33
allowing for fast or slow cooking options. Some studies have shown that time savings from solid fuels to LPG translates into increased educational opportunities for children and provided more time for livelihood activities and other pur- suits, including family care and leisure. 55 Compared to other fuels, the cost of cooking with LPG is rel- atively low, although this varies by context and country. It in- volves relatively high initial capital costs for LPG equipment, which are often unaffordable for the poorest households. However, it can offer longer-term savings for households that would otherwise be purchasing firewood or charcoal. To overcome the affordability challenge, national programs to roll out LPG often subsidize the upfront purchase costs or gas refills, or both. For example, the governments of India and Indonesia provided significant price subsidies for house- hold LPG. While subsidies can be an effective way of scaling up household LPG use, once established they are difficult to scale back, can stimulate a black market in subsidized fuel and often impose an unsustainable fiscal burden on govern- ments. 56 Blanket subsidies also tend to disproportionately benefit middle class households, who have the highest LPG consumption, making them a potentially regressive form of expenditure. The rapid uptake of LPG at subsidized prices also creates en- ergy security risks, particularly for countries that import fuel at variable international prices. For example, Indonesia’s na- tional cooking conversion campaign, launched in 2007, re- placed kerosene with subsidized LPG. Along the way, Indo- nesia transitioned from being an LPG-exporter to importing around 6,500 kilotons of LPG a year. When LPG prices dou- bled in early 2022 following the conflict in Ukraine, the gov- ernment was forced to withdraw subsidies, pushing people back into the use of traditional cooking fuels. 57 Indonesia is now planning to scale back the use of LPG in favor of electric cooking to reduce the risks associated with dependence on imported LPG. 58
55 MECS (2020) ‘National scaling up of LPG to achieve SDG 7: Implications for Policy, Implementation, Public Health and Environment, https://mecs.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2020/02/MECS-LPG-Briefing-Paper_Jan-2020.pdf 56 Quinn, Ashlinn K., et al. (2018) ‘An analysis of efforts to scale up clean household energy for cooking around the world.’ Energy for Sustainable Development, Volume 46, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0973082618302679 57 International Energy Agency and the African Development Bank (2023) A Vision for Clean Cooking Access for All, https://www.iea.org/reports/a-vision-for- clean-cooking-access-for-all 58 International Energy Agency (2023) A Vision for Clean Cooking Access for All, World Energy Outlook Special Report, https://www.iea.org/reports/a-vision-for- clean-cooking-access-for-all 59 MECS (2020) ‘National scaling up of LPG to achieve SDG 7: Implications for Policy, Implementation, Public Health and Environment, https://mecs.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2020/02/MECS-LPG-Briefing-Paper_Jan-2020.pdf Although LPG is a fossil fuel, it is one of the least damaging for the climate and used by many developing countries as part of the energy mix in their transition to cleaner fuels. It burns efficiently and has a high ratio of hydrogen to carbon, resulting in more energy output for lower carbon emissions. Unlike wood and charcoal, it does not deplete forest resourc- es or contribute substantially to emissions of black carbon and methane, which are among the most powerful, short-act- ing climate warmers. Transition to LPG has been shown to have a positive environmental and climate mitigation impact through its potential to limit deforestation and improve car- bon capture. 59
3. CLEAN COOKING SOLUTIONS
Powered by FlippingBook