Use Heat Pumps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Stephen Agyeman, Ph.D.

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Jason Lam

  • Cameron Roberts, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

  • Eric Wilczynski

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Jason Lam

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions from space heating.

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

Mean 0.95
Left Text Column Width
Cost

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

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

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

Mean –200
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

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

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

Use Heat Pumps is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

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

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

As heat pump adoption grows, so too will the manufacture of refrigerants, some of which have high global warming potentials when they escape to the atmosphere. See Deploy Alternative Refrigerants and Improve Refrigerant Management solutions for more on accelerating change in this sector.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Our analysis suggests that 130 million heat pumps for heating are currently in operation primarily based on data in Europe, Canada, the United States, China, and Japan (Table 3). These include both all-electric heat pumps and hybrid heat pumps. The IEA (2023a) estimated that 12% of global space heating demand was met by heat pumps in 2022. 

This value is based on market reports and national data sources plus IEA (2022) estimates of total GW of installed capacity. To convert installed capacity to the number of heat pumps, we used the median from the range of suggested average capacities (7.5 kW for Europe and North America, 4 kW in Japan and China, 5 kW global average). In Japan, where heat pump units typically heat only one room, we assumed 2.4 units per heat pump (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], 2022).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current heat pump adoption level (2020–2022).

Unit: Heat pump systems in operation

Mean 130,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Our estimates put the median adoption trend at 17 million new all-electric and hybrid heat pumps in operation per year (Table 4). This analysis is based on product shipment data (used as a proxy for installed heat pumps), market reports, national statistics, and IEA data for growth in installed capacity. For the IEA data (2010–2023), we assumed a global average of 5 kW of heat capacity per heat pump unit (IEA, 2024).

Shipment and market analysis reports consistently show growing markets for heat pumps in much of the world (Asahi, 2023; European Heat Pump Association, 2024; IEA, 2024). In the United States, shipments of heat pumps have outnumbered gas furnaces since at least 2022 (Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2025).

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Heat pump adoption trend (2010–2023).

Unit: Heat pump systems in operation/yr

25th percentile 12,000,000
Mean 15,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 17,000,000
75th percentile 18,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

Our adoption ceiling is set at 1.200 billion heat pumps for space heating by 2050 (Table 5), most of which are expected to be in residential buildings. This is based on the IEA’s Net Zero Roadmap projection that heat pumps will represent 6,500 GW of heating capacity globally by 2050, covering 55% of space heating demand (IEA, 2023a). Our adoption ceiling assumes all-electric heat pumps cover all space heating demand. 

We assumed that average heat pump sizes (capacities) will increase over time as heat pumps cover a greater portion of a building’s heating load and as more commercial buildings with larger heating loads install heat pumps. Using a global average of 10 kW per heat pump, the IEA projections imply 650 million heat pumps will be in operation by 2050 with the technical adoption ceiling for 1,200 million heat pumps if all heating demand were met by heat pumps.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Heat pump adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption level.

Unit: Heat pump systems in operation by 2050

Mean 1,200,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We estimate the achievable range for heat pump adoption to be 600–960 million heat pumps in operation by 2050 (Table 6).

Most existing space heating systems will be replaced at least once between now and 2050 because this equipment typically has lifetimes of 15–30 years (U.S. EIA, 2023). Policies that encourage high efficiency heat pumps alongside insulation upgrades have the potential to provide lifetime savings, greater comfort, and energy efficiency benefits (Wilson et al., 2024). Given the available timelines and potential benefits, near full adoption is technically feasible. 

We have set the Achievable – High heat pump adoption at 80% of the adoption ceiling to account for systems that are difficult to electrify due to very cold climates, policy, economic barriers, and grid constraints. This high achievable value assumes that some systems may be replaced before their end of life to meet climate and/or financial goals. 

We have set the Achievable – Low heat pump adoption at 50% of the adoption ceiling. This is roughly consistent with the current adoption trend continuing out to 2050. 

Our heat pump units adopted include both all-electric and hybrid heat pumps. This analysis assumes that hybrid heat pumps will become less common as fuels are phased out and that all-electric heat pumps will dominate by 2050. 

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Heat pump systems installed

Current adoption 130,000,000
Achievable – low 600,000,000
Achievable – high 960,000,000
Adoption ceiling 1,200,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Our estimates show the global impact of existing heat pumps for space heating to be a reduction of 0.12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-yr basis) based on current adoption and today’s electricity grid emissions (Table 7). Because electricity grid emissions are decreasing for each kWh of electricity generated (IEA, 2025), the actual impact will be greater than our estimates when future electricity generation emissions are lower.

For the adoption ceiling, assuming heat pumps supply all of the IEA’s projected global heating demand in 2050 (IEA, 2023a), 1.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-yr basis) could be avoided per year with today’s electricity grid emissions.

A high-end achievable target is 80% of the adoption ceiling, accounting for systems that might continue to use fossil fuels for heating due to factors such as cold climates, economic barriers, and grid constraints. This would result in avoiding 0.91 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-yr basis) with today’s electricity grid emissions. 

A low-end achievable target is 50% of the adoption ceiling, roughly equivalent to heat pump adoption continuing at today’s rate. This would result in avoiding 0.57 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-yr basis) with today’s electricity grid emissions. 

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of heat pump systems adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.12
Achievable – low 0.57
Achievable – high 0.91
Adoption ceiling 1.1
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Heat Stress

Heat waves and extreme heat are becoming increasingly significant factors of morbidity and mortality worldwide (Romanello et al., 2024). Some buildings that replace heating systems with heat pumps will gain access to cooling (Congedo et al., 2023; Wilson et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2017). This can provide protection from heat stress in regions experiencing increasingly hotter summers (where air conditioning was not previously necessary) and for populations that are vulnerable to heat stress, such as the elderly (Malmquist et al., 2022). Some jurisdictions incentivize heat pumps for this reason. For example, the United Kingdom plans to install 600,000 heat pumps by 2028 (Zahiri & Gupta, 2023), and local climate adaptation plans in Canada recommend the installation of heat pumps to provide space cooling that can reduce morbidity and mortality during heat waves (Canadian Climate Institute, 2023; City of Vancouver, n.d.). Because exposure to extreme heat is disproportionately higher for minority communities – particularly in urban environments – access to cooling has important implications for environmental justice (Benz & Burney, 2021). 

Income and Work

Installing heat pumps can lead to greater household savings on electricity. Research has shown that across the United States, heat pumps can reduce electricity bills for 49 million homes with an average savings of US$350–600 per year, depending on the efficiency of the heat pump (Wilson et al., 2024). Wilson et al. (2024) found that higher efficiency heat pumps could be cost-effective for about 65 million households in the United States. Heat pumps also create jobs (Sovacool et al., 2023). In its post-COVID-19 recovery plan, the IEA (2020) estimated that every US$1 million investment in heat pumps could generate 9.1 new jobs and reduce 0.8 jobs in the fossil fuel industry. About half of the new jobs will be in manufacturing, with the remaining distributed between installation and maintenance.

Health

Burning fossil fuels for heating directly emits health-harming particulates and can generate carbon monoxide. Replacing fossil gas heating with heat pumps can reduce air pollution (Carella & D’Orazio, 2021) and contribute to improving health outcomes (Zhou et al., 2022). A study in China showed that as the power grid moves to incorporate renewable energy, the air quality and health benefits of heat pumps will increasingly outweigh the benefits of gas heaters (Zhou et al., 2022). The risk of carbon monoxide poisoning also decreases in buildings that switch from fuel-burning space heating to heat pumps. In buildings that burn fuels for applications such as space heating, carbon monoxide can pose serious health risks, including poisoning and death (Mattiuzzi & Lippi, 2020). 

left_text_column_width
Risks

Heat pumps contain refrigerants that often have high global warming potentials. Refrigerant leaks can occur during installation, operation, and end of life (McDiarmid & Parker, 2024). As more heat pumps are adopted, there is a risk of increased emissions from refrigerant leaks during operation as well as refrigerant release at the end of equipment life. Alternate refrigerants with lower global warming potentials are being phased in due to an international agreement to reduce hydrofluorocarbons, including many refrigerants (Kigali Amendment). 

Higher rates of heat pump installation will require upscaling heat pump manufacturing and training, plus certification of skilled labor to install them. Skilled labor shortages are already creating bottlenecks for heat pump adoption in some countries, some of which can be met by reskilling other heating technicians (IEA, 2022).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Advancements in heat pump technology will support the development and adoption of heat pump technology for industrial applications.

left_text_column_width

The increased adoption of heat pumps will increase the market for alternative refrigerants and refrigerant management.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Heat pumps reduce the emissions from heating and cooling buildings. This reduces the effectiveness of technologies that reduce heating and/or cooling demands.

left_text_column_width

Adoption of heat pumps for space heating is likely to generate seasonal peaks in power demand during cold days that may require building out extra generating capacity that decrease grid efficiency (Bloess et al., 2018). Heat pumps can compete with electric cars for power during peak times (Van Someren et al., 2021).

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

heat pump systems

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.95
units
Current 1.3×10⁸ 06.0×10⁸9.6×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.12 0.570.91
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-200
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

Enhanced grid infrastructure will be required to support widespread building electrification and the greater demand for electricity, especially on cold days when heat pumps are less efficient at moving heat (Cooper et al., 2016). Demand-side management, thermal storage, home batteries, bidirectional chargers, and greater adoption of ground-source heat pumps can all help to reduce this increased demand (Cooper et al., 2016; McDiarmid, 2023).

In general, heat pumps have higher up-front costs than do fueled alternatives but will save a building owner money over the lifetime of the system. This can create economic barriers to accessing the benefits of heat pumps, with low-income homeowners and renters who pay for their utilities being particularly vulnerable to being left behind in the transition (Sandoval et al., 2024). Equity advocates are also concerned that the cost of maintaining gas and other fossil fuel infrastructure may increasingly fall on lower-income building owners who struggle to afford the upfront cost of electrifying with heat pumps (Davis & Hausman, 2022). 

left_text_column_width
°C day
015,275

Space heating demand

Heating degree days are a measure of total space heating demand to maintain an indoor temperature above 18 °C.

Fick, S.E. & Hijmans, R.J. (2017). WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas (Version 2.1) [Data set]. International Journal of Climatology 37 (12): 4302-4315. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086

°C day
015,275

Space heating demand

Heating degree days are a measure of total space heating demand to maintain an indoor temperature above 18 °C.

Fick, S.E. & Hijmans, R.J. (2017). WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas (Version 2.1) [Data set]. International Journal of Climatology 37 (12): 4302-4315. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086

Maps Introduction

In this solution, heat pumps replace space-heating options that rely on fossil fuels. This primarily applies to North America, Asia, and Europe. Limited data are available for some regions, so this analysis focuses on European countries, Canada, the United States, Japan and China. 

The effectiveness of heat pumps at reducing GHG emissions is influenced by the heating needs of the region and the generation mix of the electricity grid. Areas with higher heating needs will generally show greater emissions reduction because more energy is needed to keep buildings warm. However, this is partially offset because heat pumps are less energy efficient on colder days. The local electricity grid mix matters because heat pumps are powered by electricity. Given the same outside temperature, regions with a largely emissions-free grid (e.g., France or Canada) will have higher emissions impacts from heat pump adoption than areas where electricity is  largely generated from fossil fuels (e.g., China). The type of heat pumps (all-electric vs. hybrid) best suited to each region depends on technological and economic factors.

Action Word
Use
Solution Title
Heat Pumps
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Introduce zero-carbon ready building codes, clearly designating heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Incentivize purchases with grants, loans, or tax rebates.
  • Increasing training and support for heat pump installers.
  • Expand the electrical grid and increase renewable energy generation.
  • Streamline permitting processes.
  • Incentivize complementary solutions such as better insulation, thermal storage, and air sealing.
  • Institute a clean heat standard (similar to a renewable energy standard) with a well-defined implementation timeline.
  • Launch performance labels for heating technology.
  • Roll out new energy efficiency programs.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Commit to zero-carbon construction, clearly designating heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Increase the available workforce by encouraging trade organizations to promote career and workforce development programs.
  • Design heat pumps that are simpler, faster, and cheaper to install.
  • Educate customers on the benefits and train them on usage.
  • Connect with users and early adopters to understand and adapt to consumer sentiment.
  • Create appealing incentives and financing programs.
  • Partner with builders and developers to improve product adoption and increase market demand for heat pumps.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Commit to zero-carbon construction, clearly designating heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Deploy heat pumps in all owned and operated facilities.
  • Encourage building owners and managers to switch to heat pumps in leased facilities.
  • Promote the benefits of heat pumps and share government incentives with leased facilities and networks.
  • Encourage employees to reduce emissions at home by providing educational resources on the benefits of domestic heat pumps.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for zero-carbon construction and building codes that clearly designate heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Deploy heat pumps in owned and operated facilities.
  • Encourage building owners and managers to switch to heat pumps in leased facilities.
  • Educate businesses and communities on the benefits of installing heat pumps and any tax incentives in their region.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved policies and incentives.
  • Educate community leaders on the need for adoption.

Further information:

Investors
  • Commit to only finance zero-carbon construction with clear requirements for heat pumps as the default for all new development investments.
  • Deploy capital to efforts that improve heat pump performance and reduce material, installation, and maintenance costs.
  • Explore investment opportunities that address supply chain concerns.
  • Consider investments that mitigate non-manufacturing barriers to scaling.
  • Finance heat pump installations via low-interest loans.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Directly distribute heat pumps, prioritizing locations where heat pumps maximize emissions reductions, and improve housing affordability.
  • Advocate for zero-carbon construction and building codes that clearly designate heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Fund R&D efforts and competitions to improve technology, reduce costs, and address supply chain concerns.
  • Support consumer advocacy and education campaigns on heat pumps and how to maximize regulatory incentives.
  • Support training or incentive programs for distributors and installers.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for zero-carbon construction and building codes that clearly designate heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Highlight the need to transition away from fossil-fuel-fired heating.
  • Educate the public on the benefits of heat pumps and how they work.
  • Provide case studies that present successes and lessons learned.
  • Increase consumer comfort by including heat pumps in communication content on topics such as home remodeling and construction, technology, health, self-sufficiency, and personal finance.
  • Provide up-to-date user information on available models.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Identify safe, cost-effective, and suitable alternative refrigerants.
  • Design systems that require less refrigerant.
  • Work to increase the longevity of heat pumps.
  • Improve heat pumps’ efficiency and capacity at low temperatures as well as their ability to deliver higher temperature heat.
  • Research external social factors critical to adoption.
  • Identify appropriate methods for recycling and disposing of heat pumps and responsibly recovering their refrigerant chemicals at the end of the product life cycle. 

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Install heat pumps when possible and encourage local heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) retailers and installers to sell services and equipment.
  • Increase consumer comfort by sharing your experience and tips for troubleshooting technologies.
  • Advocate for zero-carbon construction and building codes that clearly designate heat pumps as the default for all new buildings.
  • Build support networks for new users and connect to explore innovations.
  • Encourage your property management company, employers, and government officials to accelerate adoption. 

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions: High

Electric heat pumps are generally viewed as the primary strategy for reducing GHG emissions from buildings. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ([IPCC] 2023) noted that heat pumps drive electrification in buildings and help decrease emissions. The European Commission (2022) claimed that heat pumps are an essential way of decreasing reliance on gas in heating while increasing the use of renewable energy in the heating sector. The IEA (2022) reported that heat pumps powered by electricity generated with renewable energy “are the central technology in the global transition to secure and sustainable heating.” IRENA (2024) claimed heat pumps in buildings “will play a crucial role in reducing reliance on fossil fuels.” 

In one of the largest scientific reviews on the topic, Gaur et al. (2021) concluded that heat pumps “have the potential to play a substantial role in the transition to low carbon heating,” and noted that emissions impacts of heat pumps are dependent on the type of heat pump technology, their location, and the electricity grid mix. Knobloch et al. (2020) studied 59 world regions and found that electrification of the heating sector via heat pumps will reduce emissions in most world regions where they are adopted.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 46 reports, reviews and meta-analyses and 13 original studies reflecting current evidence from 30 countries, primarily European countries, Canada, the United States, Japan, and China. We recognize this limited geographic and technology scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions and in the commercial sector.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Improve Windows & Glass

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Buildings & Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Enhance Efficiency
Image
Building with many windows
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Improve Windows & Glass solution as reducing the heat transferred through typical windows used in residential and nonresidential buildings by improving the thermal insulation capacity of the glass. Windows typically constitute a small portion of a building envelope but account for a substantial portion of the heat transferred (gained or lost) between the indoor space and the external environment. Using double-glazed rather than single-glazed windows cuts GHG emissions by reducing the energy required to heat or cool a building’s interior and improves the thermal comfort of its occupants.

Income & work,Health
Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Improve Windows & Glass is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Upgrading single-glazed windows to double-glazing saves money, improves comfort, and cuts GHG emissions.
Overview

Windows represent 15–40% of a building's total envelope surface area (Shah et al., 2024). A significant amount of the heat transmitted through the building envelope occurs via windows (Basok et al., 2022; Cuce & Riffat, 2015), and the uncontrolled flow of heat due to poor thermal insulation capabilities of windows and glass can generally increase the energy required for heating or cooling indoor spaces by 30–50% (Arasteh et al., 2006; Balali et al., 2023; Gustavsen et al., 2011). Improving windows and glass helps reduce heat gain in warm climates and heat loss in cold climates, thereby reducing the energy required to thermally condition indoor spaces and cutting energy-related emissions while improving occupant comfort.

Operating buildings accounts for approximately 30% of global energy consumption (Delmastro & Chen, 2023). The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2023e) stated that heating indoor spaces accounted for more than 41 EJ of energy in 2022 (an equivalent of about 11,400 TWh). This energy is mainly fossil fuel–based (oil, natural gas, and coal), but also includes electricity, modern bioenergy, and solar thermal (IEA, 2023b; 2023e) (Figure 1). Space cooling is largely achieved through air conditioners. In 2022, cooling buildings used approximately 2,111 TWh (an equivalent of about 8 EJ) (IEA, 2023d; Ritchie, 2024). According to the IEA (2018), annual space-cooling energy consumption in 2016 (2,020 TWh) was more than three times its levels in 1990. Considering the mix of energy sources (IEA, 2023b), this solution potentially cuts CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions and reduces black carbon and F-gas refrigerant emissions from operating heating and cooling systems (Richardson, 2024; Pistochini et al., 2022).

Figure 1. Energy used in buildings globally largely originates from fossil fuel–based sources.

Source: International Energy Agency. (2023b, June 15). Energy consumption in buildings by fuel in the net zero scenario, 2010-2030. 

The properties of a window determine the rate of heat transfer (i.e., its thermal transmittance or U-value) and thus its efficacy at decreasing the flow of heat between the indoors and outdoors (Aguilar-Santana, 2020; Saint-Gobain, 2018). Window types such as double-glazed, double-glazed with low emissivity (low-e) coating, or triple-glazed (Figure 2) perform better than single-glazed windows due to their lower U-values (Aguilar-Santana et al., 2020; Li et al., 2023; Salazar et al., 2024). In more resourced countries or regions such as the United States, Canada, and the European Union, a minimum of double glazing is considered standard practice, accounting for a growing share of the number of windows installed or sold annually (Hermelink et al., 2017; Janssens, 2021). However, the minimum glazing U-value standards set by building energy regulations in most low- and middle-income countries, where the bulk of new construction occurs (IEA, 2023c), often do not mandate the use of better performing windows in buildings (Gaum, 2023). 

The Improve Windows and Glass solution assesses the impact of retrofitting single-glazed windows in the current (2022) global building stock, focusing on scaling up the use of double glazing as the minimum. Retrofitting extends the lifespan of building components and helps these buildings remain in use. The U-value of 2.7 W/m2K we used for double glazing during our analysis also includes other double pane window types with similar U-values such as secondary glazing where a second window is added to the outside of the existing one.

Figure 2. Multiple-glazed windows reduce heat transmission better than single glazed windows and so create less demand for GHG-producing fuels. Modified from Aguilar-Santana et al. (2020) and Moghaddam et al. (2023).

A description of different glazing types.

Sources: Aguilar-Santana, J. L., Jarimi, H., Velasco-Carrasco, M., & Riffat, S. (2020). Review on window-glazing technologies and future prospects. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 15(1), 112–120; Moghaddam, S. A., Serra, C., Gameiro da Silva, M., & Simões, N. (2023). Comprehensive review and analysis of glazing systems towards nearly zero-energy buildings: Energy performance, thermal comfort, cost-effectiveness, and environmental impact perspectives. Energies, 16(17), Article 6283.

Aguilar-Santana, J. L., Jarimi, H., Velasco-Carrasco, M., & Riffat, S. (2020). Review on window-glazing technologies and future prospects. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 15(1), 112–120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctz032

Ahmed, A. E., Suwaed, M. S., Shakir, A. M., & Ghareeb, A. (2025). The impact of window orientation, glazing, and window-to-wall ratio on the heating and cooling energy of an office building: The case of hot and semi-arid climate. Journal of Engineering Research, 13(1), 409–422. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jer.2023.10.034

Arasteh, D., Selkowitz, S., Apte, J., & LaFrance, M. (2006). Zero energy windows. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Link to source: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2zp5m6x8

Aroul, R., & Hansz, J. A. (2011). The role of dual-pane windows and improvement age in explaining residential property values. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 3(1), 142–161. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2011.12091822

Aruta, G., Ascione, F., Iovane, T., & Mastellone, M. (2025). Double-skin façades for the refurbishment of historic buildings: Energy-economic feasibility for different types of glazing and ventilation rates. Journal of Building Engineering, 103, Article 112125. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2025.112125

Asahi India Glass Ltd. (2025, April 25). Top benefits of float glass in modern homes. Link to source: https://www.aisglass.com/blog/top-benefits-of-float-glass-in-modern-homes/

Balali, A., Yunusa-Kaltungo, A., & Edwards, R. (2023). A systematic review of passive energy consumption optimisation strategy selection for buildings through multiple criteria decision-making techniques. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 171, Article 113013. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113013

Balasbaneh, A. T., Yeoh, D., Ramli, M. Z., & Valdi, M. H. T. (2022). Different alternative retrofit to improving the sustainability of building in tropical climate: Multi-criteria decision-making. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(27), 41669–41683. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18647-8

Basok, B., Davydenko, B., Novikov, V., Pavlenko, A. M., Novitska, M., Sadko, K., & Goncharuk, S. (2022). Evaluation of heat transfer rates through transparent dividing structures. Energies, 15(13), Article 4910. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134910

Bulut, M., Wilkinson, S., Khan, A., Jin, X.-H., & Lee, C. L. (2021). Perceived benefits of retrofitted residential secondary glazing: An exploratory Australian study. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 39(5), 720–733. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-09-2020-0083

Calautit, J. K., Sun, H., Li, J., Dik, A., & Mohammadi, M. (2025). Keeping it simple: Field testing and techno-economic assessment of a low-cost secondary quad glazing for enhanced energy efficiency in buildings [Corrected proof]. Energy and Built Environment. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbenv.2025.03.004

Cuce, E., & Riffat, S. B. (2015). Aerogel-assisted support pillars for thermal performance enhancement of vacuum glazing: A CFD research for a commercial product. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 40(8), 2233–2238. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1727-5

Delmastro, C., & Chen, O. (2023, July 11). Energy system: Buildings. International Energy Agency. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. (2023, December 14). Accredited official statistics chapter 5: Energy efficiency. GOV.UK. Link to source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/chapters-for-english-housing-survey-2022-to-2023-headline-report/chapter-5-energy-efficiency#contents

DIY Double Glaze. (n.d.). 6 problems with double glazed windows and how you can resolve them. Retrieved September 13, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.diydoubleglaze.com.au/6-problems-with-double-glazed-windows-and-how-you-can-resolve-them/

Duan, Q., Hinkle, L., Wang, J., Zhang, E., & Memari, A. (2021). Condensation effects on energy performance of building window systems. Energy Reports, 7, 7345–7357. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.10.096

Es-sakali, N., Kaitouni, S. I., Laasri, I. A., Mghazli, M. O., Cherkaoui, M., & Pfafferott, J. (2022). Assessment of the energy efficiency for a building energy model using different glazing windows in a semi-arid climate. Proceedings of the 13th International Renewable Energy Congress (IREC), 1–5. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/IREC56325.2022.10001934

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

Gaum, T. (2023). Building energy codes in the Global South: Comparing selected variables to develop a decision-making model to address climate-change guidelines [Spreadsheet]. SLIM3. Link to source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aP4zaeDvfwSI-3Abuj8Z_VUUEHJzjMZS/edit?gid=988383392#gid=988383392

Gaum, T., & Laubscher, J. (2022). Building energy codes: Reviewing the status of implementation strategies in the Global South. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 9(1), 39–53. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v9.n1.871

Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, International Energy Agency, & the United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). GlobalABC regional roadmap for buildings and construction in Africa 2020-2050: Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector [Report]. International Energy Agency. Link to source: https://globalabc.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Africa_Buildings%20Roadmap_FINAL_1.pdf

Gomaa, M. M., Abdallah, A. S. H., Aloshan, M. A., & Ragab, A. (2025). A comparative analysis of advanced glazing technologies for energy-efficient buildings in Jeddah city, Saudi Arabia. Buildings, 15(9), Article 1477. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15091477

Gustavsen, A., Grynning, S., Arasteh, D., Jelle, B. P., & Goudey, H. (2011). Key elements of and material performance targets for highly insulating window frames. Energy and Buildings, 43(10), 2583–2594. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.05.010

Harkouss, F., Fardoun, F., & Biwole, P. H. (2018). Multi-objective optimization methodology for net zero energy buildings. Journal of Building Engineering, 16, 57–71. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.12.003

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

Hermelink, A., von Manteuffel, B., & Grözinger, J. (2017). Minimum performance requirements for window replacement in the residential sector [Report]. ECOFYS. Link to source: https://glassforeurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Minimum-performance-requirements-for-window-replacement-in-the-residential-sector.pdf

International Energy Agency. (2018). The future of cooling: Opportunities for energy-efficient air conditioning. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-cooling

International Energy Agency. (2022a, September 1). Global buildings sector CO2 emissions and floor area in the net zero scenario, 2020-2050. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-buildings-sector-co2-emissions-and-floor-area-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2020-2050

International Energy Agency. (2022b). Renovation of near 20% of existing building stock to zero-carbon-ready by 2030 is ambitious but necessary. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/renovation-of-near-20-of-existing-building-stock-to-zero-carbon-ready-by-2030-is-ambitious-but-necessary

International Energy Agency. (2023b, June 15). Energy consumption in buildings by fuel in the net zero scenario, 2010-2030. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/energy-consumption-in-buildings-by-fuel-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2010-2030-2

International Energy Agency. (2023c, June 15). Global floor area and buildings energy intensity in the net zero scenario, 2010-2030. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-floor-area-and-buildings-energy-intensity-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2010-2030

International Energy Agency. (2023d). Space cooling: Net zero emissions guide. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/space-cooling-2

International Energy Agency. (2023e). Space heating: Net zero emissions guide. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/space-heating

International Energy Agency. (2023f, July 11). Total floor area by use in the net zero scenario, 2010-2030. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/total-floor-area-by-use-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2010-2030-2

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

Janssens, C. (2021, September 27). Minimum energy performance requirements for window replacement in the 28 EU member states. Glassonweb. Link to source: https://www.glassonweb.com/article/minimum-energy-performance-requirements-window-replacement-28-eu-member-states 

Karabay, H., & Arici, M. (2012). Multiple pane window applications in various climatic regions of Turkey. Energy and Buildings, 45, 67–71. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.10.020

Krarti, M., & Ihm, P. (2016). Evaluation of net-zero energy residential buildings in the MENA region. Sustainable Cities and Society, 22, 116–125. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.02.007

Li, N., Meng, Q., Zhao, L., Li, H., Wang, J., Zhang, N., Wang, P., & Lu, S. (2023). Thermal performance study of multiple thermal insulating glazings with polycarbonate films as interval layers. Journal of Building Engineering, 76, Article 107159. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107159

Likins-White, M., Tenent, R. C., & Zhai, Z. (2023). Degradation of insulating glass units: Thermal performance, measurements and energy impacts. Buildings, 13(2), Article 551. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020551

Lozinsky, C. H., Casquero-Modrego, N., & Walker, I. S. (2025). The health and indoor environmental quality impacts of residential building envelope retrofits: A literature review. Building and Environment, 270, Article 112568. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112568

Magraoui, C., Derradji, L., Hamid, A., Oukaci, S., Limam, A., & Merabtine, A. (2025). A smart roller shutters control for enhancing thermal comfort and sustainable energy efficiency in office buildings. Sustainability, 17(5), Article 2116. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052116

Menzies, G. F., & Wherrett, J. R. (2005). Multiglazed windows: Potential for savings in energy, emissions and cost. Building Services Engineering Research & Technology, 26(3), 249–258. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1191/0143624405bt132tn

MLI Building Products. (2023, February 27). Are glass prices set to rise in 2023? Link to source: https://www.mlibuildingproducts.co.uk/glass-prices-rise-2023/

Moghaddam, S. A., Serra, C., Gameiro da Silva, M., & Simões, N. (2023). Comprehensive review and analysis of glazing systems towards nearly zero-energy buildings: Energy performance, thermal comfort, cost-effectiveness, and environmental impact perspectives. Energies, 16(17), Article 6283. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176283

Natural Resources Canada. (n.d.). Table 4.5a – Windows by region. Government of Canada. Retrieved July 23, 2025, from Link to source: https://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/showTable.cfm?type=SH&sector=aaa&juris=ca&year=2019&rn=35&page=1

Owolabi, A. B., Suh, D., & Pignatta, G. (2023). Investigating the energy use in an Australian building: A case study of a west-facing apartment in Sydney. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 14(8), Article 102040. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.102040

Paarhammer. (n.d.). New building regulations coming soon. Paarhammer windows and doors. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.paarhammer.com.au/blog/new-building-regulations-coming-soon

Pistochini, T., Dichter, M., Chakraborty, S., Dichter, N., & Aboud, A. (2022). Greenhouse gas emission forecasts for electrification of space heating in residential homes in the US. Energy Policy, 163, Article 112813. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112813

Procurement Resource. (n.d.). Float glass price trend and forecast. Retrieved September 19, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.procurementresource.com/resource-center/glass-price-trends

Ren, Z., Wang, X., & Chen, D. (2014). Heat stress within energy efficient dwellings in Australia. Architectural Science Review, 57(3), 227–236. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.903568

Richardson, J. (2024, December 31). CO2 carbon savings of a heat pump and their environmental cost. The Renewable Energy Hub UK. Link to source: https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.uk/main/heat-pumps-information/co2-carbon-savings-of-a-heat-pump-and-their-environmental-cost#:~:text=Fluorinated%20hydrocarbons%20such%20as%20HFCs,warming%20potential

Ritchie, H. (2024). Air conditioning causes around 3% of greenhouse gas emissions. How will this change in the future? Our World in Data. Link to source: https://archive.ourworldindata.org/20251125-173858/air-conditioning-causes-around-greenhouse-gas-emissions-will-change-future.html 

Saadatian, S., Freire, F., & Simões, N. (2021). Embodied impacts of window systems: A comparative assessment of framing and glazing alternatives. Journal of Building Engineering, 35, Article 102042. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102042

Saint-Gobain. (2018). Solar & thermal 1e thermal insulation. Link to source: https://www.saint-gobain-glass.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Solar-Thermal-1E-Thermal-Insulation-19-09-2018.pdf

Salazar, S. L., Simá, E., Vargas-López, R., Yang, R., Li, D., & Hernández-López, I. (2024). Assessing different glazing types for energy savings and CO2 reduction in a tropical climate: A comparative study. Journal of Building Engineering, 82, Article 108188. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.108188

Shah, B., Bhandari, M., & Tang, M. (2024). Importance of window installation in residential building envelopes having continuous external insulation in order to realize energy efficiency. Energies, 17(17), Article 4273. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174273

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2018, May). 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) survey data: Housing characteristics tables - structural and geographic characteristics - by housing unit type (HC2.1). Retrieved August 15, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/hc/php/hc2.1.php

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023). Table HC2.1 Structural and geographic characteristics of U.S. homes by housing unit type, 2020. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%202.1.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). Climate change indicators in the United States. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-07/climate_indicators_2024.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Power sector programs – Progress report. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/power-sector/progress-report

Yuk, H., Choi, J. Y., Yang, S., & Kim, S. (2024). Balancing preservation and utilization: Window retrofit strategy for energy efficiency in historic modern building. Building and Environment, 259, Article 111648. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111648

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Henry Igugu, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph.D.

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Each 1 m2 of single-glazed window glass in buildings that is upgraded to double glazing has the potential to cut GHG emissions by approximately 0.07 t CO₂‑eq/yr (20-yr and 100-yr basis).

To determine the solution’s effectiveness (Table 1), we evaluated the emissions cut from reducing space heating and space cooling. Since studies often capture different U-value ratings for similar window glass, we weighted the energy saved (kWh/yr) from improving the glass using consistent U-values for the baseline and solution (see Figure 2). Thereafter, we weighted the energy impact by the total area of glass substituted (m2) to determine the savings intensity (kWh/m2/yr) and multiplied the estimate by emission intensities of heating and cooling fuels based on the IEA’s world energy balances data (IEA, 2024).

This solution cuts CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions by reducing the amount of fossil fuels used for heating and for producing electricity used for cooling. The analysis includes studies from countries representative of heating-dominated and cooling-dominated climates such as the United States (Calautit et al., 2025) and Malaysia (Balasbaneh et al., 2022), respectively. Notably, the solution is also effective in other climates (Magraoui et al., 2025).

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /m2/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 0.043
Mean 0.095
Median (50th percentile) 0.065
75th percentile 0.13
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Our estimate of the cost per unit climate impact (Table 2) indicates that replacing single-glazed windows with double-glazed windows in buildings globally results in considerable savings of approximately US$123/t CO₂‑eq.

We found that the solution’s initial cost varies considerably, from about US$31/m2 in Malaysia (Balasbaneh et al., 2022) to US$257–684/m2 in France (Harkouss et al., 2018), highlighting regional price differences that could affect adoption. Ultimately, we chose an initial cost of approximately US$144/m2 for double glazing. Using the cost of single glazing we found in studies from different regions (Aruta et al., 2025; Krarti & Ihm, 2016), our analysis determined a baseline initial cost of approximately US$35/m2. While the solution cost is more than four times the baseline, less energy is used for space heating or cooling, reducing the annual operating cost from US$23/m2 to approximately US$12/m2. After amortizing the initial cost over 30 years, the solution resulted in a net savings of US$8/m2/yr, compared with the baseline.

During our analysis, we normalized the initial cost by the baseline and solution U-value (see Figure 2) to ensure consistency. We assumed the initial cost includes the glass component alone, but some of our sources were ambiguous about the scope of the investment and may have also included frames and installation costs. To determine the cost per adoption unit, we weighted the amount of energy consumed for heating and cooling in each data source using the total area of windows upgraded in the respective case study buildings. The analysis does not include revenues because building owners typically do not generate any revenue from window glass installed. 

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

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

Median -123
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

We found no definitive data on the solution’s learning rate. While the adoption of double glazing grows, some studies have reported rising cost of glass in recent periods (MLI Building Products, 2023). In an assessment of regional float glass price trends, Procurement Resource (n.d.) argued that rising material, energy, and labor costs amid other economic pressures are driving up the cost of glass. Since modern windows are often made using float glass (Asahi India Glass Ltd., 2025), the initial cost could become more expensive.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

Improve Windows and Glass is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Our analysis for this solution focused on the U-value of the glass component alone. It did not include other parameters such as the material type of the window frames or coatings on windows, though these also impact space heating and cooling energy use (Owolabi et al., 2023). We ensured that the data used in our analysis aligned with our approach (i.e., indicated the impact of solely substituting double-glazed or better glass for single-glazed). Due to limited data, we assumed that current adoption in LMICs is 5%. The adoption scenarios and climate impact may be influenced if the actual percentage is higher or lower.

A window’s orientation impacts the solar heat gain. Thus, the influence of upgrading to double-glazing on heating or cooling loads is affected by window placement. We found limited data that incorporates orientation and did not account for this difference.

Recently, some studies have indicated concerns about the payback period of upgrading to double glazing for building owners (Calautit et al., 2025), especially in LMICs, where higher initial costs could be a barrier. Creative initiatives such as incentive schemes can improve the payback period (Aruta et al., 2025). 

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

To determine the current adoption of double-glazed windows, we first estimated the total amount of window glass installed in buildings by applying window-to-floor area ratios from studies to the currently existing 198.1 billion m2 residential and 54.6 billion m2 nonresidential building floor space (IEA, 2023f). This yielded approximately 23.3 billion m2 and 42.2 billion m2 of window glass installed in high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), respectively (IEA, 2023c). 

We found limited data for the proportion of minimum double-glazed windows in HICs. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA, 2023) reported that 80 million housing units (65%) in the U.S. have double-glazed windows installed. Percentages reported for other countries include 88% of housing units in the United Kingdom (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, 2023), 90% in Canada (Natural Resources Canada, n.d.), and 15% in Australia (Paarhammer, n.d.). Using these percentages, we estimated a 76% (median) solution adoption rate in HICs.

Since we found no definitive data for the solution’s adoption in LMICs, and considering a few LMICs have building energy codes that either mandate or encourage the use of higher performing windows (Gaum, 2023; Gaum & Laubscher, 2022), we assumed that double-glazed windows represent a conservative underestimate of 5%. 

All told, we estimate that as of 2022, installed double-glazed windows in buildings cover roughly 19.9 billion m2 globally (Table 3).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2022) adoption level.

Unit: m2 windows minimum double-glazed

25th percentile 14,300,000,000
Mean 17,100,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 19,900,000,000
75th percentile 22,700,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

According to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (2023), the percentage of UK homes that have double-glazed windows increased by 9% between 2012 and 2022. Similarly, adoption grew by about 6% in five years (2015–2020) in the United States (U.S. EIA, 2018). Using these countries as representatives, this growth translates to approximately 438–448 million m2 of double-glazed or better windows being added every year in HICs.

We found limited data for adoption trends in LMICs. Based on our assumption for the current adoption in LMICs, we assumed that the percentage adoption of double-glazed windows grew by 4% over 10 years (2012–2022). This assumption, which is likely a conservative underestimate, translates to an annual addition of about 178 million m2/yr of double glazing.

Based on these findings, we estimate that the adoption of double glazing or better windows has grown globally by nearly 622 million m2 annually (Table 4).

Historically, the bulk of the solution’s adoption has occurred in HICs. However, the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, IEA, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) emphasize that adopting double-glazed windows is a necessary sustainability strategy for the building sector, especially in Africa and LMICs (GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP, 2020). This indicates considerable potential for scaling the solution, with 76% of the global building sector’s growth in the past 12 years occurring in LMICs (IEA, 2023f), where there has been less adoption of double glazing or better windows.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. 2010–2022 adoption trend.

Unit: m2/yr

25th percentile 620,000,000
Mean 622,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 622,000,000
75th percentile 624,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

We estimated an adoption ceiling (Table 5) of approximately 46.7 billion m2 of double-glazed windows globally. For this adoption scenario, 90% and 61% of window glass that existed in 2022 will be retrofitted to double-glazed or better by 2050 in buildings in HICs and buildings in LMICs, respectively.

In our analysis, we used the current double-glazed windows ratio of 90% in Canada (Natural Resources Canada, n.d) as a benchmark for the building sector’s adoption ceiling in HICs. For buildings in LMICs, we used the IEA’s recommended 2%/yr retrofit rate (IEA, 2022b) over 28 years (2022–2050). This estimated 56% growth was added to the current adoption of 5% to determine the region’s adoption ceiling. The analysis results in about 21 billion m2 and 26 billion m2 of double-glazed windows installed in buildings in HICs and LMICs, respectively.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: m2 windows minimum double-glazed

Estimate 46,700,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Our analysis estimated a low achievable adoption of approximately 32.9 billion m2 of double-glazed or better windows installed in buildings globally (Table 6). For this scenario, we estimate that the percentage of windows that were at minimum double-glazed as of 2022 in buildings in HICs (76%) and buildings in LMICs (5%) grows to 81% and 33%, respectively.

Under the high achievable scenario, 86% of window glass in buildings in HICs and 47% of window glass in buildings in LMICs is at minimum double-glazed. This translates to a total of nearly 40.0 billion m2 of double glazing or better installed by 2050.

The achievable adoption scenarios are largely driven by the growth that is possible in LMICs. We assumed a retrofit rate of 1%/yr for the Achievable – Low scenario, which is the current global retrofit rate in the building industry (IEA, 2022b); for Achievable – High, we used 1.5%/yr. We also assumed that the current (2022) building stock will still be in use by 2050.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: m2 windows minimum double-glazed

Current adoption 19,900,000,000
Achievable – low 32,900,000,000
Achievable – high 40,000,000,000
Adoption ceiling 46,700,000,000
Left Text Column Width

The current adoption of double-glazed windows in buildings reduces global GHG emissions by approximately 1.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr on a 100-yr and 20-yr basis (Table 7). If the low achievable adoption scenario is reached, this solution could potentially cut about 2.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr and 20-yr basis). The high achievable scenario would decrease global emissions 2.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr year (100-yr and 20-yr basis). We estimated that the adoption ceiling could avoid up to 3.0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of emissions on a 100-yr basis (3.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis).

This solution only accounts for the impact of retrofitting the building stock that exists as of 2022. However, the current global built floor area (252.7 billion m2) is projected to grow by an additional 183 billion m2, by 2050 (IEA, 2022a; 2023b). This means a possible addition of 1.6 billion m2 of new window glass every year, indicating that the potential for scaling the climate impact exists.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 1.3
Achievable – low 2.1
Achievable – high 2.6
Adoption ceiling 3.0
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

While multi-glazed windows are often more of an initial investment than single-pane windows, improved performance of these windows is associated with more energy and cost savings (Menzies & Wherrett, 2005). Regional climates often affect the most appropriate window type and the amount of savings (Karabay & Arici, 2012). In residential buildings, double-glazed windows can add value to homes and increase property values (Aroul & Hansz, 2011). 

Health

Reductions in air pollution due to lower heating and cooling demand decrease exposures to pollutants such as mercury and fine particulate matter generated from fossil fuel–based power plants, improving the health of nearby communities (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2025). These pollutants have been linked to increased morbidity from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, asthma, infections, and cancer (Gasparotto & Martinello, 2021) and to increased risk of mortality (Henneman et al., 2023). 

Better-performing windows can benefit health through improved thermal comfort (Bulut et al., 2021). When combined with other measures to reduce cooling loads, double-glazed windows can help with the risk of indoor heat stress (Ren et al., 2014). Improved windows may also reduce condensation and mold growth in buildings (Lozinsky et al., 2025). Residents of households with double-glazed windows have reported improvements in noise insulation after retrofitting single-pane windows (Bulut et al., 2021). 

Air Quality

Higher-performing glass can reduce air pollution by lowering gas and electricity demand for heating and cooling, which can decrease pollutants such as CO₂, nitrogen oxides, methane, mercury, and fine particulate matter generated from fossil fuel–based power plants (U.S. EPA, 2025).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Faulty installation could compromise the expected benefits of double glazing. It could also lead to condensation on the inner pane if the sealant deteriorates, affecting visibility, aesthetics, and performance and resulting in a potential shorter lifespan than single glazing (Duan et al., 2021; Likins-White, 2023). Additional costs may be incurred when attempting to secure adequate expertise and equipment to ensure proper handling and installation (DIY Double Glaze, n.d.). Depending on the extent of the retrofits, this may drive up construction costs, which is a concern for building developers. However, it also represents opportunities to improve available technical expertise in regions where these services are unavailable or underdeveloped.

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

The Improve Windows and Glass solution reduces the amount of space heating and cooling required. This may reduce the required size and complexity of heating and cooling systems, making them more economically accessible.

left_text_column_width

Upgrading window glass can motivate building owners to improve other elements of the building envelope. This could improve the cost efficiency of the upgrades when approached holistically. 

left_text_column_width

Competing

The potential climate impact of deploying these solutions could be lower due to the reduced amount of space heating and cooling required in buildings from improving window glass.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

m2 windows minimum double-glazed

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
00.040.065
units
Current 1.99×10¹⁰ 03.29×10¹⁰4.0×10¹⁰
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 1.3 2.12.6
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-123
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

Manufacturing double-glazed or better windows generates more industrial sector emissions than does manufacturing single-glazed windows due to the additional materials used. However, life-cycle analysis studies such as Balasbaneh et al. (2022) compared different glazing options ranging from single to triple glazing and determined that the emissions reduced by using better windows outweighs the embodied emissions. Although it is outside the scope of this solution, window frames account for as much as 46–80% of a window's embodied emissions, especially when using conventional window frame materials such as polyvinyl chloride and aluminum (Saadatian et al., 2021). Despite the higher embodied emissions, the emissions reductions from implementing the solution are substantial.

left_text_column_width
Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Windows & Glass
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set clear and measurable targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and the deployment of improved windows.
  • Enact holistic policy plans and building codes to reduce GHG emissions from buildings through improved windows and framing systems.
  • Set public procurement standards for windows and glass, using double-glazed windows, at minimum, for public buildings.
  • Amend building codes to include minimum requirements based on window performance; gradually increase the standards over time if necessary.
  • Periodically update codes, policies, and public guidance to keep pace with research and development.
  • Make double-glazed windows the minimum standard option through a range of policy interventions, including regulations, subsidies, and educational programs where relevant; extend incentives to high performing secondary-, double- or triple-glazed windows, if relevant.
  • Offer financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for consumers, manufacturers, start-ups, and improved window installers.
  • Ensure financial incentives reach, and offer additional incentives for, low- and middle-income communities.
  • Ensure financial incentives cover both new installations and retrofits.
  • Create financial disincentives such as higher taxes and fines for lower performing windows.
  • Subsidize workforce or skills development and/or work with businesses to identify gaps and needs such as technical knowledge or the advantages of new technology.
  • Invest in research and development to improve window design, manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Create green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for improved windows.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for windows, and demonstrations for installation and retrofits; offer tours of model builds that feature improved windows for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings, and environmental benefits.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Finance or develop only new construction and retrofits that use improved windows and other low-carbon practices.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for installing improved windows.
  • Seek or negotiate preferential loan agreements for developers using improved windows and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Use double-glazed windows as the most basic standard and offer a variety of better-performing options such as triple-glazed.
  • Work with designers and architects who integrate efficient windows and other efficient materials into their designs.
  • Integrate improved window designs into construction databases, including listing prices, thermal insulation properties, and environmental benefits.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building codes, and educational programs advancing the use of improved windows.
  • Use educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds.
  • Conduct research to improve the manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity of windows.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for improving windows.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that use improved windows and other low-carbon practices.
  • Expand product lines to include improved window designs.
  • Integrate improved window designs into construction databases, listing prices, thermal insulation properties, and environmental benefits.
  • Invest in research and development to improve window design, manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building codes, and educational programs advancing the use of improved windows.
  • Join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for improved windows.
  • Create long-term purchasing agreements with improved window manufacturers to support stable demand and improve economies of scale.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for improved windows.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Finance or develop only new construction and retrofits that use improved windows and other low-carbon practices.
  • Advocate for clear and measurable public targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and deployment of improved windows.
  • Advocate for holistic policy plans and building codes to reduce GHG emissions from buildings that include improved windows and framing systems.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building codes, and educational programs advancing the use of improved windows.
  • Conduct research to improve window design, manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Work with businesses for workforce or skills development.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for windows, and demonstrations for installation and retrofits; offer tours of model builds that feature improved windows for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits.
  • Create, join, or administer green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for improved windows.

Further information:

Investors
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that use improved windows and other low-carbon practices.
  • Invest in research and development and start-ups to improve window design, manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Issue green bonds to invest in projects that use improved windows and integrate other climate-friendly construction practices.
  • Offer preferential loan agreements for developers using improved windows and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for improved windows.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that use improved windows and other low-carbon practices.
  • Offer grants for developers using improved windows and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Create financing programs for private construction in low-income or under-resourced communities requiring the use of improved windows.
  • Advocate for clear and measurable public targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and the deployment of improved windows.
  • Advocate for holistic policy plans and building codes to reduce GHG emissions from buildings that include improved windows and framing systems.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building codes, and educational programs for improved windows.
  • Fund research to improve window design, manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits.
  • Create, join, or administer green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for improved windows.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for clear and measurable public targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and the deployment of improved windows.
  • Advocate for holistic policy plans and building codes to reduce GHG emissions from buildings that include improved windows and framing systems.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building codes, and educational programs for improved windows.
  • Conduct research to improve window design, manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Contract with businesses for workforce or skills development.
  • Offer or support educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of improved windows.
  • Create, join, or administer green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for improved windows.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Research and develop high-performance window technologies such as vacuum glazing, aerogel applications, potential integration of solar photovoltaic glass, and the use of unconventional gases to fill multi-pane windows and improve performance.
  • Create improved alternatives to common practices for air and vapor sealing.
  • Find alternative materials for spacers with reduced thermal conductivity in double- and triple-glazed windows.
  • Research and develop alternative window frame designs to improve thermal performance, structural insulating materials, and improve ease of installation (e.g., out-of-the-box window installation kits).
  • Improve efficiency of the window manufacturing process, supply chain access, and the circular economy of glass.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Finance or develop only new construction and retrofits that use improved windows and other low-carbon practices.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for installing improved windows.
  • Advocate for clear and measurable public targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and the deployment of improved windows.
  • Advocate for holistic policy plans and building codes to reduce GHG emissions from buildings that include improved windows and framing systems.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building codes, and educational programs for improved windows.
  • Organize local “green home tours” and open houses to showcase climate-friendly builds, fostering demand by highlighting cost savings and environmental benefits of improved windows.
  • Capture community feedback and share it with local policymakers to address barriers such as permitting logistics or up-front costs, helping to shape policies that drive adoption.
  • Create, join, or administer green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for improved windows.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions: High

Improving windows and glass helps optimize the amount of heating required in buildings by reducing heat loss. Calautit et al. (2025) reported that energy used for heating in a United Kingdom residence dropped nearly 23% after reducing the glass U-value from 5.6 W/m2K to 2.8 W/m2K. Using the same building parameters, the study tested the impact of reducing the U-value by 1.35 W/m2K in the climatic conditions of Netherlands, Japan, United States, Sweden and Australia. The outcomes were similar, with about a 10–12% reduction in heating loads (Calautit et al., 2025). The results from Yuk et al. (2024), Magraoui et al. (2025), and Ahmed et al. (2025) further support these findings. 

Similarly, the solution reduces heat gained from the outdoors into buildings, thereby cutting cooling loads. Gomaa et al. (2025) reported that energy use in a Saudi Arabian residence was reduced by 1,265 kWh/yr (49%) after improving the glass U-value from 5.6 to 0.9 W/m2K (84%). Es-sakali et al. (2022) recorded 36% less electricity consumed after reducing the U-value by 1.44 W/m2K in Morocco’s climate.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 10 original studies reflecting current evidence from 13 countries. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions. The studies we found used simulations to assess the impact of retrofitting windows due to the inherent difficulty of real-world experiments. However, we used studies that include field measurements and calibration of the building simulations to validate their models.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Deploy Clean Cooking

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Buildings
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Energy Sources
Image
Family cooking on a clean stove indoors
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Deploy Clean Cooking solution as the use of cleaner cooking fuels (liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, electricity, biogas, and ethanol) in place of polluting fuels such as wood, charcoal, dung, kerosene, and coal, and/or the use of efficient cookstove technologies (together called cleaner cooking solutions). Replacing unclean fuel and cookstoves with cleaner approaches can drastically reduce GHG emissions while offering health and biodiversity benefits.

Income & work,Health,Equality
Nature protection,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Clean Cooking is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Cleaner cooking can reduce GHG emissions while offering health and biodiversity benefits, too.
Overview

Worldwide, cooking is responsible for an estimated 1.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis), (World Health Organization [WHO], 2023), or almost 3% of annual global emissions. Most of these emissions come from burning nonrenewable biomass fuels. Only the CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis is reported here due to lack of data on the relative contributions of GHGs. The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2023a) states that 2.3 billion people in 128 countries currently cook with coal, charcoal, kerosene, firewood, agricultural waste, or dung over open fires or inefficient cookstoves because they do not have the ability to regularly cook using cleaner cooking solutions. Even when sustainably harvested, biomass fuel is not climate neutral because it emits methane and black carbon (Smith, 2002).

Clean cooking (Figure 1) reduces GHG emissions through three pathways: 

Improving Efficiency

Traditional biomass or charcoal cookstoves are less than 15% efficient (Khavari et al., 2023), meaning most generated heat is lost to the environment rather than heating the cooking vessel and food. Cleaner fuels and technologies can be many times more efficient, using less energy to prepare meals than traditional fuels and cookstoves (Kashyap et al., 2024). 

Reducing Carbon Intensity

Cleaner fuels have lower carbon intensity, producing significantly fewer GHG emissions per unit of heat generated than conventional fuels. Carbon intensity includes CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide as well as black carbon. For instance, charcoal cookstoves emit approximately 572 kg CO₂‑eq /GJ of heat delivered for cooking (Cashman et al., 2016). In contrast, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and biogas emit about 292 and 11 kg CO₂‑eq /GJ, respectively (Cashman et al., 2016) and, excluding the embodied carbon, stoves that heat with electricity generated from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric have zero emissions.

Reducing Deforestation

Cleaner cooking also helps mitigate climate change by reducing deforestation (Clean Cooking Alliance [CCA], 2023) and associated GHG emissions. 

Figure 1. Classification of household cooking fuels as clean (green) and polluting (orange). Adapted from Stoner et al. (2021).

Tree diagram listing types of fuels.

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

Afrane, G., & Ntiamoah, A. (2011). Comparative life cycle assessment of charcoal, biogas, and liquefied petroleum gas as cooking fuels in Ghana. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15(4), 539–549. Link to source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00350.x

Afrane, G., & Ntiamoah, A. (2012). Analysis of the life-cycle costs and environmental impacts of cooking fuels used in Ghana. Applied energy, 98, 301–306. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261912002590

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

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

Bensch, G., Jeuland, M., & Peters, J. (2021). Efficient biomass cooking in Africa for climate change mitigation and development. One Earth, 4(6), 879–890. Link to source: https://www.cell.com/one-earth/pdf/S2590-3322(21)00296-7.pdf

Bennitt, F. B., Wozniak, S. S., Causey, K., Burkart, K., & Brauer, M. (2021). Estimating disease burden attributable to household air pollution: new methods within the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet Global Health, 9, S18. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00126-1

Bergero, C., Gosnell, G., Gielen, D., Kang, S., Bazilian, M., & Davis, S. J. (2023). Pathways to net-zero emissions from aviation. Nature Sustainability, 6(4), 404–414. Link to source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-01046-9

​​Biswas, S., & Das, U. (2022). Adding fuel to human capital: Exploring the educational effects of cooking fuel choice from rural India. Energy Economics, 105, 105744. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105744 

Cabiyo, B., Ray, I., & Levine, D. I. (2020). The refill gap: clean cooking fuel adoption in rural India. Environmental Research Letters, 16(1), 014035. Link to source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd133

Cashman, S., Rodgers, M., & Huff, M. (2016). Life-cycle assessment of cookstove fuels in India and China. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-15/325. Link to source: https://cleancooking.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/496-1.pdf

Clean Cooking Alliance (CCA). (2023). Accelerating clean cooking as a nature-based solution. Link to source: https://cleancooking.org/reports-and-tools/accelerating-clean-cooking-as-a-nature-based-climate-solution/

Clean Cooking Alliance. (2022). Clean cooking as a catalyst for sustainable food systems. Link to source: https://cleancooking.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CCA_Clean-Cooking-as-a-Catalyst-for-Sustainable-Food-Systems.pdf

Climate & Clean Air Coalition. (2024). Nationally determined contributions and clean cooking. Link to source: https://www.ccacoalition.org/resources/nationally-determined-contributions-and-clean-cooking

Choudhuri, P., & Desai, S. (2021). Lack of access to clean fuel and piped water and children’s educational outcomes in rural India. World Development, 145, 105535. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105535 

Dagnachew, A. G., Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., & Hof, A. F. (2018). Towards universal access to clean cooking solutions in sub-Saharan Africa. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Link to source: https://www.pbl.nl/uploads/default/downloads/pbl-2019-clean-cooking-solutions-sub-saharan-africa_3421_0.pdf

Down to Earth. (2022). Ujjwala: Over 9 million beneficiaries did not refill cylinder last year, Centre admits. Retrieved June 20, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/energy/ujjwala-over-9-million-beneficiaries-did-not-refill-cylinder-last-year-centre-admits-84130

Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (2023). Building evidence to unlock impact finance : A field assessment of lean cooking co-benefits for climate, health, and gender. Retrieved September 13, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.esmap.org/Building_Evidence_To_unloc_Impact_Finance_Benefits

Fullerton, D. G., Bruce, N., & Gordon, S. B. (2008). Indoor air pollution from biomass fuel smoke is a major health concern in the developing world. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 102(9), 843–851. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.05.028 

Garland, C., Delapena, S., Prasad, R., L'Orange, C., Alexander, D., & Johnson, M. (2017). Black carbon cookstove emissions: A field assessment of 19 stove/fuel combinations. Atmospheric Environment, 169, 140–149. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.08.040

Gill-Wiehl, A., Kammen, D. M., & Haya, B. K. (2024). Pervasive over-crediting from cookstove offset methodologies. Nature Sustainability, 7(2), 191–202. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01259-6 

International Energy Agency. (2022). Africa energy outlook. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2022/key-findings

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

International Energy Agency. (2023b). Electricity market report. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-market-report-update-2023

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of the Working Group III to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

Jameel, Y., Patrone, C. M., Patterson, K. P., & West, P. C. (2022). Climate-poverty connections: Opportunities for synergistic solutions at the intersection of planetary and human well-being. Link to source: https://drawdown.org/publications/climate-poverty-connections-report

Jewitt, S., Atagher, P., & Clifford, M. (2020). “We cannot stop cooking”: Stove stacking, seasonality and the risky practices of household cookstove transitions in Nigeria. Energy Research & Social Science, 61, 101340. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629619304700?via%3Dihub

Johnson, E. (2009). Charcoal versus LPG grilling: a carbon-footprint comparison. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(6), 370–378. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925509000420

Kashyap, S. R., Pramanik, S., & Ravikrishna, R. V. (2024). A review of energy-efficient domestic cookstoves. Applied Thermal Engineering, 236, 121510. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.121510

Kapsalyamova, Z., Mishra, R., Kerimray, A., Karymshakov, K., & Azhgaliyeva, D. (2021). Why energy access is not enough for choosing clean cooking fuels? Evidence from the multinomial logit model. Journal of Environmental Management, 290, 112539. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721006010

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

Lacey, F. G., Henze, D. K., Lee, C. J., van Donkelaar, A., & Martin, R. V. (2017). Transient climate and ambient health impacts due to national solid fuel cookstove emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(6), 1269–1274. Link to source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1612430114

Lansche, J., & Müller, J. (2017). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of biogas versus dung combustion household cooking systems in developing countries–a case study in Ethiopia. Journal of cleaner production, 165, 828–835. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652617315597

Lee, M., Chang, J., Deng, Q., Hu, P., Bixby, H., Harper, S., ... & Liu, J. (2024). Effects of a coal to clean heating policy on acute myocardial infarction in Beijing: a difference-in-differences analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 8(11), e924–e932. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00243-2

Mazorra, J., Sánchez-Jacob, E., de la Sota, C., Fernández, L., & Lumbreras, J. (2020). A comprehensive analysis of cooking solutions co-benefits at household level: Healthy lives and well-being, gender and climate change. Science of The Total Environment, 707, 135968. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719359637

Po, J. Y. T., FitzGerald, J. M., & Carlsten, C. (2011). Respiratory disease associated with solid biomass fuel exposure in rural women and children: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax, 66(3), 232–239. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2010.147884 

Rosenthal, J., Quinn, A., Grieshop, A. P., Pillarisetti, A., & Glass, R. I. (2018). Clean cooking and the SDGs: Integrated analytical approaches to guide energy interventions for health and environment goals. Energy for Sustainable Development, 42, 152–159. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082617309857

Shankar, A. V., Quinn, A. K., Dickinson, K. L., Williams, K. N., Masera, O., Charron, D., ... & Rosenthal, J. P. (2020). Everybody stacks: Lessons from household energy case studies to inform design principles for clean energy transitions. Energy Policy, 141, 111468. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111468

Simkovich, S. M., Williams, K. N., Pollard, S., Dowdy, D., Sinharoy, S., Clasen, T. F., ... & Checkley, W. (2019). A systematic review to evaluate the association between clean cooking technologies and time use in low-and middle-income countries. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(13), 2277. Link to source: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/13/2277

Singh, P., Gundimeda, H., & Stucki, M. (2014). Environmental footprint of cooking fuels: a life cycle assessment of ten fuel sources used in Indian households. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19, 1036–1048. Link to source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-014-0699-0

Smith, K. R. (2002). In praise of petroleum? Science, 298(5600), 1847–1847. DOI: 10.1126/science.298.5600.1847

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

World Bank. (2018). A recipe for protecting the Democratic Republic of Congo’s tropical forests. Retrieved January 16, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2018/01/24/a-recipe-for-protecting-the-democratic-republic-of-congos-tropical-forests

World Bank. (2020). Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (2020). The state of access to modern energy cooking services. Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/the-state-of-access-to-modern-energy-cooking-services

World Bank. (2023). Moving the needle on clean cooking for all. Retrieved September 13, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2023/01/19/moving-the-needle-on-clean-cooking-for-all

World Health Organization. (2025). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/air-pollution/household-air-pollution 

World Health Organization. (2023). Achieving universal access and net-zero emissions by 2050: a global roadmap for just and inclusive clean cooking transition. Link to source: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/achieving-universal-access-by-2030-and-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-a-global-roadmap-for-just-and-inclusive-clean-cooking-transition

World Health Organization. (2024a). WHO publishes new global data on the use of clean and polluting fuels for cooking by fuel type. Retrieved June 17, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2022-who-publishes-new-global-data-on-the-use-of-clean-and-polluting-fuels-for-cooking-by-fuel-type#:~:text=As%20of%202021%2C%202.3%20billion,%2D%20and%20middle%2Dincome%20countries.

World Health Organization. (2024b). Household air pollution. Retrieved June 17, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

The climate impact of cleaner cooking depends on which fuel and technology is being replaced and what is replacing it. The WHO (2023) categorizes cooking fuels as clean, transitional, or polluting based primarily on health impacts. Clean fuels include solar, electric, biogas, LPG, and alcohols, while kerosene and unprocessed coal are polluting fuels. Biomass cooking technologies may be classified as clean, transitional, or polluting depending on the levels of fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide produced. Switching from traditional cookstoves (polluting) to improved cookstoves (transitional) can reduce emissions 20–40%, while switching to an LPG or electric cookstove can reduce emissions more than 60% (Johnson, 2009). Not including the embodied carbon, switching completely to solar-powered electric cookstoves can reduce emissions 100%.

We estimated the effectiveness of cleaner cooking by calculating the reduction in GHG emissions per household switching to cleaner cooking solutions per year (Table 1). Our analysis of national, regional, and global studies suggested that switching to cleaner fuels and technologies can reduce emissions by 0.83–3.4 t CO₂‑eq /household/yr (100-yr basis), including CO₂, methane, black carbon, and sometimes other GHGs. The large range is due to varying assumptions. For example, the IEA arrived at 3.2 t CO₂‑eq /household/yr (100-yr basis) by assuming that >50% of the households switched to electricity or LPG. In comparison, Bailis et al. (2015) assumed a switch from unclean cookstoves to improved biomass cookstoves, resulting in an emissions reduction of only 0.98 t CO₂‑eq /household/yr (100-yr basis).

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing GHG emissions of switching from unclean cooking fuels and technologies to cleaner versions.

Unit: t CO₂-eq/household switching to cleaner cooking solutions/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 1.5
Mean 2.2
Median (50th percentile) 2.3
75th percentile 3.1
Left Text Column Width

While we calculated a median reduction of 2.3 t CO₂‑eq /household switching to cleaner cooking solutions/yr (100-yr basis), the actual reduction per household might be lower because households often stack cleaner cooking fuel with unclean fuel. This could result from multiple socioeconomic factors. For instance, a household may primarily rely on LPG as its main cooking fuel but occasionally turn to firewood or kerosene for specific dishes, price fluctuation, or fuel shortages (Khavari et al., 2023). In rural areas, cleaner fuels and traditional biomass (e.g., wood or dung) are used together to cut costs or due to personal preferences.

left_text_column_width
Cost

People can obtain traditional unclean fuels and traditional woodstoves for little or no cost (Bensch et al., 2021; Kapsalyamova et al., 2021). Our analysis estimated the cost of woodstoves at US$1.50/household and the monetary cost of biomass fuel at US$0.00/household/yr. Over the two-yr lifespan of a woodstove, the net annualized cost is US$0.75/household/yr. While collecting this fuel might be free, it contributes to poverty because households can spend one to three hours daily collecting fuelwood. This can contribute to children, especially girls, missing school (Jameel et al., 2022). 

We estimated the median upfront cost of transitioning from primarily unclean cooking fuels and technology to cleaner cooking to be approximately US$58/household, with stoves lasting 3–10 years. However, the range of annual costs is large because several cleaner cooking technologies have significant variations in price, and cleaner fuel cost is even more variable. Our analysis showed a median annual fuel cost of US$56/household/yr with costs ranging from savings of US$9/household/yr when buying less biomass for more efficient biomass stoves to costs of US$187/household/yr for LPG. We estimated that over a five-year lifespan, cleaner cooking solutions have a net cost of US$64/household/yr.

Our analysis may overestimate operational costs due to a lack of data on biomass and charcoal costs. The IEA (2023a) estimates that an annual investment of US$8 billion is needed to supply cleaner cookstoves, equipment, and infrastructure to support a transition to cleaner cooking. This translates to US$17/household/yr. 

The IEA (2023) assumes improved biomass and charcoal cookstoves are predominantly adopted in rural areas while LPG and electric stoves are adopted in urban regions because, in LMICs, economic and infrastructure challenges can limit access to LPG and electricity in rural areas. If every household were to switch exclusively to modern cooking (e.g., LPG and electricity), the cost would be much higher. The World Bank estimates the cost of implementing these solutions to be US$1.5 trillion between 2020 and 2030 or ~US$150 billion/yr over the next 10 years. This translates into an average cost of US$214/household/yr (World Bank, 2020). 

left_text_column_width

The median cost per unit of climate impact was US$28/t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis, Table 2), obtained by taking the difference between median cost of cooking with polluting sources and the cost of adopting cleaner fuel, then dividing by the median reduction per household (Table 1). Beyond climate benefits, cleaner cooking offers significant other benefits (discussed below). While the median cost presented here is a reasonable first-order estimate, the actual cost of GHG reduction will depend upon several factors, including the type of stove adopted, stove usage, fuel consumption, and scale of adoption. 

left_text_column_width
Learning Curve

Deploying cleaner cooking is a mature technology, and prices are unlikely to decrease in high-income countries where cleaner cooking fuels and technologies have been completely adopted. Nonetheless, the high cost of cleaner cooking technologies and the fluctuating prices of cleaner cooking fuel have been among the main impediments in the transition of households experiencing poverty away from unclean fuels and technologies. For example, recent price surges in Africa rendered LPG unaffordable for 30 million people (IEA, 2022). Electricity prices have also fluctuated regionally. In Europe and India, prices were higher in 2023 than in 2019 (IEA, 2023b). In contrast, U.S. electricity prices have remained stable over the past five years, while China experienced an 8% decrease.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

Deploy Clean Cooking is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than gradual and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Households may continue using unclean cooking fuel and technologies alongside cleaner fuels and technologies (referred to as stacking). The data on cleaner cooking are typically measured as the number of households primarily relying on cleaner cooking fuel. This fails to capture the secondary fuel source used in the household. A review from LMICs revealed that stacking can range from low (28%) to as high as 100%, which would mean that every household is simultaneously using cleaner and unclean fuel (Shankar et al., 2020). This can happen due to factors like an increase in the cost of cleaner cooking fuel, cooking preference, unavailability of cleaner fuel, and unfamiliarity with cleaner cooking technologies. Stacking is challenging to avoid, and there is a growing realization from cleaner cooking practitioners of the need for cleaner approaches, even when multiple stoves are used. For example, electric stoves can be supplemented with LPG or ethanol stoves.

Permanence

There are significant permanence challenges associated with cleaner cooking. Households switch back from cleaner cooking fuels and technologies to unclean fuels and technologies (Jewitt et al., 2020). 

Finance

Finance is vital to supercharge adoption of cleaner cooking. Investment in the cleaner cooking sector remains significantly below the scale of the global challenge, with current funding at approximately US$130 million. This is many times lower than the amount needed each year to expand adoption of cleaner cooking solutions for the 2.4 billion people who still rely on polluting fuels and technologies (CCA 2023). At the current business-as-usual adoption rate, limited by severe underfunding, more than 80% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa will continue to rely on unclean fuels and technologies in 2030 (Stoner et al., 2021)

Climate funding, developmental finance, and subsidies have made some progress in increasing adoption of cleaner cooking. For instance, the World Bank invested more than US$562 million between 2015 and 2020, enabling 43 million people across 30 countries to adopt cleaner cooking solutions (ESMAP, 2023; World Bank, 2023). However, the emissions reductions these programs achieve can be overestimated. A recent analysis (Gill-Wiehl et al., 2024) found that 26.7 million clean cooking offset credits in reality only amounted to about 2.9 million credits. This discrepancy underscores the urgent need for updated methodologies and standards to accurately estimate emissions reductions and the cost of reduction per t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis). 

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

The WHO (2025) estimated that 74% of the global population in 2022 used cleaner cooking fuels and technologies. This translates to 1.2 billion households using cleaner cooking (Table 2) and 420 million households that have yet to switch to clean cooking solutions (Table 6). The adoption of cleaner cooking is not evenly spread across the world. On the higher end of the spectrum are the Americas and Europe, where, on average, more than 93% of people primarily rely on cleaner cooking fuels and technologies (WHO, 2025). On the lower end of the spectrum are sub-Saharan countries such as Madagascar, Mali and Uganda, where primary reliance on cleaner cooking fuel and technologies is <5%. While current adoption represents households that enjoy cleaner cooking today, our analysis for achievable adoption and adoption ceiling focuses on quantifying households that currently use traditional cooking methods and can switch to cleaner cooking. 

To calculate climate impact of this solution, we defined the adoption unit as households switching to clean cooking after 2022. For this reason, current adoption in Table 6 and the solution summaries is not determined.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Current adoption level (2022).

Unit: households using cleaner cooking solutions

Mean 1,200,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Global adoption of cleaner cooking fuel and technologies as the primary source of cooking increased from 61% of the population in 2013 to 74% in 2023 (WHO, 2025). This translates to roughly 21 million households adopting cleaner cooking technologies/yr (Table 3). This uptake, however, is not evenly distributed (see Maps section above).

Large-scale adoption across China, India, and Indonesia has driven the recent increase. Between 2011 and 2021, use of cleaner fuels and technologies as the primary means of cooking rose from 61% to 83% of the population in China. In India, adoption expanded from 38% to 71%, and in Indonesia, it increased from 47% to 87% (WHO, 2024a). In contrast, primary reliance on cleaner cooking in sub-Saharan Africa only increased from 12% in 2010 to 16% in 2020 (Stoner et al., 2021). 

Based on the existing policies, population growth, and investments, more than 75% of the sub-Saharan African population will use unclean cooking fuels and technologies in 2030 (Stoner et al., 2021). In Central and Southern Asia, about 25% of the population will use unclean cooking fuels and technologies by 2030 (Stoner et al., 2021).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Adoption trend (2013–2023).

Unit: households switching to cleaner cooking solutions/yr

Mean 21,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

The World Bank (2020) estimated that universal adoption of modern energy cooking services by 2030 is possible with an annual investment of US$148–156 billion, with 26% of the investment coming from governments and development partners, 7% from private investment, and 67% from households. Universal adoption and use of cleaner fuels and technologies is possible with an investment of US$8–10 billion/yr (IEA, 2023a; World Bank, 2020). We therefore set the adoption ceiling at 100% of households adopting and using cleaner cooking solutions, which entails 420 million households switching from unclean solutions (Table 4).

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Cleaner cooking adoption ceiling: upper limit for new adoption of cleaner cooking solutions.

Unit: households switching to cleaner cooking solutions

Mean 420,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Universal adoption and use of cleaner cooking solutions is achievable before 2050 (Table 5). This is because if the current adoption trend continues, all households that currently use unclean cooking fuels and technologies will have switched to using cleaner versions by 2043. 

China, India, and Indonesia have shown that it is possible to rapidly expand adoption with the right set of policies and investments. In Indonesia, for example, use of cleaner cooking solutions increased from 9% of the population to 89% between 2002 and 2012 (WHO, 2025). 

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: households switching to cleaner cooking solutions

Current adoption Not determined
Achievable – low 420,000,000
Achievable – high 420,000,000
Adoption ceiling 420,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Cooking from all fuel types is responsible for approximately 1.7 Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) emissions every year (WHO, 2023), on par with global emissions from the aviation industry (Bergero et al., 2023). Unclean cooking fuels and technologies are also the largest source of black carbon (Climate & Clean Air Coalition, 2024), a short-lived climate pollutant with a GWP several hundred times higher than CO₂ that contributes to millions of premature deaths yearly (Garland et al., 2017). 

The actual reduction in climate impact will depend upon the mix of cleaner fuel and technologies that replace unclean fuel. The IEA (2023a) estimates that if the cleanest cooking fuels and technologies (e.g., electric and LPG) are adopted, emissions could be reduced by 1.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2030. In contrast, a greater reliance on improved cookstoves as cleaner cooking solutions will result in lower emissions reductions. The WHO (2023) estimates that much of the shift by 2030 will involve using improved biomass and charcoal cookstoves, especially in rural areas, reducing emissions 0.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2030 and ~1.6 CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2050, closely matching the IEA estimate.

According to our analysis, deploying cleaner cooking can reduce emissions by 0.98 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) between now and 2050 (Table 6). Our emissions reduction estimates are lower than those of the IEA because we do not assume that the shift to cleaner cooking will be dominated by LPG and renewables.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂-eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption Not determined
Achievable – low 0.98
Achievable – high 0.98
Adoption ceiling 0.98
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Simkovich et al. (2019) found that time gained by switching to cleaner fuel can increase daily income by 3.8–4.7%. Their analysis excludes the expenses related to fuel, as well as the costs associated with delivery or transportation for refilling cleaner fuel. Mazorra et al. (2020) reported that if 50% of the time saved from not gathering firewood were redirected to income-generating activities, it could lead to an estimated annual income increase of approximately US$125 (2023 dollars) in the Gambia, US$113 in Guinea-Bissau, and US$200 in Senegal. Health and Air Quality

Unclean cooking fuels and technologies produce household air pollution (HAP), with smoke and fine particulates sometimes reaching levels up to 100 times acceptable limits, particularly in poorly ventilated spaces (WHO, 2024b). HAP is linked to numerous health issues, such as stroke, ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and poor birth outcomes (Jameel et al., 2022). It accounts for more than 3.2 million early deaths annually (WHO, 2024b). In 2019, it accounted for over 4% of all the deaths globally (Bennitt et al., 2021). The World Bank (2020) estimated that the negative health impact of unclean cooking fuels and technologies is valued at US$1.4 trillion/yr. Globally, switching to cleaner fuels and technologies could prevent 21 million premature deaths from 2000–2100 (Lacey et al., 2017). A recent study offered empirical evidence of potential cardiovascular benefits stemming from household cleaner energy policies (Lee et al., 2024).

Equality

Unclean cooking disproportionately impacts women and children who are traditionally responsible for collecting fuelwood or biomass. Typically, they spend an hour every day collecting solid fuel; however, in some countries (e.g., Senegal, Niger, and Cameroon), daily average collection time can exceed three hours (Jameel et al., 2022). Time-saving cooking fuels are associated with more education in women and children (Biswas & Das, 2022; Choudhuri & Desai, 2021) and can additionally promote gender equity through economic empowerment by allowing women to pursue additional employment opportunities (CCA, 2023). In conflict zones, adoption of cleaner fuels and technologies has been shown to reduce gender-based violence (Jameel et al., 2022). Finally, cleaner cooking fuels can improve health equity as women are disproportionately exposed to indoor air pollution generated from cooking (Fullerton et al., 2008; Po et al., 2011). 

Nature Protection

The unsustainable harvest of wood for cooking fuel has led to deforestation and biodiversity loss in regions such as South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (CCA, 2022). East African nations, including Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda, are particularly affected by the rapid depletion of sustainable wood fuel resources. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 84% of harvested wood is charcoal or firewood (World Bank, 2018). Switching to cleaner cooking fuels and technologies can reduce deforestation and protect biodiversity (Anenberg et al., 2013; CCA, 2022; Dagnachew et al., 2018).

left_text_column_width
Risks

The expensive nature of cleaner cooking presents a significant barrier to adoption. Households that have recently transitioned to cleaner cooking face a high risk of defaulting back to unclean fuels and technologies. For example, among the households that received free LPG connection as a part of the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana in India, low-income households reverted to unclean fuels and technologies during extensive periods of refill gaps (Cabiyo et al., 2020). In total, 9 million recipients could not refill their LPG cylinders even once in 2021–22 due to high LPG costs and other factors (Down to Earth, 2022).

Beyond the cost, there is an adjustment period for the households adopting the cleaner cooking solution, which includes familiarizing themselves with the technology and fostering cultural and behavioral changes, including overcoming biases and adopting new habits.

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

This solution also decreases the demand for wood and waste biomass. Because the total projected demand for wood and waste biomass across climate solutions exceeds the supply, reducing demand from clean cooking will help the following solutions increase their potential adoption by increasing the availability of raw agricultural waste and other biomass:

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

household switching to cleaner cooking

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
01.52.3
units
Current Not Determined 04.2×10⁸4.2×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0 0.980.98
US$ per t CO₂-eq
27
Emergency Brake

CO₂, CH₄, BC

Trade-offs

Switching to electric cooking will meaningfully reduce GHG emissions only if the grid is powered by clean energy. A life-cycle assessment of cooking fuels in India and China (Cashman et al., 2016) showed that unclean cooking fuels such as crop residue and cow dung had a lower carbon footprint than electricity because in these countries >80% of the electricity was produced by coal and natural gas. 

LPG has been the leading cleaner fuel source replacing unclean cooking fuel globally (IEA, 2023a). The IEA (2023a) estimated that 33% of households transitioning to cleaner cooking fuels and technologies will do so using LPG to transition. Because LPG is a fossil fuel, increased reliance can hinder or slow the transition from fossil fuels. 

left_text_column_width
% population
0–15
15–30
30–45
45–60
60–75
75–100
No data

Percentage of country population relying primarily on clean cooking technologies, 2023

Access to clean cooking technology – and the benefits it confers – varies widely around the world.

World Health Organization (2025). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies for cooking (%) [Data set]. The Global Health Observatory Indicators. Retrieved May 8, 2025 from Link to source: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/gho-phe-primary-reliance-on-clean-fuels-and-technologies-proportion

% population
0–15
15–30
30–45
45–60
60–75
75–100
No data

Percentage of country population relying primarily on clean cooking technologies, 2023

Access to clean cooking technology – and the benefits it confers – varies widely around the world.

World Health Organization (2025). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies for cooking (%) [Data set]. The Global Health Observatory Indicators. Retrieved May 8, 2025 from Link to source: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/gho-phe-primary-reliance-on-clean-fuels-and-technologies-proportion

Maps Introduction

The Deploy Clean Cooking solution applies to geographies where low-cost, inefficient, and polluting cooking methods are common. Sub-Saharan Africa is the overwhelming target, with only 23% of the population relying on clean cooking technologies (WHO, 2025). 

There are significant correlations between the lack of clean cooking solutions and levels of extreme poverty (World Bank, 2024). The financial cost of clean fuel and cookstoves is a significant barrier to adoption (WHO, 2023).  

Some of the key benefits of deploying clean cooking will vary based on geography and landscape. For instance, freeing up time spent collecting firewood will be more notable in areas with less dense forest, since people in such locations would have to travel farther to harvest wood (Khavari et al., 2023).

Barriers to the adoption of clean cooking can also vary with geography. Examples noted by Khavari et al. (2023) include robustness of supply chains, which can be influenced by population density and road networks.

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Clean Cooking
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Prioritize the issue at the national level to coordinate policy, coordinate resources, and ensure a robust effort.
  • Create a dedicated coordinating body across relevant ministries, agencies, and sectors.
  • Create subsidies and fuel price caps, and ban unclean cooking fuels and technologies.
  • Remove taxes and levies on clean-cooking stoves.
  • Create dedicated teams to deliver cleaner cooking equipment.
  • Run public education campaigns appropriate for the context. 

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Serve as a clean cooking ambassador to raise awareness within your industry and community.
  • Participate in training programs.
  • Develop feedback channels with manufacturers to enhance design and overcome local challenges.
  • Restaurant owners and cooks can adopt clean cooking in their kitchens to reduce emissions, lower costs, and improve worker health and safety. 

Further information:

Business Leaders

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Ensure operations use clean cooking methods.
  • Educate the public on the benefits of clean cooking, available options, and applicable incentive programs.
  • Advocate to policymakers on issues such as targeted subsidies and providing government support.
  • Educate investors and the business community on local needs and market trends. 

Further information:

Investors

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Distribute cleaner cooking equipment and fuel.
  • Work with local policymakers to ensure that recipient communities can maintain fuel costs over the long term (possibly through fuel subsidies).
  • Provide grants to businesses in this sector.
  • Fund education campaigns appropriate for the context.
  • Advance political action through public-private partnerships such as the CCA. 

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Educate the public on the health, gender, climate, and environmental impacts of unclean cooking and the benefits of cleaner cooking.
  • Hone your message to fit the context and share through appropriate messengers and platforms.
  • Use mechanisms to promote trust, such as working with local health-care workers or other respected professionals. 

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop regional-specific technology that uses local sources of energy, such as biogas or high-efficiency charcoal.
  • Create technology that works with the local environment and economy and has reliable supply chains.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Learn about the benefits and harms associated with unclean fuels and technologies.
  • Identify the right technology to purchase by considering the availability and affordability of fuels; practicality of the equipment in producing the quantity, quality, and type of preferred food, and ease of use. 

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

There is a strong consensus on the effectiveness of cleaner cooking as a climate solution. Research over the past two decades (e.g., Anenberg et al., 2013; Mazorra et al., 2020; Rosenthal et al., 2018) has supported the contention that replacing solid fuel cooking with cleaner fuel reduces GHG emissions. 

There is high agreement and robust evidence that switching cooking from unclean fuels and technologies to cleaner alternatives such as burning LPG or electric stoves offers health, air quality, and climate change benefits (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2022).

The IPCC (2022) identified unclean fuels such as biomass as a major source of short-lived climate pollutants (e.g., black carbon, organic carbon, carbon monoxide, and methane) and switching to cleaner fuels and technologies can reduce the emission of short-lived climate pollutants.

Regional and country-level analyses provide additional evidence of the efficacy of cleaner cooking solutions. Khavari et al. (2023) reported that in sub-Saharan Africa, replacing unclean solid fuels with cleaner cooking could reduce GHG emissions by 0.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis). Life cycle assessments comparing different cooking fuels and technologies (Afrane & Ntiamoah, 2011; Afrane & Ntiamoah, 2012; Lansche & Müller, 2017; Singh et al., 2014) also have shown that cleaner cooking fuels and technologies emit less GHG per unit of energy delivered than unclean fuels.

The IEA estimated that switching completely to clean cooking fuels and technologies by 2030 would result in a net reduction of 1.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2030 (IEA, 2023a). 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from five reviews and meta-analyses and 23 original studies and reports reflecting current evidence from 13 countries, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

What can memes tell us about the state of corporate sustainability?

If you’re chronically online like me, you probably get a fair share of your daily laughs from internet memes. 

If you also happen to work in climate or sustainability, you’ve probably been exposed to niche sustainability memes that flawlessly capture the struggles and anxieties of this work (with a healthy dose of levity). Beyond releasing some steam, these memes also serve as a great window into what it’s like to work in sustainability right now, particularly corporate sustainability. So, what do these memes reveal?

Subscribe to

Support Climate Action

Drawdown Delivered

Join the 85,000+ subscribers discovering how to drive meaningful climate action around the world! Every other week, you'll get expert insights, cutting-edge research, and inspiring stories.

Receive biweekly email newsletter updates from Project Drawdown. Unsubscribe at any time.
back to top