What is our assessment?

LPC could be a major climate solution, but it is not ready at scale. Its life-cycle emissions vary considerably by feedstock, but emerging commercial products use high-protein feedstocks such as alfalfa, sugar beet leaves, or duckweed and so have lower GHG emissions than common animal-sourced ingredients. Even though currently confined to niche markets, LPC is a promising, low-risk, climate solution to “Keep Watching.”

What is it?

LPC is digestible protein extracted from abundant vegetation, such as grasses, legumes (e.g., alfalfa, clover), or aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed) (García Martínez et al., 2026). By replacing animal proteins, LPC can reduce emissions from livestock production; where it displaces beef or dairy production, fewer cattle would also mean less enteric methane and land required for grazing and feed. A secondary pathway is replacing higher-impact livestock feed with LPC. 

LPC is often produced by extracting rubisco, one of the world’s most abundant proteins, from plant feedstocks (Bar-On & Milo, 2019; Erb & Zarzycki, 2018). Fibrous, leafy biomass that humans cannot efficiently digest is pulped, pressed, and coagulated using heat or acid to create concentrated protein powder or paste. Leaf protein extraction for human consumption dates back two centuries (Davys et al., 2011), while modern filtration and emulsification have overcome previous grassy flavor and dark green color barriers (Anoop et al., 2023). Startups are beginning to commercialize LPC to substitute for higher GHG-generating animal proteins – mostly whey, caseins, and egg whites – for use in plant-based milks, yogurts, and protein beverages.

Does it work?

Whether LPC can scale enough to materially displace animal-sourced food ingredients and reduce enteric methane emissions from livestock remains uncertain. GHG emission savings depend on the vegetation used, processing requirements, energy use, and protein content (Anoop et al., 2023; Skunca et al., 2021). Rubisco has been reported to generate one-tenth of the GHGs per hectare associated with dairy protein production and can be extracted from alfalfa that would otherwise be fed to dairy cows with substantial caloric losses through feed conversion (Anoop et al., 2023; West et al., 2026).

A life-cycle analysis of sugar beet LPC, a high-protein sugar industry by-product, found 30% lower GHG emissions and 99% lower land use than egg protein (Anoop et al., 2023). LPC has also shown a 57–85% reduction in emission intensity when replacing soy feed for livestock, but absolute emission savings are limited because feed is already relatively low-emitting and this pathway does not address major livestock emissions from enteric methane or land use change (Gaffey et al., 2024; García Martínez et al., 2026). At an achievable level of adoption, LPC could plausibly mitigate at least 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr largely by displacing higher-emitting animal proteins.

Why are we excited?

With food demand projected to rise 35–56% by 2050 (van Dijk et al., 2021), climate-driven rangeland declines expected to intensify (Li et al., 2026), and global meat production projected to double by 2050, expanding low-impact protein alternatives will be critical to meeting food demand without vastly expanding agricultural land (Feigin et al., 2025). LPC offers a potentially low-cost protein source, sometimes using agricultural by-products, that could reduce demand for animal proteins and associated pastureland while easing pressure to convert remaining ecosystems. It can also provide a digestible, nutrient-dense source of protein and, depending on the feedstock, micronutrients including vitamins A, B12, and K; calcium; and iron (Anoop et al., 2023; Prendeville et al., 2026). Under high-adoption scenarios, LPC systems could theoretically meet global protein and caloric requirements, with modeled costs suggesting daily caloric needs could be met for ~US$1–2/person, about the cost of a snack, although costs depend strongly on biomass availability, yield, transport, and economies of scale (García Martínez et al., 2026). 

Ruminant meat production uses vast areas of land while supplying only 1.4% of global calories and 3.1% of global protein (Wirsenius et al., 2025). While 42% of pastureland was historically forested and could be restored or used as cropland (Searchinger et al., 2018), other grasslands could supply LPC biomass, although steep, rocky, or shallow-soil areas may be difficult to harvest at scale (García Martínez et al., 2026). Although some early LPCs had incomplete profiles, newer LPC products typically contain 46–53% essential amino acids, comparable to soy protein concentrate (Anoop et al., 2023; Kaur et al., 2026). If LPC eventually displaces enough beef and dairy production, reduced grazing land demand could enable substantial additional carbon sequestration through recovering forests, grasslands, and soils (Hayek et al., 2024).

Why are we concerned?

Commercialization remains limited to a few early-stage startups with minimal market penetration (Anoop et al., 2023; Furia et al., 2026). Developing LPC products with the taste, texture, nutritional value, and consumer appeal needed to displace established animal proteins remains a key commercialization hurdle. LPC emissions can also vary substantially by feedstock; for example, chicory LPC had ~15 times the GHG intensity of alfalfa LPC (Anoop et al., 2023). 

Additionally, many extraction methods remain at laboratory scale and industrial viability has not been widely demonstrated (García Martínez et al., 2026). Transporting high-moisture biomass to regional biorefineries during tight harvest windows is another challenge, particularly because of the potential for post-harvest protein degradation. 

Whether existing livestock-feed infrastructure can be repurposed for LPC production remains uncertain, but LPC has significant potential to produce far more high-quality protein at a fraction of the environmental impact (Anoop et al., 2023; García Martínez et al., 2026).

What is our assessment?

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

What is it?

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

Does it work?

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

Why are we excited?

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

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

Why are we concerned?

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

What is our assessment?

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

What is it?

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

Does it work?

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

Why are we excited?

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

Why are we concerned?

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