I’m a carbon analyst and have worked on the meta-analysis of cookstove methodologies. I find myself in close agreement with Gill-Wiehl et al.’s recommendations,

I’m a carbon analyst and have worked on the meta-analysis of cookstove methodologies. I find myself in close agreement with Gill-Wiehl et al.’s recommendations, particularly on the following: Gold Standard methodologies are more thorough, with the greatest credibility in a metered approach. Only advanced ICS and fuel switch technologies have material health benefits, although regional and cultural suitability is key (electric cookers don’t make sense in remote regions where energy infrastructure is usually limited). fNRB is frequently over-estimated, but the latest MoFuSS model values are set at the national level, and correcting the data inputs to be locally specific may improve the accuracy of the results. (I discuss these topics in depth in an article posted by Abatable last November: https://www.abatable.com/blog/which-methodologies-will-help-cookstoves-thrive https://www.abatable.com/blog/which-methodologies-will-help-...) Nevertheless, the stark reality remains: four million people die every year from illnesses associated with smoke from cooking. The need to transition towards better living conditions cannot be ignored, nor can the impact of carbon finance today, which has already driven millions of households toward cleaner practices. I hope this study represents a turning point for the cookstove sector, helping to sift out the biased methodologies and over-crediting techniques which have brought its reputation into dispute. I have confidence that the development of more robust methodologies (including the works of 4C led by the Clean Cooking Alliance) and quality indicators such as the CCPs, will ensure the longevity of these projects.