5 ms·

> roughly 2.4 billion people around the world cook with smoky solid fuels or kerosene contributing [...] approximately 2% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissio

by berkes 3y ago

> roughly 2.4 billion people around the world cook with smoky solid fuels or kerosene contributing [...] approximately 2% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. So, a huge project is set up to change the lifestyle (food preparation) of almost a third of the world population. To remove at most 2% of greenhouse gas emissions? Is there really no lower hanging fruit? (Or is that low hanging fruit, a cynical me guesses, requiring change to the lifestyles of rich western people?)

the_other 3y ago
> (Or is that low hanging fruit, a cynical me guesses, requiring change to the lifestyles of rich western people?) Likely this, plus the fossil fuel lobby (many of whom are not "western" but are very very rich), plus the leadership in several "developing" countries such as Russia, China and India hedging their energy bets.
madsbuch 3y ago
> Is there really no lower hanging fruit? I would be interested in lower handing fruits that does not for 1/4 of the population to change. If we change consumption / spending habits that will also propagate. Personally, I think politicians are doing a really good job in trying to balance things. Eg. It should be super easy to increase taxes on one-family detached houses and cars. This would almost immediately lead to reduced emissions – so this fruit is almost on the ground. However, the truth is that people don't want to live in apartments and take public transport.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  It would have been even easier to, for instance, never allow the extraction of bituminous sands and tight oil : cannot burn something that was never extracted ! But as Tony Blair's aide explained so clearly, politicians have nothing to gain in trying to prevent these issues, and everything to lose, because the average voter doesn't give a shit about even the near future.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    That would be government micromanaging and considering individual methods of extraction - My personal belief is that government should be higher level. Ie. focus on the externalities. High taxes on fossil fuels would make not profitable to extract in complex ways.
    - BlueTemplar 3y ago
      This is also about externalities : these two sources already have quite a lot of them even without considering the greenhouse effects. They are also less effective than the (foreign) alternatives, and it becomes impractical to differentiate at the very end of the chain, when it all been blended together and processed... This in theory should be handled by market forces, but in practice it doesn't seem to work : the US tight oil industry has been losing money almost every year since its restart in the oughties, yet somehow keeps getting funded : is this the next big Wall Street scam after subprime mortgages, funded with bank bailout money ??
rsynnott 3y ago
> Is there really no lower hanging fruit? I mean, you talk like this is the only project of this sort. There's _lots_ of lower hanging fruit, but it is being picked. See electric cars, forestry, biodiesel and a million other things. Even without any carbon reduction, this would be worth doing, though, and there were charities who worked in this even before carbon credits were a thing. Household air pollution kills 3.8 million people a year (over half of the deaths from _all_ air pollution!), and it's mostly associated with cookstoves. > The fastest growing type of offset on the global carbon market subsidizes the distribution of efficient cookstoves in developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 'fastest growing' can be quite deceptive, if the fast-growing thing is relatively small. Matt Levine's newsletter occasionally covers the carbon credits market; it gets _weird_.
IanCal 3y ago
> So, a huge project is set up to change the lifestyle (food preparation) of almost a third of the world population. To remove at most 2% of greenhouse gas emissions? And improve health outcomes, these things are bad for people breathing nearby - especially when used in small areas. You have actually cut out > contributing to 2 to 3 million premature deaths annually from the sentence!
- closewith 3y ago
  Yeah, this would be worth doing even if it increased emissions.
  - zekrioca 3y ago
    > even if it increased emissions And shift the health and environmental issues to other places?
- berkes 3y ago
  I deliberately cut that from the sentence to focus on the carbon emission part. Which is neglegible. I think the part that improves health and reduces death, is extremely valuable. But important like vaccinations, sewers and food programs are important.
  - IanCal 3y ago
    > Which is neglegible. 2% is not negligible at all. Only 5 countries emit more than 2% of the total, for the rest are all of their emissions negligible? 2% is double the impact of making all international flights carbon zero. It's like making all international shipping carbon neutral. So it's honestly a large result, but not only that it also saves huge numbers of lives, and improves the health of many more. If you want to argue it's a bad thing to do or focus on, you cannot simply ignore "also it saves millions of lives a year".
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
Ekaros 3y ago
1/4th of global population producing 2% of emissions for cooking seems entirely reasonable use of our global emission budget. Absolutely zero wrong there. Now other emissions such as particulate could be helpful for their well being. Which is also reasonable goal... Now involving carbon markets for reducing these emissions, that is just green washing and should not happen.
- berkes 3y ago
  > 1/4th of global population producing 2% of emissions for cooking seems entirely reasonable use of our global emission budget. Absolutely zero wrong there. Exactly my point. And while it may be good to strive to even reduce that, currently there are far lower-hanging-fruit that give a much larger win for far less investment. That is, if this -at most- 2% reduction comes for "free" because changing is something we need to do for other reasons (health, budget, etc) then fine, any win is a win. But from the article I get that a rather large system is set up to measure, offset and calculate the greenhouse emission of this -IMO- negligible contribution. It begs the question "why is air travel largely excempted from the same system of certification"? Or "why is meat and farming in general not put under the same scrutiny"?
graemep 3y ago
It is measurable, it improves the standard of living of those affected, and has other environmental benefits. On the measurable, the fact that some has found that the measures were wrong is encouraging. It can be monitored. When will we find out if tree planting offsets do not happen? Years or decades down the line. In this case I think it is probably fixable - obviously the new stoves are not as good from the users point of view. I suspect outside experts designing things without user input - they should be treated as customers and their feedback incorporated early. I think you are entirely right about reluctance to change some people's lifestyles, but is not as simple as "rich western" vs "poor non-western". For one thing, the world is not longer that simple - there are plenty of rich non-western countries. Even economies that are not as rich per capita as a whole, have both substantial rich groups and regions within them and they have large economies (and CO2 eomissions) in total. Also, it is western countries that have reduced their emissions the most. I linked to a blog post of mine with a graph before: https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/03/co2-emissions-will-keep-rising https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/03/co2-emissions-will-keep-risin... on HN. The problem you mention happens a lot within countries. It looks to me as though, for example, net zero policies in the UK will affect the lifestyle of the rich far less than that of the hoi polloi.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  Encouraging is not the term I would use. This has been known for years. There was a huge piece of journalism a couple of years (which I am unable to find atm, I'll edit it in if I find it) ago that went through a bunch of carbon offsets projects including this one and already revealed the problems with it. If anything this just shows that even though problems are revealed, they keep happening, and companies keep getting away with their greenwashing claims. That is the exact opposite of encouraging.
  - graemep 3y ago
    This is not just carbon offset though, it is emissions reduction too (not sure what the proportions are) and it could work. Agree completely about offsets being used for green washing. There is a large element of Goodhart's law here. Policy is driven by meeting metrics.
chimprich 3y ago
> To remove at most 2% of greenhouse gas emissions? The problem with this argument is that everything is a small percentage contribution if you break it down enough. At the moment some UK politicians are saying the UK shouldn't be concerned about reducing emissions because the UK only contributes about 1% to global emissions (we also have ~1% of the world's population which I think rather negates this argument). 2% is a lot. If we want to tackle this problem in a reasonable timescale we need to go for the low hanging fruit, the high hanging fruit, and all the fruit in between.
- berkes 3y ago
  2% may be a lot, especially in absolute numbers. But it costs money and effort to decrease that. Money and effort that cannot be spend elsewhere. I'm quite certain that efforts such as "taxing kerosine on international flights", "charge VAT for flights", or even "removing all subsidies for beef and pork production in the EU" have a much larger effect. So if we can spare our effort or funds only once, those would be much more obvious places to start. As I said elsewhere: if CO2 emission reduction comes for free with a project that tries to fix health issues with cooking, then fine. But let's not pretend we are doing anything to save our (ability to live on) the planet here.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    2% is a lot. It is about the same as eliminating all US or European automotive transport, with no replacement. Completely eliminating global air travel would also be about 2% of CO2. I would not be surprised if low CO2 cooking was vastly more cost efficient in terms of $/GHG than what you would get from a similar spend elsewhere.
    - berkes 3y ago
      Hmm. The data that I know shows very different values. In the tens of percents for "global cattle/agriculture-supporting animal protein" and over four percent for global air travel. But, indeed, 2% is more than many country contribute¹. Still far less than e.g. driving around in Pickup-trucks. Or, most obvious: burning coal for electricity³. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#Scope_1+3_emissions,_cumulative_of_the_years_1988_-_2015,_from_oil_and_gas_extraction_[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities... ² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#Scope_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities... ³ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#All_cause_1+3_cumulative_emissions_[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities...
realreality 3y ago
The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1%: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-world-s-top-1-of-emitters-produce-over-1000-times-more-co2-than-the-bottom-1 https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-world-s-top-1-of-emitte... There’s certainly low-hanging fruit. If the top 10% of emitters reduced their emissions to that of the average European person, global emissions would fall by 30%.

by berkes 3y ago

the_other 3y ago

> (Or is that low hanging fruit, a cynical me guesses, requiring change to the lifestyles of rich western people?) Likely this, plus the fossil fuel lobby (many of whom are not "western" but are very very rich), plus the leadership in several "developing" countries such as Russia, China and India hedging their energy bets.

madsbuch 3y ago

> Is there really no lower hanging fruit? I would be interested in lower handing fruits that does not for 1/4 of the population to change. If we change consumption / spending habits that will also propagate. Personally, I think politicians are doing a really good job in trying to balance things. Eg. It should be super easy to increase taxes on one-family detached houses and cars. This would almost immediately lead to reduced emissions – so this fruit is almost on the ground. However, the truth is that people don't want to live in apartments and take public transport.

BlueTemplar 3y ago
It would have been even easier to, for instance, never allow the extraction of bituminous sands and tight oil : cannot burn something that was never extracted ! But as Tony Blair's aide explained so clearly, politicians have nothing to gain in trying to prevent these issues, and everything to lose, because the average voter doesn't give a shit about even the near future.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  That would be government micromanaging and considering individual methods of extraction - My personal belief is that government should be higher level. Ie. focus on the externalities. High taxes on fossil fuels would make not profitable to extract in complex ways.
  - BlueTemplar 3y ago
    This is also about externalities : these two sources already have quite a lot of them even without considering the greenhouse effects. They are also less effective than the (foreign) alternatives, and it becomes impractical to differentiate at the very end of the chain, when it all been blended together and processed... This in theory should be handled by market forces, but in practice it doesn't seem to work : the US tight oil industry has been losing money almost every year since its restart in the oughties, yet somehow keeps getting funded : is this the next big Wall Street scam after subprime mortgages, funded with bank bailout money ??

rsynnott 3y ago

> Is there really no lower hanging fruit? I mean, you talk like this is the only project of this sort. There's _lots_ of lower hanging fruit, but it is being picked. See electric cars, forestry, biodiesel and a million other things. Even without any carbon reduction, this would be worth doing, though, and there were charities who worked in this even before carbon credits were a thing. Household air pollution kills 3.8 million people a year (over half of the deaths from _all_ air pollution!), and it's mostly associated with cookstoves. > The fastest growing type of offset on the global carbon market subsidizes the distribution of efficient cookstoves in developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 'fastest growing' can be quite deceptive, if the fast-growing thing is relatively small. Matt Levine's newsletter occasionally covers the carbon credits market; it gets _weird_.

IanCal 3y ago

> So, a huge project is set up to change the lifestyle (food preparation) of almost a third of the world population. To remove at most 2% of greenhouse gas emissions? And improve health outcomes, these things are bad for people breathing nearby - especially when used in small areas. You have actually cut out > contributing to 2 to 3 million premature deaths annually from the sentence!

closewith 3y ago
Yeah, this would be worth doing even if it increased emissions.
- zekrioca 3y ago
  > even if it increased emissions And shift the health and environmental issues to other places?
berkes 3y ago
I deliberately cut that from the sentence to focus on the carbon emission part. Which is neglegible. I think the part that improves health and reduces death, is extremely valuable. But important like vaccinations, sewers and food programs are important.
- IanCal 3y ago
  > Which is neglegible. 2% is not negligible at all. Only 5 countries emit more than 2% of the total, for the rest are all of their emissions negligible? 2% is double the impact of making all international flights carbon zero. It's like making all international shipping carbon neutral. So it's honestly a large result, but not only that it also saves huge numbers of lives, and improves the health of many more. If you want to argue it's a bad thing to do or focus on, you cannot simply ignore "also it saves millions of lives a year".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

Ekaros 3y ago

1/4th of global population producing 2% of emissions for cooking seems entirely reasonable use of our global emission budget. Absolutely zero wrong there. Now other emissions such as particulate could be helpful for their well being. Which is also reasonable goal... Now involving carbon markets for reducing these emissions, that is just green washing and should not happen.

berkes 3y ago
> 1/4th of global population producing 2% of emissions for cooking seems entirely reasonable use of our global emission budget. Absolutely zero wrong there. Exactly my point. And while it may be good to strive to even reduce that, currently there are far lower-hanging-fruit that give a much larger win for far less investment. That is, if this -at most- 2% reduction comes for "free" because changing is something we need to do for other reasons (health, budget, etc) then fine, any win is a win. But from the article I get that a rather large system is set up to measure, offset and calculate the greenhouse emission of this -IMO- negligible contribution. It begs the question "why is air travel largely excempted from the same system of certification"? Or "why is meat and farming in general not put under the same scrutiny"?

graemep 3y ago

It is measurable, it improves the standard of living of those affected, and has other environmental benefits. On the measurable, the fact that some has found that the measures were wrong is encouraging. It can be monitored. When will we find out if tree planting offsets do not happen? Years or decades down the line. In this case I think it is probably fixable - obviously the new stoves are not as good from the users point of view. I suspect outside experts designing things without user input - they should be treated as customers and their feedback incorporated early. I think you are entirely right about reluctance to change some people's lifestyles, but is not as simple as "rich western" vs "poor non-western". For one thing, the world is not longer that simple - there are plenty of rich non-western countries. Even economies that are not as rich per capita as a whole, have both substantial rich groups and regions within them and they have large economies (and CO2 eomissions) in total. Also, it is western countries that have reduced their emissions the most. I linked to a blog post of mine with a graph before: https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/03/co2-emissions-will-keep-rising https://pietersz.co.uk/2023/03/co2-emissions-will-keep-risin... on HN. The problem you mention happens a lot within countries. It looks to me as though, for example, net zero policies in the UK will affect the lifestyle of the rich far less than that of the hoi polloi.

_Algernon_ 3y ago
Encouraging is not the term I would use. This has been known for years. There was a huge piece of journalism a couple of years (which I am unable to find atm, I'll edit it in if I find it) ago that went through a bunch of carbon offsets projects including this one and already revealed the problems with it. If anything this just shows that even though problems are revealed, they keep happening, and companies keep getting away with their greenwashing claims. That is the exact opposite of encouraging.
- graemep 3y ago
  This is not just carbon offset though, it is emissions reduction too (not sure what the proportions are) and it could work. Agree completely about offsets being used for green washing. There is a large element of Goodhart's law here. Policy is driven by meeting metrics.

chimprich 3y ago

> To remove at most 2% of greenhouse gas emissions? The problem with this argument is that everything is a small percentage contribution if you break it down enough. At the moment some UK politicians are saying the UK shouldn't be concerned about reducing emissions because the UK only contributes about 1% to global emissions (we also have ~1% of the world's population which I think rather negates this argument). 2% is a lot. If we want to tackle this problem in a reasonable timescale we need to go for the low hanging fruit, the high hanging fruit, and all the fruit in between.

berkes 3y ago
2% may be a lot, especially in absolute numbers. But it costs money and effort to decrease that. Money and effort that cannot be spend elsewhere. I'm quite certain that efforts such as "taxing kerosine on international flights", "charge VAT for flights", or even "removing all subsidies for beef and pork production in the EU" have a much larger effect. So if we can spare our effort or funds only once, those would be much more obvious places to start. As I said elsewhere: if CO2 emission reduction comes for free with a project that tries to fix health issues with cooking, then fine. But let's not pretend we are doing anything to save our (ability to live on) the planet here.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  2% is a lot. It is about the same as eliminating all US or European automotive transport, with no replacement. Completely eliminating global air travel would also be about 2% of CO2. I would not be surprised if low CO2 cooking was vastly more cost efficient in terms of $/GHG than what you would get from a similar spend elsewhere.
  - berkes 3y ago
    Hmm. The data that I know shows very different values. In the tens of percents for "global cattle/agriculture-supporting animal protein" and over four percent for global air travel. But, indeed, 2% is more than many country contribute¹. Still far less than e.g. driving around in Pickup-trucks. Or, most obvious: burning coal for electricity³. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#Scope_1+3_emissions,_cumulative_of_the_years_1988_-_2015,_from_oil_and_gas_extraction_[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities... ² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#Scope_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities... ³ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions#All_cause_1+3_cumulative_emissions_[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_locations_and_entities...

realreality 3y ago

The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1%: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-world-s-top-1-of-emitters-produce-over-1000-times-more-co2-than-the-bottom-1 https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-world-s-top-1-of-emitte... There’s certainly low-hanging fruit. If the top 10% of emitters reduced their emissions to that of the average European person, global emissions would fall by 30%.