Deploy Utility-Scale Hydropower

Sector
Electricity
Image
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
Image
Image
Family cooking on a clean stove indoors
Coming Soon
Off
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 Change5(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 Science61, 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 Review29(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 Sustainability6(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 Development14(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 communications12(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 Research11(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 Development42, 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 Society52, 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
Image
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

Image
Image
Coffee pot on an electric stove
Coming Soon
Off
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 emissions from natural gas stoves, cooktops, and ovens in residential homes. Environmental Science & Technology56(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 Energy386, 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

Let’s turbo-boost heat pump sales by making heat pumps the default for cooling

Heat pumps are awesome technologies for home heating that can increase home comfort, provide cooling, save energy and money, reduce air pollution, and perform many other functions – all while cutting greenhouse gas emissions. But while heat pumps are slowly taking over the market for home heating, their rate of adoption can also be turbo charged by promoting them as the next generation of air conditioners.  

Economic growth in low-income countries can reduce pressure on natural ecosystems

Image
Farm fields
Credit: Shutterstock | Radka Stankova
Off

Key Takeaways

  • New research suggests that economic development and environmental protection can coexist.
  • Based on global trends, the study authors predict that faster economic development in lower-income countries could reduce pressure to turn natural ecosystems into farmland.
  • Combining accelerated development in lower-income countries with an improved food system in higher-income countries could dramatically reduce habitat loss by 2100.

For decades, environmental debates have been framed around a stark trade-off: economic growth lifts people out of poverty but comes at the expense of forests, wildlife, and climate stability. More people and richer diets mean more farmland and less nature. 

However, a new study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers from the University of Minnesota, Project Drawdown, Bowdoin College, and Purdue University suggests that this long-assumed conflict between development and conservation may not be inevitable.

Analyzing global trends in population growth, food demand, crop yields, and agricultural trade, the research team found that faster economic development in lower-income countries could reduce pressure to convert the world’s natural ecosystems into farmland. 

“Our results show that working to help nations develop economically, while providing benefits to people, also can lead to positive outcomes for biodiversity and climate,” says James Gerber, Ph.D., Senior Scientist at Project Drawdown and a study coauthor. “In other words, doing the right thing for people – which is where we should always start – is also doing the right thing for the planet.” 

Agriculture already dominates the planet’s landscape. Croplands cover about 12%, and grazing lands cover about 25% of Earth’s ice-free land surface, making agriculture a major contributor to climate change as well as the leading driver of habitat loss for terrestrial species. 

The study estimates that maintaining current trends would lead to a dramatic expansion of global croplands during the 21st century. These projections suggest that farmland could grow by more than 1 billion hectares by 2100 – an increase that would threaten vast areas of remaining natural habitat.

Much of that expansion would occur in lower-income countries where populations are growing rapidly, and crop yields remain relatively low. But more rapid economic development in lower-income countries could change that trajectory. As incomes rise, countries typically undergo a “demographic transition” in which birth rates decline and population growth slows. Economic development also tends to bring improvements in agricultural productivity through better technology, infrastructure, and research investment.

The study found:

  • Continuing current trends in agricultural production and food consumption could result in a near doubling of cropland area in lower-income countries to the detriment of biodiversity and the climate.
  • Economic development in lower-income countries could reduce future global cropland requirements due to slower population growth, improved crop yield, and higher volumes of global crop trade, which could more than offset rising per capita crop demand.
  • Decreasing per capita crop demand in higher-income countries by eating healthier diets, reducing food waste, and reducing biofuel production could reduce cropland requirements, especially if combined with expanded agricultural trade.
  • Combining accelerated economic development in lower-income countries with reduced crop demand in higher-income countries could dramatically shrink global cropland area by the year 2100.

Taken together, the findings suggest that policies promoting agricultural innovation, economic opportunity, and more efficient food systems could produce an unusual combination of outcomes: less poverty, less habitat destruction, and lower climate emissions.

“Accelerating economic development in lower-income countries can reduce poverty and, more surprisingly, also be good for nature,” says Stephen Polasky, Ph.D., coauthor of the study, Regents Professor and co-founder of NatCap TEEMs at the University of Minnesota College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences. “Higher incomes are associated with lower population growth and increased crop yields, which can more than offset growth in per capita consumption.”

“Economic growth is often viewed as working against conservation,” says Craig Packer, Ph.D., coauthor of the study and Distinguished McKnight University Professor in the University of Minnesota College of Biological Sciences. “Faster development in poorer countries would not only improve the lives of millions of people but could substantially reduce the pressure to clear new land for agriculture.”

The authors added that achieving accelerated economic development, increasing agricultural research and development spending, reducing crop demand in higher-income countries, and reducing trade barriers all require overcoming substantial obstacles.


About Project Drawdown

Project Drawdown is the world’s leading resource for climate solutions. By advancing science-based climate solutions, fostering bold climate leadership, and promoting new narratives and voices, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization is helping the world stop climate change as quickly, safely, and equitably as possible. Learn more at drawdown.org.

About NatCap TEEMs

NatCap TEEMs (Natural Capital Alliance: The Earth-Economy Modelers) at the University of Minnesota aims to improve understanding of the integrated earth-economy system and to inform decision-making for sustainable development on a livable planet. Learn more at natcapteems.umn.edu

About the College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences 

The University of Minnesota’s College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences strives to inspire minds, nourish people, and sustainably enhance the natural environment. Learn more at cfans.umn.edu.

About the College of Biological Sciences

The University of Minnesota’s College of Biological Sciences at the University of Minnesota covers the spectrum of life from molecules to ecosystems. Learn more at cbs.umn.edu.

Description for Social and Search
New research: Speedy economic growth can benefit biodiversity while enhancing food security and reducing climate impacts.
Include in Home Insights and News Feed
On

Project Drawdown awarded US$150,000 from the Mighty Arrow Family Foundation

Funding will provide Project Drawdown with general operating funds to support efforts to expand climate solutions research and action
Image
An image of Earth with the text Project Drawdown Funding Announcement overlaid
Off

Project Drawdown is honored to be awarded US$150,000 over the next three years from the Mighty Arrow Family Foundation.

This grant from the Mighty Arrow Family Foundation – a longtime partner and supporter – will bolster Project Drawdown’s ongoing work to drive bold, science-based climate action in the world. The funding will help expand a variety of Project Drawdown activities, from identifying and analyzing climate solutions to deep dives into critical issue areas such as food and agriculture and biodiversity.

“The Mighty Arrow Family Foundation fosters the kind of trust, ambition, and collaborative spirit that climate action demands,” says Project Drawdown Managing Director Elizabeth Bagley, Ph.D. “We are honored to partner with their team and energized by what we will accomplish with their support.”

The Mighty Arrow Family Foundation grant will support the ongoing build-out of Drawdown Explorer, a free, game-changing platform that uses the best available data to lay out pathbreaking new strategies for accelerating climate action. Project Drawdown will also use the funds for new programming related to climate education and leadership training.

“Project Drawdown’s library of climate solutions has been a key resource for Mighty Arrow as our board prioritizes what investments we need to make today to have the greatest impact for the future of the communities and ecosystems we call home,” says Mighty Arrow Family Foundation Executive Director Jordana Barrack. “The solutions are out there, and thanks to Project Drawdown, we know what to focus on. We hope more foundations like us will find this helpful too.”


About Project Drawdown

Project Drawdown is the world’s leading resource for climate solutions. By advancing science-based climate solutions, fostering bold climate leadership, and promoting new narratives and voices, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization is helping the world stop climate change as quickly, safely, and equitably as possible. For more information about Project Drawdown, please visit drawdown.org.


About Mighty Arrow Family Foundation

Founded by the cofounder of New Belgium Brewing, Kim Jordan, and her family, the Mighty Arrow Family Foundation aims to invest in solutions that take action on climate change, amplify our human power, protect the ecosystems we call home, and build a more vibrant future - for everyone. The foundation is committed to donating the entirety of its fund by 2040. To learn more about the Mighty Arrow Family Foundation, please visit mightyarrow.org. 
 

Description for Social and Search
Project Drawdown awarded US$150,000 from the Mighty Arrow Family Foundation
Include in Home Insights and News Feed
On
Subscribe to