3 ms·

It'd be interesting to test whether fuel savings (immediate) or health benefits (long-term) drive adoption better.

• SwellJoe 11y ago
  Probably the former, for many, since even we in the west still cling to our fireplaces, even though most of us don't need them to stay warm. I have a friend who installed an ancient iron wood stove in her converted bus motorhome, against my recommendation. She loves the damned thing. She cooks on it, too, so she runs it regularly. Part of the appeal for her is the perceived environmental benefits (though I've tried to explain the carbon and ecological footprint of a wood stove is much worse than propane, even though the propane had to be pumped out of the ground and transported). People are weird and stubborn and have odd beliefs about traditional ways being superior and safer than modern ways. The other part of the appeal is she gets the fuel for free just by roaming around in the woods. Propane costs $15/month, or much more during winter months, if you're needing heat. Anyway, the point of that rambling is that immediate benefits probably trump long-term in this case for many people. Folks struggling from day-to-day don't have the privilege of thinking long-term. But, folks making decisions about how to help raise the people of developing nations out of poverty have to think of both.