 [Data set]. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%206.1.pdf  

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023b). Table HC7.1 Air conditioning in U.S. homes, by housing unit type, 2020 [Data set]. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%207.1.pdf  

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). Power sector programs—Progress report. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/power-sector/progress-report  

Wang, C., Pattawi, K., & Lee, H. (2020). Energy saving impact of occupancy-driven thermostat for residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 211, Article 109791. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109791  

Yuan, Y., Song, C., Gao, L., Zeng, K., & Chen, Y. (2024). A review of current research on occupant-centric control for improving comfort and energy efficiency. Building Simulation, 17(10), 1675–1692. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-024-1170-1  

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Henry Igugu, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

For heating, 0.23 t CO₂‑eq/yr (20- and 100-yr basis) is reduced for every smart or programmable thermostat in use (Table 1a). This is a weighted global average based on the proportion of homes that use different sources of energy for space heating and assumes an 8% reduction in heating energy with a smart or programmable thermostat (Energy Star, n.d.). 

For cooling, 0.091 t CO₂‑eq/yr is reduced for every smart or programmable thermostat in use (100-year basis, 0.092 t CO₂‑eq/yr on a 20-yr basis) (Table 1b). This is a weighted global average based on regional electricity demand for space cooling and regional electricity grid emission factors. The analysis assumes a 10% reduction in cooling energy with a smart or programmable thermostat (Energy Star, n.d.).

The effectiveness of smart or programmable thermostats at reducing emissions will vary based on total heating and cooling demand. This is a function of climate and building performance as well as occupant behaviors (Hendron et al., 2021). Occupants may, for example, differ in how much they allow temperatures to drift while away or at night, how frequently overrides are used, and the schedules on which programming is based (Hendron et al., 2021).

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions from heating and cooling.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /smart or programmable thermostat used to save energy for heating/yr, 100-yr basis

Mean 0.23

Unit: t CO₂‑eq )/smart or programmable thermostat used to save energy on cooling/yr, 100-yr basis

Mean 0.091
Left Text Column Width
Cost

A smart or programmable thermostat for heating will save an average household US$370/t CO₂‑eq reduced (Table 2a). A smart or programmable thermostat for heating has an average initial cost of US$74, and households that adopt and use these thermostats to save on energy will spend on average US$89 less per year on heating. Assuming a 15-year lifespan (EGIA Contractor University, 2025), this results in a net US$84/yr savings.

We assumed that half of adopting households worldwide purchase a smart or programmable thermostat to use in their homes and the other half already own a smart or programmable thermostat and start using them to save energy with programmed setbacks. This is consistent with US statistics that show 55% of households with heating have a smart or programmable thermostat but only 16% use one to adjust heating temperatures, with most using one set temperature most of the time (U.S. EIA, 2023a). 

A smart or programmable thermostat for cooling will save a household US$230/t CO₂‑eq reduced (see Table 2a). The average initial cost for a smart or programmable thermostat for cooling is US$58, and will save a household an average of US$25/yr on cooling. Assuming a 15-year lifespan, this results in a net US$21/yr savings for the household.

For cooling, the initial cost assumes one-third of homes purchase a smart or programmable thermostat for a central air conditioning system, one-third purchase such a thermostat for a window or portable air conditioner, and one third use an existing smart or programmable thermostat but change behaviors to start using the programming feature. Similar to heating, 60% of U.S. households with cooling have a smart or programmable thermostat but only 15% use one to adjust cooling temperatures (U.S. EIA, 2023b). 

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact for heating and cooling. Negative values reflect cost savings.

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

Mean -370

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

Mean -230
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Insufficient data exist to quantify the learning curve for smart or programmable thermostats. 

Speed of Action

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

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

Use Smart & Programmable Thermostats is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. 

Caveats

Smart or programmable thermostats may be more difficult to implement in multiunit residential buildings with centralized heating and cooling systems in which units do not have temperature control (Fine & Touchie, 2020). Additionally, some existing space heating systems such as fireplaces and wood stoves may not be compatible with programmable thermostats. 

The Government of Canada (2025) recommends minimizing temperature setbacks for heat pumps or programming the return to normal temperatures in stages to avoid triggering the use of less efficient backup heating systems. 

This solution depends on households programming their thermostat or directing a smart thermostat to save energy. As with any outcome that depends on behavior change, post-intervention persistence can decay over time (Allcott & Rogers, 2014). Comfort concerns, changes to schedules, low perceived benefits, and lack of perceived control over heating and cooling systems are common reasons why households inactivate thermostat programming (Heatherly et al., 2023; Peffer et al., 2013; Pritoni et al., 2015; Stopps & Touchie, 2021). 

Some studies show little to no change in energy use with programmable thermostats, particularly if the thermostats are not easy to use (Peffer et al., 2013). Energy savings setbacks are more likely to be used with smart thermostats than programmable ones (Stopps & Touchie, 2021; Tamas et al., 2021), likely because of improved ease of use and increased automation. 

Use of smart and programmable thermostats reduces the emissions from operating buildings. However, these reductions pale in comparison to those offered by heat pumps and decarbonizing the electricity sector by adopting solutions such as distributed solar PV, utility-scale solar PV, onshore wind, and offshore wind.

Current Adoption

We estimated that 140 million households worldwide use smart or programmable thermostats to save energy for heating (Table 3a) and 30 million use them to save energy for cooling (Table 3b). 

The climate impact of this solution depends on households not only adopting the technology, but also using it to regularly adjust temperatures with the goal of saving energy. Where only adoption values exist, we assumed use patterns are similar to those in the United States, where 25–29% households that own a smart or programmable thermostat are using the programming feature (U.S. EIA, 2023a; U.S. EIA, 2023b).

For adoption, we estimated the number of households with smart or programmable thermostats in high-income countries separately from low- and middle-income countries and combined them to get a global total. In each case, we applied the average smart or programmable thermostat use rate for the group of countries to their estimated number of households that require heating or cooling. 

These estimates are based on data from seven studies covering different geographies and spanning 2017–2025. 

Table 3. Current adoption level (2025).

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats used for the purposes of saving energy on heating 

Total 140,000,000

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats used for the purposes of saving energy on cooling

Total 30,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

We estimate that globally, each year 1.4 million households start using smart or programmable thermostats to save on heating (Table 4a) and 0.60 million households start using them to save on cooling (Table 4b).

These data are based on surveys for heating and cooling covering 2015–2020 in the United States (U.S. EIA 2018b, 2018a, 2023b, 2023a) and 2007–2023 in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2025). Due to lack of data, we were not able to estimate adoption trends for low- and middle-income countries, and assumed the trend is negligible. 

Table 4. Current adoption trend (2007–2023).

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on heating/yr 

Total 1,400,000

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on cooling/yr

Total 600,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

If every household that currently relies on heating were to adopt and use smart or programmable thermostats to save energy, the total adoption would be 650 million households (Table 5a). This is based on the IEA’s estimate that 40% of households worldwide require space heating (World Bank, n.d.), combined with regional population estimates (United Nations, 2024), and estimates for household sizes by region (Pew Research Center, 2019).

Similarly for cooling, if every household that currently uses air conditioning were to adopt and use smart or programmable thermostats to save energy, the total adoption would be 580 million households (Table 5b). This is based on Falchetta et al.’s (2024) estimate that 35% of households worldwide currently have space cooling, combined with population and household size estimates (Pew Research Center, 2019; United Nations, 2024). This analysis does not reflect anticipated growing demand for space cooling with rising populations, rising affluence in low- and middle-income countries, and rising temperatures (Falchetta et al., 2024).

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

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on heating

Total 650,000,000

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on cooling

Total 580,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

For heating, we estimate that use of smart or programmable thermostats to save on energy could reach 290 to 510 million households globally (Table 6a). In high income countries, this assumes 65–100% of households with heating needs adopt and use thermostats to save energy. At the low end, this represents the reported rate of regular setback use for heating homes in the state of New York (Lockheed Martin Energy, 2017), and we assume all heating households could program thermostats to save energy at the high end. In low and middle income countries, we assume 16–48% of households with heating needs adopt and use smart or programmable thermostats to save energy. This is based on today’s estimated smart and programmable thermostat adoption and use rate in the United States and Canada respectively (Statistics Canada, 2025; U.S. EIA, 2023a).

For cooling, we estimate that use of smart or programmable thermostats to save on energy could reach 190–510 million households globally (see Table 6b). In high income countries, this assumes 75–100% of households with cooling systems use thermostats to save energy for cooling. At the low end, this represents the reported rate of regular setback use for cooling homes in the state of New York (Lockheed Martin Energy, 2017) and we assume all households adopt and use smart or programmable thermostats at the high end. In low and middle income countries, we assume households adopt and use smart and programmable thermostats at a rate of 15 and 75%, representing the current rates for the United States and the state of New York, respectively (Lockheed Martin Energy, 2017; U.S. EIA, 2023a).

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels. 

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on heating

Current adoption 140,000,000
Achievable – low 290,000,000
Achievable – high 510,000,000
Adoption ceiling 650,000,000

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on cooling

Current adoption 30,000,000
Achievable – low 190,000,000
Achievable – high 510,000,000
Adoption ceiling 580,000,000
Left Text Column Width

For space heating, current adoption and use of a smart or programmable thermostat to save energy has an estimated climate impact of 0.033 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr globally (100- and 20-year basis; Table 7a). If all households with heating were to adopt and use these thermostats, the estimated climate impact would be 0.15 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-year basis). We estimate the achievable range to be 0.065–0.12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-year basis). 

For space cooling, current adoption and use of a smart or programmable thermostat to save energy has an estimated climate impact of 0.0028 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr globally (100- and 20-year basis;Table 7a). If all households with heating were to adopt and use these thermostats, the estimated climate impact would be 0.052 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-year basis) and 0.053 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (20-year basis). We estimate the achievable range to be 0.017–0.46 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-year basis) and 0.018–0.47 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (20-year basis). 

The impact from heating is greater than the impact from cooling because there are more households that use heating and more energy is needed on average per household for heating. 

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq )/yr for heating, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.033
Achievable – low 0.065
Achievable – high 0.12
Adoption ceiling 0.15

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for cooling, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.0028
Achievable – low 0.017
Achievable – high 0.046
Adoption ceiling 0.052
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

When used as intended, smart and programmable thermostats can save money by saving energy (Blonz et al., 2025; Lu et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2020). The cost savings can vary depending on the type of thermostat, fuel used for heating, geographic location, and sources of energy used to generate electricity. In our estimates, on average, households using smart or programmable thermostats could save US$84/yr on heating and US$21/yr on cooling (see Table 2a). Where time-of-use electricity pricing exists, smart and programmable thermostats can be used to heat or cool a home in advance of peak periods to save even more (Chassin et al., 2015). 

Health

A reduction in energy demand from smart thermostats may lower air pollution and limit exposure to pollutants such as lead and fine particulate matter generated by fossil fuel-based power plants, thereby improving health in nearby communities (Henneman et al., 2023; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2024). 

Air Quality

Reducing energy use can reduce climate and air pollutants associated with burning fossil fuels, such as CO₂, nitrogen oxides, methane, lead, and fine particulate matter (U.S. EPA, 2024).

Risks

Smart and programmable thermostats have the potential to increase peak demand for electricity when programmed around common schedules. For example, thermostats may be programmed to raise temperatures in the early morning in winter when electricity grids are already strained (Lee & Max Zhang, 2022). Conversely, grid-integrated thermostats can reduce grid peaks by optimizing when heating or cooling occurs while maintaining occupant comfort (Kini et al., 2025).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Competing

There are diminishing returns as solutions that reduce heating and cooling loads are combined. When smart or programmable thermostats reduce the energy and emissions from heating and cooling, they also reduce the emissions savings these other solutions achieve. 

Consensus
Dashboard

Solution Basics

smart or programmable thermostat programmed to adjust temperatures

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.23
units
Current 1.4×10⁸ 02.9×10¹⁰5.1×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.033 0.0650.12
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-370
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Solution Basics

smart or programmable thermostat programmed to adjust temperatures

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.091
units
Current 3.0×10⁷ 01.9×10⁸5.1×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.003 0.0170.046
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-230
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

When large numbers of households use smart or programmable thermostats to save energy, it can unintentionally cause spikes in electricity demand when heating systems are simultaneously turned on to return temperatures to normal (Lee & Max Zhang, 2022). These spikes can increase overall grid capacity needs and increase demand from fossil-fueled peaking generation. Grid-interactive smart thermostats can reduce these spikes through grid level energy management (Lee et al., 2020). 

Action Word
Use
Solution Title
Smart & Programmable Thermostats
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Offer one-stop educational resources for thermostats; offer demonstrations for installation and programming through online videos and in-person demos; clearly state benefits of smart and programmable thermostats, highlighting the cost savings, social benefits, and environmental impacts.
  • Set clear and measurable targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and deployment of smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Ensure public procurement standards require smart and programmable thermostats for new construction; require retrofits for existing public buildings.
  • Create regulatory standards and building codes that encourage, incentivize, and/or require the use of smart and programmable thermostats, especially in new construction.
  • Periodically update codes, policies, and public guidance to keep pace with adoption and technology advances.
  • Encourage utilities to incentivize smart and programmable thermostat uptake and use for demand management.
  • Consider offering subsidies that allow for flexible implementation or selective applicability within national systems; ensure subsidy programs are designed based on scientific evidence showing they will have a positive impact on adoption for the intended beneficiaries; target subsidies to low- and middle-income households and simultaneously offer incentives for broadband and digital connectivity; ensure financial incentives cover both new installations and retrofits.
  • Focus broader policies on energy efficiency through the use of intelligent control.
  • Create regulatory standards and building codes that encourage, incentivize, and/or require the use of smart and programmable thermostats, especially in new construction.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Offer one-stop educational resources for thermostats; offer demonstrations for installation and programming through online videos and in-person demos; clearly state benefits of smart and programmable thermostats highlighting the cost savings, social benefits, and environmental impacts.
  • Offer free or discounted thermostats in electrically heated homes and homes with cooling in exchange for control when the electricity grid is strained. 
  • Ensure customers know they can upgrade their thermostats; provide recommendations to customers on purchasing, installing, and using smart and programmable thermostats; inform customers of public or private incentives for purchases and/or installation; educate customers on the savings, social, and environmental benefits of installation. 
  • Develop or offer easy-to-use smart and programmable thermostat systems; provide scheduled maintenance services for customers; bundle services with heating and cooling system services when possible; ensure customers have the option to review products and services online.
  • Offer thermostats that are compatible with widely used electronic devices such as laptops and smart phones; incorporate Wi-Fi, bluetooth, and the Internet of Things into thermostats, allow for remote control and visibility via smartphone apps.
  • Provide 0% financing options for bundled services, including thermostats and/or related energy efficiency measures.
  • Ease the learning curve for customers by providing clear, concise instructions; ensure elderly customers are comfortable with using the thermostat before leaving after installation.
  • Use customer feedback and work with manufacturers to simplify interface designs and improve functionality. 
  • Advertise for smart and programmable thermostats depicting individual savings on heating and cooling; use social media to reach broader audiences.
  • Create algorithms that can save energy and money for consumers by responding to time of use, customer behavior, and current weather; ensure thermostats have the ability to be updated for future improvements to the software.
  • When installing a thermostat, ensure it is easily accessible and will not be obstructed.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Help socialize the importance of smart and programmable thermostats by incorporating them into corporate net zero strategies; highlight the use of smart and programmable thermostats in public communications.
  • Invest in or offer grants to start-ups seeking to deploy smart and programmable thermostats; invest in research and development to determine optimal user interfaces and/or algorithms for smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Offer pro bono business advice to nonprofit organizations working to improve building efficiency and deploy smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Offer employees information or benefits for upgrading their thermostats at home.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Offer one-stop educational resources for thermostats; offer demonstrations for installation and programming through online videos and in-person demos; clearly state benefits of smart and programmable thermostats highlighting the cost savings, social benefits, and environmental impacts.
  • Help policymakers set clear and measurable targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and the deployment of smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Advocate for and help design regulatory standards and building codes that encourage, incentivize, and/or require the use of smart and programmable thermostats, especially in new construction.
  • Assist regulators in periodically updating codes, policies, and public guidance to keep pace with adoption and technology advances.
  • Advocate for subsidies that allow for flexible implementation or selective applicability within national systems; help ensure subsidy programs are designed based on scientific-evidence showing they will have a positive impact on adoption for the intended beneficiaries; recommend that subsidies be targeted to low- and middle-income households and simultaneously offer incentives for broadband and digital connectivity; help ensure financial incentives cover both new installations and retrofits.
  • Help shift policy frameworks to focus on energy efficiency through the use of intelligent control.
  • Conduct research to improve adoption and use of smart and programmable thermostats, paying close attention to how user interfaces impact behavior.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Investors
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that use smart or programmable thermostats as well as other energy-efficient heating and cooling technologies and practices.
  • Invest in research and development to improve smart and programmable thermostat design and user interface.
  • Invest in or offer grants to start-ups seeking to deploy smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Issue or buy green bonds to deploy capital to projects that use smart or programmable thermostats and integrate other energy-efficient heating and cooling technologies and practices.
  • Offer preferential loan agreements for developers using smart or programmable thermostats, energy efficient building practices, and other related climate solutions.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Offer one-stop educational resources for thermostats; offer demonstrations for installation and programming through online videos and in-person demos; clearly state benefits of smart and programmable thermostats, highlighting the cost savings, social benefits, and environmental impacts.
  • Offer grants or access to no-interest financing for retrofits and installations of smart and programmable thermostats; ensure financial support for projects involving building retrofits or new construction require the use of smart or programmable thermostats.
  • Offer grants of financing for research and development to improve smart and programmable thermostat design and user interface.
  • Invest in or offer grants to start-ups seeking to deploy smart or programmable thermostats.
  • Issue or buy green bonds to deploy capital to projects that use smart or programmable thermostats and integrate other energy-efficient heating and cooling technologies and practices.
  • Offer preferential loan agreements for developers using smart or programmable thermostats, energy efficient building practices, and other related climate solutions.
  • Help policymakers set clear and measurable targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and deployment of smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Advocate for and help design regulatory standards and building codes that encourage, incentivize, and/or require the use of smart and programmable thermostats, especially in new construction.
  • Help regulators periodically update codes, policies, and public guidance to keep pace with adoption and technology advances.
  • Advocate for subsidies that allow for flexible implementation or selective applicability within national systems; help ensure subsidy programs are designed based on scientific evidence showing they will have a positive impact on adoption for the intended beneficiaries; recommend that subsidies be targeted to low- and middle-income households and simultaneously offer incentives for broadband and digital connectivity; help ensure financial incentives cover both new installations and retrofits.
  • Help shift policy frameworks to focus on energy efficiency through the use of intelligent control.
  • Conduct research to improve adoption and use of smart and programmable thermostats, paying close attention to how user interfaces impact behavior.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Help create educational efforts and resources for smart and programmable thermostats; offer demonstrations for installation and programming through online videos and in-person demos; clearly state benefits of smart and programmable thermostats, highlighting the cost savings, social benefits, and environmental impacts.
  • Help policymakers set clear and measurable targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and deployment of smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Advocate for and help design regulatory standards and building codes that encourage, incentivize, and/or require the use of smart or programmable thermostats, especially in new construction.
  • Help regulators periodically update codes, policies, and public guidance to keep pace with adoption and technology advances.
  • Advocate for subsidies that allow for flexible implementation or selective applicability within national systems; help ensure subsidy programs are designed based on scientific evidence showing they will have a positive impact on adoption for the intended beneficiaries; recommend that subsidies be targeted to low- and middle-income households and simultaneously offer incentives for broadband and digital connectivity; help ensure financial incentives cover both new installations and retrofits.
  • Help shift policy frameworks to focus on energy efficiency through the use of intelligent control.
  • Conduct research to improve adoption and use of smart and programmable thermostats, paying close attention to how user interfaces impact behavior.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop smart systems that integrate thermostats into a systems level perspective, allowing thermostats to make adjustments based on household energy consumption; design these systems for automatic adjustments to energy usage depending on price signals, energy spikes, appliance use, charging time (e.g., for EVs), weather patterns, occupancy, and related factors; ensure thermostats can automatically update utility rates, weather forecasts, and other data that support cost- and energy-efficient use.
  • Develop smart thermostats and smart home systems that can be grid-integrated for demand management. 
  • Design software for smart and programmable thermostats that provides detailed feedback and individualized suggestions to consumers on energy usage, costs, and estimated savings.
  • Research how users interact with smart and programmable thermostats; examine impact of user interfaces (UIs) on consumer use; develop simplified UIs to facilitate adoption.
  • Research the relationship between household decision-making and smart or programmable thermostat adoption; highlight recommendations for reaching household decision-makers.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Upgrade to a smart or programmable thermostat, learn how to use its features, set the programming accordingly, and override the system as little as possible.
  • Consult and work with licensed heating and cooling system installers to determine best available options for smart or programmable thermostats, installation, and maintenance.
  • Make sure your thermostat is installed in a position that allows for easy, unobstructed access.
  • Take advantage of public incentives such as subsidies or low-interest financing for installation, retrofits, and/or maintenance.
  • If provided by your smart thermostat or energy provider, opt into alerts that inform you of abnormally high energy usage which can be an early warning of problems with a heating and cooling system.
  • Take time to understand your smart or programmable thermostat; use profile settings and scheduling to optimize energy and money savings.
  • If you own a smart thermostat, opt into demand response programs to lower energy consumption during peak times; turn on notifications for heating and cooling system maintenance.
  • Share your experience with your neighbors, community, and social networks, and offer help in programming a thermostat where appropriate.
  • If possible, regularly schedule heating and cooling system maintenance and upgrades, including for related equipment such as thermostats. 
  • If smart or programmable thermostats are not an option, manually adjust your thermostat to reduce energy consumption when you’re not home, during peak hours, or to reflect weather conditions; consult your energy provider for tips on thermostat adjustments that can save money and energy.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions: High 

There is strong consensus that smart and programmable thermostats will reduce energy use and associated emissions when used to regularly adjust temperatures. 

Numerous studies have demonstrated that energy savings with smart or programmable thermostats can be significant but also vary significantly. For example, Yuan et al.’ (2024)’s review of occupancy-based control studies for heating, air conditioning and ventilation systems found energy savings of 7–44%. (Pang et al., 2021) noted that factors such as climate conditions, building characteristics, occupant behaviors, and setback temperatures can affect energy savings outcomes. 

Pritoni et al. (2016) found that field study outcomes for smart thermostats can differ from the outcomes predicted by models, which are the most common approach to estimating energy savings and, by extension, emissions savings. Factors that can account for some of this discrepancy include comfort preferences, overrides, poor programming, and occupancy (Pritoni et al., 2015; Stopps & Touchie, 2021). 

A major barrier to realizing energy savings with smart or programmable thermostats is getting households to use the programming feature. Bielig et al. (2025) demonstrated that smart thermostat adoption and use are tied to perceived value, usefulness, and ease of use in European Union countries. Meanwhile, Pritoni et al. (2015) highlighted how many U.S. households have a poor understanding of how and when programmed set points save energy, and identified challenges with programming thermostats and comfort concerns as barriers to their use. Smart thermostats that learn occupant behaviors and preferences have shown to be easier to use than programmable thermostats (Tamas et al., 2021) and can achieve higher energy savings with higher thermal comfort (Nägele et al., 2017).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from five original studies, 10 reports, nine databases, two market research reports, and 11 product information web pages. This reflects current evidence from 11 countries, primarily high-income countries, and seven global regions. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Precision Fermentation

Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Curb Growing Demands
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
The Drawdown Explorer’s Deploy Precision Fermentation assessment will be coming soon.
Solution in Action
Speed of Action
Caveats
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Precision Fermentation
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Leaf Protein Concentrates

Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
We will keep watching Deploy Leaf Protein Concentrates as a climate solution.
Solution in Action
Speed of Action
Caveats
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Leaf Protein Concentrates
Classification
Keep Watching

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Electric Cooking Equipment

Sector
Buildings & Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Energy Sources
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Electric Cooking Equipment is a Worthwhile climate solution.
Solution in Action
Speed of Action
Caveats
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Electric Cooking Equipment
Classification
Worthwhile

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Utility-Scale Hydropower

Sector
Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Production
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Utility-Scale Hydropower is a Worthwhile climate solution.
Solution in Action
Speed of Action
Caveats
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Utility-Scale Hydropower
Classification
Worthwhile

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Improve Fuel-Burning Cooking Equipment

Sector
Buildings
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Enhance Efficiency Shift Energy Sources
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Summary

In low- and middle-income countries, adopting cooking equipment that uses cleaner fuels or is more efficient has the potential to reduce GHG emissions from both cooking and deforestation due to unsustainable biomass use. Such equipment is readily available and inexpensive and provides significant social benefits. Barriers to adoption include cost and cultural practices, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Due to limited data to evaluate the emissions impact of improving fuel-burning equipment, we will “Keep Watching” this solution. 

Description for Social and Search
Improve Fuel-Burning Cooking Equipment is a Keep Watching climate solution.
Overview

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. 

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? No
Effective Does it consistently work? Yes
Impact Is it big enough to matter? Yes
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? Yes

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.

Solution in Action

References

Cited References

Bailis, R., Drigo, R., Ghilardi, A., & Masera, O. (2015). The carbon footprint of traditional woodfuels. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 266–272. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2491   

Couture, T. D., & Jacobs, D. (2019). Beyond fire: How to achieve electric cooking [Report]. Hivos and World Future Council. Link to source: https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Beyond-Fire-How-to-achieve-electric-cooking.pdf 

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

Jewitt, S., Atagher, P., & Clifford, M. (2020). “We cannot stop cooking”: Stove stacking, seasonality and the risky practices of household cookstove transitions in Nigeria. Energy Research & Social Science, 61, Article 101340. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101340 

Johnson, E. (2009). Charcoal versus LPG grilling: A carbon-footprint comparison. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(6), 370–378. Link to source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.02.004 

Khavari, B., Ramirez, C., Jeuland, M., & Fuso Nerini, F. (2023). A geospatial approach to understanding clean cooking challenges in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature Sustainability, 6(4), 447–457. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01039-8 

MacCarty, N., Still, D., & Ogle, D. (2010). Fuel use and emissions performance of fifty cooking stoves in the laboratory and related benchmarks of performance. Energy for Sustainable Development, 14(3), 161–171. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.06.002 

Modern Energy Cooking Services, & Energy 4 Impact. (2021). Clean cooking: Financing appliances for end users [Report]. Link to source: https://www.energy4impact.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/financing_appliances_report_0.pdf 

Pearson, T. R. H., Brown, S., Murray, L., & Sidman, G. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: An underestimated source. Carbon Balance and Management, 12(1), Article 3. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-017-0072-2  

Stoner, O., Lewis, J., Martínez, I. L., Gumy, S., Economou, T., & Adair-Rohani, H. (2021). Household cooking fuel estimates at global and country level for 1990 to 2030. Nature communications, 12(1), Article 5793. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26036-x 

World Bank. (2020). The state of access to modern energy cooking services [Report]. Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/the-state-of-access-to-modern-energy-cooking-services

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies. Retrieved May 29, 2026, from Link to source: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/air-pollution/household-air-pollution 

Additional Resources

Anenberg, S. C., Balakrishnan, K., Jetter, J., Masera, O., Mehta, S., Moss, J., & Ramanathan, V. (2013). Cleaner cooking solutions to achieve health, climate, and economic cobenefits. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(9), 3944–3952. Link to source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es304942e

Clean Cooking Alliance. (2022). Accelerating clean cooking as a nature-based climate solution [Report]. Link to source: https://cleancooking.org/reports-and-tools/accelerating-clean-cooking-as-a-nature-based-climate-solution/

International Energy Agency. (2025). Universal access to clean cooking in Africa [Report]. Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/f0170390-a39b-407e-9ffe-b1cc865d0c5d/UniversalAccesstoCleanCookinginAfrica.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024). Advancing renewables-based clean cooking solutions: Key messages and outcomes [Report]. Link to source: https://cop.impulsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/IRENA_Renewables-based_clean_cooking_2024.pdf 

Kaur-Sidhu, M., Ravindra, K., Mor, S., & John, S. (2020). Emission factors and global warming potential of various solid biomass fuel-cook stove combinations. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 11(2), 252–260. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2019.10.009  

Rosenthal, J., Quinn, A., Grieshop, A. P., Pillarisetti, A., & Glass, R. I. (2018). Clean cooking and the SDGs: Integrated analytical approaches to guide energy interventions for health and environment goals. Energy for Sustainable Development, 42, 152–159. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2017.11.003 

Sharma, D., Ravindra, K., Kaur, M., Prinja, S., & Mor, S. (2020). Cost evaluation of different household fuels and identification of the barriers for the choice of clean cooking fuels in India. Sustainable Cities and Society, 52, Article 101825. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101825  

United Nations. (n.d.). Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. Retrieved May 29, 2026, from Link to source: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal7#progress_and_info 

World Health Organization. (2025). Household air pollution. Link to source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health

Credits

Lead Fellow:

Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers:

Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

Speed of Action
Caveats
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Fuel-Burning Cooking Equipment
Classification
Keep Watching

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Heat Pump Water Heaters

Sector
Buildings
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Energy Sources
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Heat Pump Water Heaters is a Worthwhile climate solution.
Solution in Action
Speed of Action
Caveats
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Heat Pump Water Heaters
Classification
Worthwhile

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Electric Cooking Equipment

Sector
Buildings & Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Energy Sources
Image
Coffee pot on an electric stove
Coming Soon
On
Summary

Electric cooking equipment such as electric resistance stoves, induction stoves, and electric ovens can replace fuel-burning cooking equipment and reduce cooking-related GHG emissions, especially in regions with low-emission electricity grids. Cooking with electricity has significant health, safety, and energy efficiency benefits but cost, reliable access to electricity, and cultural compatibility are barriers to adoption. The climate impact varies regionally and data limitations hinder a deeper analysis, so we will “Keep Watching” this potential climate solution.

Description for Social and Search
Deploy electric cooking equipment is a Worthwhile climate solution.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, deploying electric cooking equipment can reduce emissions while providing significant additional benefits for health. However, the lack of quantitative data on emissions impacts precludes a full analysis. We will “Keep Watching” this potential climate solution. 

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? No
Effective Does it consistently work? No
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? ?

What is it?

Using electricity for cooking instead of burning fuels such as liquid petroleum gas (LPG), natural gas, biogas, biomass, charcoal, coal, or kerosene reduces the emissions from burning fuels and can reduce emissions overall when powered by low-emissions electricity. The World Health Organization (WHO, n.d.) estimated that 60% of the global population cooked with gas and 26% cooked with biomass in 2023, while only 8.4% used electricity. Natural gas is the most common fuel for gas cooking in countries where gas distribution infrastructure exists, while liquid petroleum gas is common in low- and middle-income countries (Kojima, 2021). Cooking with electricity typically involves single or multi-element electric resistance or induction cookstoves and electric ovens. The Improve Fuel-Burning Cooking Equipment solution focuses on the adoption of more efficient fueled cookstoves and the switch to cleaner fuels such as LPG as a stepping stone toward eventual electric cooking in low-income communities where reliable and affordable access to electricity is currently lacking (Couture & Jacobs, 2019). 

Does it work?

Cooking with electricity rather than fuels reduces emissions from cooking in areas with low grid emissions (Gould et al., 2023), and relies on well-established technologies. Burning fuels for cooking generates greenhouse gas emissions, and methane leaks from natural gas stoves also contribute to emissions (Lebel et al., 2022). Cooking with electricity can be two or more times more energy efficient than alternatives (Rao & Sagar, 2024). Furthermore, electric cooking equipment is widely available. However, the total emissions impact of shifting to electric cooking equipment will be limited because cooking is a minor contributor to total building energy use worldwide (IEA, 2025). 

Why are we excited?

Electric cooking can have significant benefits for health, safety, and energy use, with modern electric appliances growing in popularity among chefs. Electric cooking equipment also supports all-electric new developments and provides benefits in communities with mini-grids. Burning fuels for cooking contributes to household air pollution (Lebel et al., 2022), which is responsible for an estimated 2.9 million premature deaths per year (WHO, n.d.), and also generates poisonous carbon monoxide. Explosions can also result when fuel leaks from fuel-burning cooking equipment (Lebel et al., 2022). Electric cooking reduces or eliminates these health and safety risks because fuels are not used. Furthermore, electric cooking is more energy efficient (Gould et al., 2023), and therefore releases less unwanted heat to the kitchen area which can improve comfort and the need for air conditioning (Li et al., 2024; Luo et al., 2023). Modern induction cookstoves are gaining in popularity among chefs because they can heat food faster with better temperature control than alternatives (Hawking, 2025) and have the added advantage of being easy to clean. In new developments, electric cooking enables all-electric developments that avoid locking in new fossil-fuel infrastructure (Tan et al., 2022). In some regions in Africa, electric pressure cookers are also a promising solution for some cooking tasks because their lower energy needs make them easier to integrate into mini-grids (Efficiency for Access et al., 2020; Kweka et al., 2021). 

Why are we concerned?

Electric cooking adoption can be hampered by costs, unreliable access to electricity, and cultural preferences. In addition, net emissions can increase when used in areas with high grid emissions, and data for analysis are limited. In high-income countries, switching to electric cooking can trigger additional electrical upgrade costs (Pergantis et al., 2025). In low-income countries, up-front costs are a major barrier, as is reliable, safe, and affordable access to electricity (Das et al, 2025; IEA, 2024). An estimated 750 million people lack access to electricity worldwide, with more than 80% living in Africa (IEA, 2024). Households may also continue to use traditional cooking methods alongside electric appliances due to cultural preferences (Crentsil et al., 2025). The effectiveness of this solution varies regionally, with grid emissions factors, electrical equipment efficiency, and the fuel being substituted all playing a role in whether electric cooking provides net emissions benefits and the magnitude of those benefits. The biggest factor is the emissions due to the grid mix providing electricity, which varies regionally. Finally, a lack of data on the relative proportions of fuels in use today for cooking is a barrier to deeper analysis. 

Solution in Action

References

Cited References

Couture, T. D., & Jacobs, D. (2019). Beyond fire how to achieve electric cooking. [Report.] Hivos people unlimited, World Future Council. Link to source: https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Beyond-Fire_-How-to-achieve-electric-cooking.pdf 

Crentsil, A. O., Danquah, S. K., Agbelie, I. S. K., & Bawakyillenuo, S. (2025). E-cooking growth in Ghana: Empirical examination of opportunities and challenges. Clean Energy, 9(6), 96–108. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/ce/zkaf034 

Das, I., Galeos, S. K. D., Xue, Y., Zong, J., Lewis, J. J., Fujita‐Conrads, R., Williams, K. N., Troncoso, K., Adair‐Rohani, H., & Jeuland, M. (2025). The costs and benefits of clean cooking policies in low‐ and middle‐income countries under real‐world conditions. Sustainable Development, 33(4), 6108–6123. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3463 

Efficiency for Access, PowerGen, & Modern Energy Cooking Services. (2020). Electric pressure cooking: Accelerating mocrogrid e-cooking through business and delivery model innovations [Report]. Link to source: https://efficiencyforaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/Accelerating-Microgrid-E-Cooking-Through-Business-and-Delivery-Model-Innovations.pdf 

Gould, C. F., Bejarano, M. L., De La Cuesta, B., Jack, D. W., Schlesinger, S. B., Valarezo, A., & Burke, M. (2023). Climate and health benefits of a transition from gas to electric cooking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(34), Article e2301061120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301061120 

Hawking, T. (2025). Are induction stoves better? These chefs think so. Popular Science. Link to source: https://www.popsci.com/science/how-induction-stoves-work-better/ 

International Energy Agency. (2024). SDG7: Data and projections. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/sdg7-data-and-projections/overview 

International Energy Agency. (2025). Energy efficiency 2025. Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/23a80bb2-6985-4507-ab99-c1d700f6548b/EnergyEfficiency2025.pdf 

Kojima, M. (2021). Primary household energy for cooking and heating in 52 developing economies. World Bank. Link to source: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/2f5b11f1-170f-5c3b-a5f8-25057993f294/content 

Kweka, A., Clements, A., Bomba, M., Schürhoff, N., Bundala, J., Mgonda, E., Nilsson, M., Avila, E., & Scott, N. (2021). Tracking the adoption of electric pressure cookers among mini-grid customers in Tanzania. Energies, 14(15), Article 4574. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154574 

Lebel, E. D., Finnegan, C. J., Ouyang, Z., & Jackson, R. B. (2022). Methane and NO x emissions from natural gas stoves, cooktops, and ovens in residential homes. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(4), 2529–2539. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707

Li, J., Li, S., Zeng, Y., Zhou, X., Zeng, L., Liu, M., Cao, C., Xia, Y., & Gao, J. (2024). Cooking-related thermal comfort and carbon emissions assessment: Comparison between electric and gas cooking in air-conditioned kitchens. Building and Environment, 265, Article 111992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111992 

Luo, M., Guo, X., Feng, X., & Chen, W. (2023). Studying occupant’s heat exposure and thermal comfort in the kitchen through full-scale experiments and CFD simulations. Indoor and Built Environment, 32(5), 928–943. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X221147161  

Pergantis, E. N., Reyes Premer, L. D., Lee, A. H., Priyadarshan, Liu, H., Groll, E. A., Ziviani, D., & Kircher, K. J. (2025). Protecting residential electrical panels and service through model predictive control: A field study. Applied Energy, 386, 125528. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125528 

Rao, N. D., & Sagar, A. D. (2024). Electric cooking as a clean and just energy solution. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 5(11), 751–752. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-024-00608-z 

Tan, L., Fahollahzadeh, M.H., Taylor, E. (2022). The economics of electrifying buildings: residential new construction. Rocky Mountain Institute. https://rmi.org/insight/economics-of-electrifying-residential new-construction/

World Health Organization. (2025). Household air pollution. World Health Organization. Link to source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health 

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Cooking fuels: Population with primary reliance on fuels and technologies for cooking, by fuel type, proportions (%). World Health Organization. Link to source: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/proportion-of-population-with-primary-reliance-on-fuels-and-technologies-for-cooking-by-fuel-type 

Other Sources

Aemro, Y. B., Moura, P., & De Almeida, A. T. (2021). Experimental evaluation of electric clean cooking options for rural areas of developing countries. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 43, Article 100954. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100954 

Cozzi, L., Petrelli, M., & Roge, A. (2026, May 13). Energy crisis threatens world’s most vulnerable as cooking fuel shortages grow. International Energy Agency. International Energy Agency. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/energy-crisis-threatens-world-s-most-vulnerable-as-cooking-fuel-shortages-grow 

Floess, E., Grieshop, A., Puzzolo, E., Pope, D., Leach, N., Smith, C. J., Gill-Wiehl, A., Landesman, K., & Bailis, R. (2023). Scaling up gas and electric cooking in low- and middle-income countries: Climate threat or mitigation strategy with co-benefits? Environmental Research Letters, 18(3), Article 034010. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acb501 

Im, H., & Kim, Y. (2020). The electrification of cooking methods in Korea—Impact on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Energies, 13(3), Article 680. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en13030680 

Leach, M., Mullen, C., Lee, J., Soltowski, B., Wade, N., Galloway, S., Coley, W., Keddar, S., Scott, N., & Batchelor, S. (2021). Modelling the costs and benefits of modern energy cooking services—Methods and case studies. Energies, 14(12), Article 3371. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14123371 

Odoi-Yorke, F. (2024). A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of electric cooking: Evolution, emerging trends, and future research directions for sustainable development. Sustainable Energy Research, 11, Article 2024. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807

Credits

Lead Fellow:

Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers:

Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

Speed of Action
Caveats
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Electric Cooking Equipment
Classification
Keep Watching

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Mobilize Electric Buses

Sector
Transportation
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Fuel Switching
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
Mobilize Electric Buses is a Highly Recommended climate solution.
Solution in Action
Speed of Action
Caveats
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Mobilize
Solution Title
Electric Buses
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Grass-Finished Beef

Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Grass-fed beef in package
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

The Deploy Grass-Finished Beef solution involves raising cattle entirely on pasture for their full lives, as opposed to grain-finished beef, where cattle spend the final four to six months in feedlots prior to slaughter. Grass-finished beef has higher GHG emissions than grain-finished due to slower growth and forage diets, which increase enteric methane emissions per unit of beef and requires substantially more land for what is already the most resource-intensive food option available. Interest in grass-finished systems reflects efforts to reduce feed crop use, gain modest nutritional improvements, and reduce antimicrobial use. However, maintaining the current beef supply with grass-finished systems would require more cattle, far more land, and result in higher GHG emissions. Therefore, Deploy Grass-Finished Beef is “Not Recommended” as an effective climate solution.

Description for Social and Search
Deploy Grass-Finished Beef is Not Recommended as a climate solution.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, grass-finished beef production has higher emissions of enteric methane and emissions from land use conversion than does conventional beef production, and would increase risks of biodiversity loss if scaled to meet current demand. Therefore, it is "Not Recommended" as a climate solution.

Plausible Could it work? No
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Yes
Effective Does it consistently work? No
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? No

What is it?

Grass-finished beef production involves raising cattle exclusively on available pasture for their entire lives, eliminating the need for feed crops and associated resources. All cattle begin life on pasture; however, in conventional beef production, the animals spend their final four to six months in high-density feedlots, often called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). In these systems, cattle are fed high-calorie, mostly grain-based-energy feeds to gain weight quickly. The animals put on one-third to one-half of their total weight during this time, to reach slaughter weight by ~18 months. In contrast, grass-finished beef production requires ~24 to 28 months for animals to reach market weight on forage alone. 

Cattle raised entirely on grazing with no other feed inputs provide only about 1% of global protein. Using broader definitions of grass-finished that allow supplementary forage increases the global beef that would qualify to roughly one-third of global production (about 2–3% of global protein). Grass-fed cattle often receive supplementary feed in pasture-based systems in places such as Brazil, Ireland, and Australia, particularly during seasonal feed shortages.

Does it work?

Deploying grass-finished beef is not an effective climate mitigation strategy. Grass-finished cattle eat a more fibrous diet that produces higher methane emissions per unit of energy intake, and they take longer to reach market weight, resulting in higher lifetime methane emissions per animal. One widely cited study found that forage-fed cattle produce around four times more methane per unit of digestible energy intake than those fed corn- and grain-based diets. In addition, slower weight gain and longer production time require more grazing land, which would likely increase emissions from deforestation and other land use change. Life-cycle assessments consistently show higher emissions per kilogram for grass-finished beef than for grain-finished beef. Even the most efficient grass-finished systems produce 10–25% more emissions per kilogram of protein than grain-finished U.S. beef, and three to over 40 times more than a wide range of plant and animal protein alternatives.

Why are we excited?

Interest in grass-finished beef reflects a broader effort to reduce the environmental harms of industrial livestock systems and improve land stewardship. In limited local contexts, if grass-finished and feedlot grain–finished cattle could gain weight equally, this could alleviate the need for crops destined for feedlot. A recent estimate found that, globally, 34% of crops grown on recently converted natural ecosystems went to animal feed instead of feeding people directly. While grass-finished beef has a higher total water use, it can reduce water risk by shifting from irrigated feed crops for cattle feedlots to rain-fed pastures.

From a human health standpoint, grass-finished beef may contain slightly higher omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin E, but the differences are small and unlikely to meaningfully affect health outcomes. It is often slightly leaner, which can reduce total fat and saturated fat somewhat, but beef in general remains higher in fat than most food options, which increases the risk of heart disease. Within the broader category of red meat, it is still a Group 2A probable carcinogen, according to the World Health Organization. 

Another human health consideration is that grass finishing requires less antimicrobial use. Antibiotics and other antimicrobials are often used in large quantities in confined livestock systems, and cattle account for over half of antimicrobial use among cattle, chickens, and pigs. This use increased by 43% between 2010 and 2020, raising concerns about accelerating antimicrobial resistance and making infection treatments in humans less effective. This may be the strongest case for grass-finished beef, particularly within a global demand reduction scenario.

From an animal welfare perspective, pasture-based systems allow natural behaviors such as walking, socializing, and grazing freely. However, animals are still slaughtered at a young age (before 3 years old) relative to their natural lifespan of 20 years.

Why are we concerned?

Beef production is already the largest single land use globally and the most emissions-intensive food option. Shifting to grass-finished systems would further increase this footprint. Beef is inherently protein-inefficient, requiring large amounts of feed and land. While grass-finished systems were historically the norm, the rise of grain-finishing feedlots after the 1950s modestly improved efficiency by shortening cattle lifespans and reducing per-kilogram land use. Land is a key limiting factor in any expansion of grass-finished production. In the United States, pastureland could support only approximately 27% of current beef production under grass-finished systems. Maintaining current output would require roughly 30% more cattle and 270% more land and would result in a 43% increase in associated methane emissions.

Such land expansion would pose serious biodiversity loss risks. Animal-sourced foods are the leading driver of biodiversity and habitat loss globally. Ruminant meat is disproportionately responsible, causing extinction risks ~340 times higher than grains by mass and ~100 times higher than legumes both by mass and when adjusted for protein, according to a 2025 study.

Last, many government and commercial “grass-fed” certifications are not well enforced and often include cropland-grown forage, which still results in slower weight gain, more methane emissions, and often land carbon leakage. As a result, there are concerns about greenwashing as major fast-food chains market grass-fed beef as environmentally friendly.

While there will likely continue to be an appeal to consumers to choose grass-finished beef, it does not meaningfully change the environmental reality of producing it.

Solution in Action

References

Ardakani, Z., Aragrande, M., & Canali, M. (2024). Global antimicrobial use in livestock farming: An estimate for cattle, chickens, and pigs. Animal, 18(2), 101060. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2023.101060

Ball, T. S., Dales, M., Eyres, A., Green, J. M., Madhavapeddy, A., Williams, D. R., & Balmford, A. (2025). Food impacts on species extinction risks can vary by three orders of magnitude. Nature Food, 6(9), 848–856. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01224-w

Blaustein-Rejto, D., Soltis, N., & Blomqvist, L. (2023). Carbon opportunity cost increases carbon footprint advantage of grain-finished beef. PLOS ONE, 18(12), e0295035. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295035

Capper, J. L. (2011). The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science, 89(12), 4249–4261. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3784

Clark, M. A., & Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environmental Research Letters, 12(6), 064016. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5

Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Shaket, T., Cotler, B. D., Gilutz, S., Giddings, D., Raymo, M. E., & Milo, R. (2018). A model for “sustainable” US beef production. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(1), 81–85. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0390-5

Eshel, G., Flamholz, A. I., Shepon, A., & Milo, R. (2025). US grass-fed beef is as carbon intensive as industrial beef and ≈10-fold more intensive than common protein-dense alternatives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(12), e2404329122. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2404329122

Feigin, S. V., Wiebers, D. O., Blumstein, D. T., Knight, A., Eshel, G., Lueddeke, G., & Winkler, A. S. (2025). Solving climate change requires changing our food systems. Oxford Open Climate Change, 5(1), kgae024. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgae024

Garnett, T., Godde, C., Muller, A., Röös, E., Smith, P., de Boer, I. J. M., van Zanten, H., Herrero, M., Schader, C., van Middelaar, C., & Thornton, P. (2017). Grazed and confused? Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question. Food Climate Research Network, University of Oxford. Link to source: https://www.tabledebates.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf

Harper, L. A., Denmead, O. T., Freney, J. R., & Byers, F. M. (1999). Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 77(6), 1392–1401. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.7761392x

Hayek, M. N., & Garrett, R. D. (2018). Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population. Environmental Research Letters, 13(8), 084005. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

Hayek, M. (2022). Missing the grassland for the cows: Scaling grass‐finished beef production entails tradeoffs–Comment on “Grazed perennial grasslands can match current beef production while contributing to climate mitigation and adaptation.” Agricultural & Environmental Letters, 7(2). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.20073

International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2018). Red meat and processed meat (IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans, Vol. 114). World Health Organization. Link to source: https://publications.iarc.who.int/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Red-Meat-And-Processed-Meat-2018

Machovina, B., Feeley, K. J., & Ripple, W. J. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Science of the Total Environment, 536, 419–431. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

Smid, A. M. C., Weary, D. M., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. (2020). The influence of different types of outdoor access on dairy cattle behavior. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 257. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00257

Sun, Z., Behrens, P., Tukker, A., Bruckner, M., & Scherer, L. (2022). Global human consumption threatens key biodiversity areas. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(12), 9003–9014. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c00506

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Nicholas Carter

Internal Reviewers

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
  • Emily Cassidy
Speed of Action
Caveats
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Grass-Finished Beef
Classification
Not Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon
Subscribe to Cut Emissions
back to top