Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Carbon credits for cookstoves: trade-offs in climate and health benefits Freeman, Olivia Esther; Zerriffi, Hisham Oct 31, 2012

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Freeman_Zerriffi_Cookstoves_2012.pdf [ 260.02kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0132672.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0132672-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0132672-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0132672-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0132672-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0132672-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0132672-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0132672-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0132672.ris

Full Text

	 ? 1	 ?Carbon	 ?credits	 ?for	 ?cookstoves:	 ?tradeoffs	 ?in	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?Olivia	 ?E.	 ?Freeman1	 ?and	 ?Hisham	 ?Zerriffi2	 ?                      	 ?The	 ?authoritative	 ?published	 ?version	 ?may	 ?be	 ?found	 ?at:	 ?http://pubs.cif-??ifc.org/journal/tfc	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?1	 ?Institute	 ?of	 ?Resources,	 ?Environment	 ?and	 ?Sustainability,	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia,	 ?2202	 ?Main	 ?Mall,	 ?Vancouver,	 ?BC	 ?V6T	 ?1Z4	 ?Canada.	 ?Corresponding	 ?author:	 ?Freeman,	 ?Olivia	 ?E.	 ?(olivia.e.freeman@gmail.com)	 ?2	 ?Liu	 ?Institute	 ?Global	 ?Issues,	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia,	 ?6476	 ?NW	 ?Marine	 ?Dr.,	 ?Vancouver,	 ?BC	 ?V6T	 ?1Z2	 ?Canada.	 ?	 ? 2	 ?Abstract	 ?Cookstove	 ?projects	 ?have	 ?long	 ?been	 ?considered	 ??win-??win?	 ?development	 ?projects	 ?based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?multitude	 ?of	 ?benefits	 ?they	 ?can	 ?create.	 ?Carbon	 ?credits	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?new	 ?financing	 ?mechanism	 ?to	 ?fund	 ?such	 ?cookstove	 ?projects,	 ?but	 ?have	 ?been	 ?critiqued	 ?as	 ?not	 ?always	 ?successfully	 ?meeting	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?goals.	 ?By	 ?drawing	 ?on	 ?previous	 ?literature	 ?this	 ?article	 ?critically	 ?looks	 ?at	 ?tradeoffs	 ?between	 ?the	 ?maximization	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?in	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?credits.	 ?It	 ?finds	 ?that	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?inherently	 ?account	 ?for	 ?climate	 ?benefits,	 ?but	 ?not	 ?for	 ?health.	 ?Therefore	 ?clear	 ?objectives	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?interventions	 ?need	 ?to	 ?be	 ?defined	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?project	 ?implementation	 ?to	 ?insure	 ?the	 ?maximization	 ?of	 ?benefits	 ?in	 ?projects?	 ?priority	 ?areas.	 ?	 ?Key	 ?words:	 ?Cookstove,	 ?carbon	 ?credit,	 ?sustainable	 ?development,	 ?indoor	 ?air	 ?pollution,	 ?win-??win	 ?benefits,	 ?greenhouse	 ?gases,	 ?black	 ?carbon,	 ?Clean	 ?Development	 ?Mechanism,	 ?Gold	 ?Standard	 ?	 ?Introduction	 ?Nearly	 ?half	 ?of	 ?the	 ?wood	 ?harvested	 ?globally	 ?is	 ?used	 ?as	 ?fuelwood	 ?(FAO	 ?2002).	 ?More	 ?than	 ?3	 ?billion	 ?people,	 ?almost	 ?all	 ?of	 ?which	 ?are	 ?in	 ?developing	 ?countries,	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?some	 ?form	 ?of	 ?solid	 ?biomass	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?their	 ?cooking	 ?and	 ?heating	 ?needs	 ?(Legros	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009).	 ?A	 ?large	 ?percentage	 ?of	 ?these	 ?households	 ?still	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?some	 ?form	 ?of	 ?traditional	 ?stove	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?these	 ?needs,	 ?as	 ?only	 ?828	 ?million	 ?people	 ?worldwide	 ?use	 ?an	 ??improved?	 ?cookstove	 ?on	 ?a	 ?daily	 ?basis,	 ?two,	 ?thirds	 ?of	 ?which	 ?live	 ?in	 ?China	 ?(Legros	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009).	 ?	 ?An	 ??improved?	 ?cooking	 ?technology	 ?is	 ?a	 ?term	 ?that	 ?is	 ?used	 ?liberally.	 ?3	 ?	 ?It	 ?usually	 ?refers	 ?to	 ?a	 ?stove	 ?with	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?3	 ?See	 ?Smith	 ?and	 ?Dutta	 ?(2011)	 ?for	 ?discussion	 ?about	 ?the	 ?appropriateness	 ?of	 ?the	 ?word	 ??improved?	 ?to	 ?describe	 ?cleaner	 ?cooking	 ?technologies.	 ?	 ? 3	 ?increased	 ?efficiency,	 ?more	 ?complete	 ?combustion,	 ?and	 ?better	 ?heat	 ?transfer.4	 ?	 ?This	 ?corresponds	 ?to	 ?a	 ?decrease	 ?in	 ?fuel	 ?use,	 ?and	 ?decreased	 ?emission	 ?of	 ?smoke	 ?and	 ?particles	 ?emitted	 ?through	 ?incomplete	 ?combustion.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?switching	 ?from	 ?a	 ?traditional5	 ?or	 ?less	 ?efficient	 ?cooking	 ?technology	 ?to	 ?an	 ?improved	 ?cooking	 ?technology	 ?has	 ?long	 ?been	 ?considered	 ?a	 ??win-??win?	 ?development	 ?project	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?co-??benefits	 ?that	 ?can	 ?result	 ?(Barnes	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?1993,	 ?Smith	 ?and	 ?Haigler	 ?2008,	 ?Simon	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?The	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?transitioning	 ?to	 ?this	 ?technology	 ?can	 ?include	 ?all	 ?three	 ?major	 ?components	 ?of	 ?sustainable	 ?development,	 ?social,	 ?environmental	 ?and	 ?economic	 ?benefits:	 ?	 ?? Social	 ?benefits	 ?(Mostly	 ?impacting	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children):	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?indoor	 ?air	 ?pollution	 ?(IAP)	 ?(Bruce	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2000,	 ?Smith	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2000a,	 ?Smith	 ?and	 ?Mehta	 ?2003,	 ?Rehfuess	 ?2006),	 ?reduced	 ?physical	 ?burden	 ?and	 ?risk	 ?associated	 ?fuelwood	 ?collection	 ?(Patrick	 ?2007,	 ?Wickramasinghe	 ?2003,	 ?Matinga	 ?2008),	 ?empowerment	 ?of	 ?women	 ?(Rehfuess	 ?2006,	 ?Parikh	 ?2011)	 ?? Environmental	 ?benefits:	 ?decreased	 ?pressure	 ?on	 ?fuel	 ?resources	 ?(e.g.	 ?woody	 ?biomass)	 ?(Barnes	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?1993,	 ?Rehfuess	 ?2006),	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?forcers	 ?(e.g.	 ?greenhouse	 ?gases	 ?(GHGs))	 ?emitted	 ?(Bond	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2004,	 ?Smith	 ?and	 ?Haigler	 ?2008,	 ?Greishop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011)	 ?? Economic	 ?benefits	 ?(See	 ?Barnes	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?1993,	 ?Hutton	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2006,	 ?and	 ?Rehfuess	 ?2006):	 ?reduced	 ?expenditures	 ?(if	 ?paying	 ?for	 ?fuel),	 ?time	 ?savings,	 ?increased	 ?productivity,	 ?decreased	 ?health	 ?costs,	 ?potential	 ?engagement	 ?in	 ?other	 ?economic	 ?generating	 ?activities,	 ?job	 ?creation	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?4	 ?Some	 ?literature	 ?distinguishes	 ?between	 ??improved?	 ?cookstoves	 ?that	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?burn	 ?solid	 ?fuels,	 ?only	 ?more	 ?efficiently	 ?and	 ?cleanly,	 ?and	 ??modern?	 ?fuels	 ?and	 ?technologies,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?electric	 ?stoves	 ?or	 ?liquefied	 ?petroleum	 ?gas	 ?(LPG)	 ?stoves	 ?that	 ?avoid	 ?using	 ?solid	 ?fuels	 ?in	 ?the	 ?household	 ?entirely.	 ?5	 ?Traditional	 ?cookstoves	 ?include	 ??three-??stone?	 ?fires	 ?and	 ?hand	 ?built	 ?mud	 ?stoves.	 ?Both	 ?are	 ?characterized	 ?by	 ?inefficiency	 ?and	 ?generation	 ?of	 ?smoke.	 ?	 ?	 ? 4	 ?However,	 ?significant	 ?barriers	 ?remain	 ?for	 ?diffusing	 ?both	 ?improved	 ?solid	 ?fuel	 ?stoves	 ?and	 ?more	 ?modern	 ?fuels	 ?and	 ?technologies	 ?for	 ?cooking,	 ?including	 ?major	 ?cost	 ?impediments	 ?for	 ?the	 ?primarily	 ?poor	 ?and	 ?rural	 ?populations	 ?using	 ?traditional	 ?stoves.	 ?	 ?Though	 ?people	 ?have	 ?been	 ?improving	 ?and	 ?experimenting	 ?with	 ?cooking	 ?technologies	 ?for	 ?centuries,	 ?global	 ?interest	 ?in	 ?investing	 ?in	 ?such	 ?programs	 ?through	 ?non-??governmental	 ?organizations	 ?(NGOs)	 ?and	 ?governmental	 ?channels	 ?first	 ?occurred	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970?s	 ?(Barnes	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?1993).	 ?This	 ?was	 ?born	 ?out	 ?of	 ?the	 ?concern	 ?about	 ?world	 ?energy	 ?supply	 ?and	 ?perceived	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?deforestation	 ?(Barnes	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?1993,	 ?Top	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2004,	 ?Elias	 ?and	 ?Victor	 ?2005).	 ?Hundreds	 ?of	 ?improved	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?have	 ?been	 ?implemented	 ?since	 ?then	 ?with	 ?the	 ?rationale	 ?for	 ?implementing	 ?such	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?shifting	 ?from	 ?focusing	 ?on	 ?relieving	 ?pressure	 ?on	 ?biomass	 ?resources	 ?to	 ?the	 ?combination	 ?of	 ?development	 ?and	 ?environmental	 ?benefits	 ?that	 ?can	 ?be	 ?generated	 ?(e.g.	 ?Bailis	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2005,	 ?Elias	 ?and	 ?Victor	 ?2005,	 ?Hutton	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2006,	 ?Smith	 ?and	 ?Haigler	 ?2008,	 ?Simon	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?	 ?There	 ?also	 ?now	 ?exists	 ?extensive	 ?literature	 ?about	 ?various	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?cookstoves	 ?including:	 ?estimation	 ?of	 ?both	 ?development	 ?and	 ?environmental	 ?benefits	 ?(e.g.	 ?Mehta	 ?and	 ?Shahpar	 ?2004,	 ?Hutton	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2006,	 ?Smith	 ?and	 ?Haigler	 ?2008),	 ?scientific	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?aerosol	 ?emissions	 ?(e.g.	 ?Zhang	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2000,	 ?Roden	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2006,	 ?Jetter	 ?and	 ?Kariher	 ?2009),	 ?impacts	 ?on	 ?health	 ?(e.g.	 ?Bruce	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2000,	 ?Smith	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2000a,	 ?Smith	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009b),	 ?critical	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?project	 ?implementation	 ?(e.g.	 ?Smith	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?1993,	 ?Hanbar	 ?and	 ?Karve	 ?2002,	 ?Sinton	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2004,	 ?Bumpus	 ?2009,	 ?Troncoso	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011),	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?diffusion	 ?business	 ?models	 ?(e.g.	 ?Shrimali	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011,	 ?Zerriffi	 ?2011,	 ?Chaurey	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012),	 ?and	 ?factors	 ?influencing	 ?adoption	 ?of	 ?new	 ?technologies	 ?(e.g.	 ?Bailis	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009,	 ?Pine	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011,	 ?Ruiz-??Mercado	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011,	 ?Wickramasignhe	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011).	 ?	 ?	 ? 5	 ?The	 ?opportunity	 ?to	 ?earn	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?for	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?has	 ?generated	 ?increased	 ?interest	 ?in	 ?the	 ?climate	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?cookstoves.	 ?These	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?are	 ?especially	 ?desirable	 ?for	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?buyers	 ?who	 ?are	 ?interested	 ?in	 ?purchasing	 ?credits,	 ?which	 ?promote	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?more	 ?broadly	 ?(Peters-??Stanley	 ?and	 ?Hamilton	 ?2012).	 ?Unlike	 ?other	 ?kinds	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?projects	 ?which	 ?do	 ?not	 ?automatically	 ?result	 ?in	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?benefits,	 ?cookstove	 ?credits	 ?are	 ?promoted	 ?as	 ??win-??win?,	 ?providing	 ?not	 ?only	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?greenhouse	 ?gases	 ?(GHGs),	 ?but	 ?also	 ?tangible	 ?development	 ?benefits	 ?simultaneously	 ?and	 ?on	 ?an	 ?incremental	 ?basis	 ?(Bumpus	 ?2009,	 ?Simon	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012).	 ?Yet	 ?since	 ?the	 ?implementation	 ?of	 ?these	 ?projects	 ?are	 ?relatively	 ?new	 ?and	 ?few	 ?have	 ?completed	 ?a	 ?project	 ?cycle	 ?(Cox	 ?2011),	 ?the	 ?long-??term	 ?outcomes	 ?are	 ?hard	 ?to	 ?assess	 ?(Simon	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?A	 ?review	 ?article	 ?by	 ?Simon	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2012)	 ?draws	 ?on	 ?the	 ?limited	 ?knowledge	 ?and	 ?experiences	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?cookstove	 ?programs	 ?to	 ?analyze	 ?benefits	 ?and	 ?barriers	 ?in	 ?achieving	 ?both	 ?development	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?benefits	 ?through	 ?carbon	 ?financing	 ?for	 ?households	 ?and	 ?communities.	 ?Though	 ?they	 ?acknowledge	 ?the	 ?unique	 ?benefits	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?can	 ?provide	 ?to	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?such	 ?as	 ?longer	 ?project	 ?cycles,	 ?integrated	 ?maintenance,	 ?evaluation,	 ?monitoring,	 ?and	 ?a	 ?new	 ?form	 ?of	 ?financing,	 ?they	 ?point	 ?out	 ?that	 ?they	 ?can	 ?also	 ?result	 ?in	 ??mutually	 ?supported	 ?impediments?.	 ?This	 ?occurs	 ??when	 ?requirements	 ?for	 ?achieving	 ?one	 ?set	 ?of	 ?project	 ?objectives	 ?directly	 ?compromises	 ?progress	 ?towards	 ?another	 ?set	 ?of	 ?objectives.?	 ?For	 ?example	 ?the	 ?large	 ?scale	 ?at	 ?which	 ?cookstove	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?projects	 ?need	 ?to	 ?be	 ?implemented	 ?to	 ?be	 ?profitable	 ?can	 ?make	 ?the	 ?already	 ?existing	 ?development	 ?challenge	 ?of	 ?providing	 ?appropriate	 ?uptake	 ?of	 ?technology	 ?on	 ?a	 ?local,	 ?long-??term	 ?scale	 ?an	 ?intensified	 ?impediment	 ?for	 ?project	 ?successes.	 ?Therefore	 ??win-??win?	 ?benefits	 ?are	 ?not	 ?simply	 ?achieved	 ?by	 ?implementing	 ?a	 ?cookstove	 ?switch	 ?out.	 ?Instead	 ?project	 ?design,	 ?implementation,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?potential	 ?trade-??offs	 ?of	 ?benefits	 ?must	 ?be	 ?considered.	 ?While	 ?recognizing	 ?that	 ??win-??win?	 ?outcomes	 ?are	 ?not	 ?guaranteed	 ?in	 ?cookstove	 ?projects,	 ?Simon	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2012)	 ?only	 ?briefly	 ?mentions	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?and	 ?do	 ?not	 ?critically	 ?assess	 ?tradeoffs	 ?between	 ?health	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?co-??benefits.	 ?Instead	 ?they	 ?assert	 ?that	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?are	 ?	 ? 6	 ?incrementally	 ?achieved	 ?along	 ?with	 ?climate	 ?benefits,	 ?giving	 ?cookstoves	 ?the	 ?prestige	 ?of	 ?being	 ?an	 ?inherently	 ??win-??win?	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?project	 ?in	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health.	 ?	 ?Though	 ?in	 ?many	 ?cases	 ?health	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?co-??benefits	 ?are	 ?achieved	 ?to	 ?some	 ?level	 ?simultaneously,	 ?this	 ?is	 ?not	 ?the	 ?case	 ?for	 ?all	 ?scenarios	 ?and	 ?a	 ?tradeoff	 ?still	 ?exists	 ?in	 ?most	 ?cases	 ?between	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?achieved	 ?(Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011).	 ?Some	 ?previous	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?examined	 ?this	 ?tradeoff	 ?in	 ?some	 ?capacity	 ?(e.g.	 ?Sinton	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2004,	 ?Bailis	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2005,	 ?Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011),	 ?but	 ?none	 ?explicitly	 ?look	 ?at	 ?the	 ?tradeoffs	 ?under	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?framework,	 ?which	 ?have	 ?very	 ?specific	 ?methodologies	 ?for	 ?determining	 ?climate	 ?benefits.	 ?	 ?Just	 ?as	 ?Simon	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2012)	 ?explores	 ?the	 ?nuances	 ?of	 ??win-??win?	 ?between	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?development	 ?benefits	 ?more	 ?broadly,	 ?this	 ?article	 ?examines	 ?the	 ?tradeoffs	 ?between	 ?the	 ?maximization	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?projects.	 ?Health	 ?is	 ?one	 ?major	 ?indicator	 ?of	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?and	 ?a	 ?key	 ?negative	 ?consequence	 ?of	 ?using	 ?traditional	 ?stoves.	 ?	 ?Reduced	 ?indoor	 ?air	 ?pollution	 ?(IAP)	 ?not	 ?only	 ?contributes	 ?to	 ?longer	 ?lives,	 ?but	 ?also	 ?increases	 ?healthy	 ?years	 ?lived.	 ?This	 ?can	 ?increase	 ?quality	 ?of	 ?life	 ?and	 ?productivity.	 ?Given	 ?that	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?are	 ?often	 ?assumed	 ?to	 ?be	 ?simultaneously,	 ?incrementally	 ?achieved,	 ?a	 ?more	 ?nuanced	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?the	 ?relation	 ?between	 ?the	 ?two	 ?is	 ?needed.	 ?This	 ?article	 ?draws	 ?on	 ?past	 ?studies	 ?and	 ?literature	 ?to	 ?examine	 ?the	 ?tradeoffs	 ?between	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?under	 ?carbon	 ?financing	 ?schemes.	 ?Drawing	 ?on	 ?the	 ?literature	 ?this	 ?article	 ?reviews	 ?the	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?health	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?benefits,	 ?how	 ?cost-??effectiveness	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?impact	 ?decisions	 ?thereby	 ?influencing	 ?benefits,	 ?and	 ?finally	 ?synthesizes	 ?the	 ?reviewed	 ?material	 ?to	 ?examine	 ?potential	 ?tradeoffs	 ?made	 ?between	 ?the	 ?maximization	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?and	 ?health	 ?benefits.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 7	 ?Overview:	 ?Climate	 ?and	 ?Health	 ?Benefits	 ?for	 ?Cookstoves	 ?Products	 ?of	 ?Incomplete	 ?Combustion:	 ?Health	 ?and	 ?Climate	 ?Implications	 ?Incomplete	 ?combustion	 ?during	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?cookstoves	 ?results	 ?in	 ?the	 ?emission	 ?of	 ?products	 ?of	 ?incomplete	 ?combustion	 ?(PICs),	 ?which	 ?have	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?both	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health.	 ?PICs	 ?consist	 ?of:	 ?inorganic	 ?gases	 ?(e.g.	 ?carbon	 ?monoxide	 ?(CO),	 ?nitrous	 ?oxide	 ?(N2O)),	 ?hydrocarbons	 ?(e.g.	 ?non-??methane	 ?hydrocarbons	 ?(NMHC)),	 ?oxygenated	 ?organics	 ?(e.g.	 ?organic	 ?alcohols),	 ?and	 ?particulate	 ?matter	 ?(inhalable	 ?(PM10),	 ?respirable	 ?and	 ?fine	 ?particles	 ?(PM2.5))	 ?(Naeher	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2007).	 ?Nominal	 ?combustion	 ?efficiencies	 ?of	 ?cookstoves	 ?range	 ?from	 ?80-??99%	 ?depending	 ?on	 ?the	 ?type	 ?of	 ?fuel	 ?and	 ?stove	 ?that	 ?is	 ?being	 ?used	 ?(Smith	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2000b).6	 ?The	 ?higher	 ?the	 ?nominal	 ?combustion	 ?efficiency	 ?the	 ?less	 ?emission	 ?of	 ?PICs.	 ?	 ?The	 ?health	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?the	 ?exposure	 ?to	 ?PICs	 ?are	 ?commonly	 ?quantified	 ?by	 ?measuring	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?PM10	 ?or	 ?PM2.5,	 ?that	 ?is,	 ?particulates	 ?equal	 ?to	 ?or	 ?less	 ?than	 ?10	 ?or	 ?2.5	 ?microns	 ?in	 ?aerodynamic	 ?diameter	 ?(Sinton	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2004,	 ?Naeher	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2007,	 ?Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011).	 ?The	 ?constituents	 ?of	 ?particulate	 ?matter	 ?includes	 ?components	 ?which	 ?can	 ?be	 ?detrimental	 ?to	 ?health	 ?while	 ?also	 ?having	 ?climate	 ?implications	 ?(Smith	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009a).	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?organic	 ?carbon	 ?and	 ?sulfates	 ?are	 ?both	 ?climate	 ?cooling,	 ?while	 ?black	 ?carbon	 ?has	 ?significant	 ?warming	 ?effects	 ?(Smith	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009a).	 ?	 ?While	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?are	 ?mainly	 ?estimated	 ?by	 ?the	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?particulate	 ?matter	 ?emitted,	 ?potential	 ?climate	 ?benefits	 ?are	 ?determined	 ?by	 ?the	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ?specific	 ?PICs	 ?and	 ?reduced	 ?fuel	 ?use.	 ?Additionally,	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?6	 ?This	 ?should	 ?not	 ?be	 ?confused	 ?with	 ?the	 ?efficiency	 ?of	 ?heat	 ?transfer	 ?or	 ?the	 ?total	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?of	 ?combustion,	 ?which	 ?can	 ?be	 ?well	 ?below	 ?20%	 ?for	 ?traditional	 ?stoves.	 ?Where	 ?nominal	 ?combustion	 ?efficiency	 ?is	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?chemical	 ?energy	 ?in	 ?the	 ?fuel	 ?that	 ?is	 ?released	 ?and	 ?heat	 ?transfer	 ?efficiency	 ?is	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?heat	 ?or	 ?energy	 ?released	 ?through	 ?combustion	 ?that	 ?is	 ?transferred	 ?to	 ?the	 ?cooking	 ?pot/absorbed	 ?by	 ?the	 ?food	 ?or	 ?substance	 ?being	 ?cooked.	 ?	 ? 8	 ?different	 ?cooking	 ?fuels	 ?have	 ?different	 ?climate	 ?benefits	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?them.	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?charcoal	 ?and	 ?fossil	 ?fuels	 ?have	 ?upstream	 ?production	 ?and	 ?transportation	 ?emissions	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?their	 ?use.	 ?Charcoal	 ?production	 ?specifically	 ?has	 ?high	 ?amounts	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?even	 ?though	 ?it	 ?burns	 ?relatively	 ?cleanly	 ?with	 ?minimal	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ?PICs	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?other	 ?biomass	 ?fuels	 ?(Bailis	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2005,	 ?Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011).	 ?Biomass,	 ?if	 ?harvested	 ?at	 ?a	 ?renewable	 ?rate	 ?can	 ?result	 ?in	 ?zero	 ?net	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?dioxide	 ?(CO2),	 ?though	 ?there	 ?are	 ?additional	 ?climate	 ?impacts	 ?from	 ?other	 ?climate	 ?warming	 ?PICs	 ?emitted	 ?during	 ?combustion	 ?such	 ?as	 ?methane	 ?(CH4)	 ?and	 ?black	 ?carbon.	 ?Black	 ?carbon	 ?has	 ?been	 ?demonstrated	 ?to	 ?have	 ?very	 ?high	 ?warming	 ?impacts,	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?which	 ?may	 ?result	 ?in	 ?significant	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?in	 ?the	 ?case	 ?of	 ?cookstoves	 ?(Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009).	 ?In	 ?general,	 ?the	 ?cleaner	 ?burning	 ?the	 ?fuel,	 ?the	 ?higher	 ?the	 ?combustion	 ?efficiency,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?less	 ?fuel	 ?used	 ?for	 ?a	 ?given	 ?cooking	 ?task,	 ?the	 ?less	 ?climate	 ?forcing	 ?and	 ?health	 ?damaging	 ?PICs	 ?emitted.	 ?This	 ?can	 ?result	 ?in	 ?the	 ?creation	 ?of	 ?benefits	 ?for	 ?both	 ?health	 ?and	 ?climate,	 ?but	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?different	 ?benefits	 ?varies	 ?with	 ?each	 ?specific	 ?technology.	 ?	 ?Carbon	 ?Credits:	 ?How	 ?They	 ?Work	 ?Carbon	 ?markets	 ?were	 ?developed	 ?as	 ?a	 ?tool	 ?to	 ?address	 ?global	 ?concerns	 ?about	 ?climate	 ?change.	 ?The	 ?underlying	 ?concept	 ?of	 ?a	 ?carbon	 ?market	 ?is	 ?to	 ?incentivize	 ?the	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?through	 ?the	 ?creation	 ?of	 ?a	 ?sellable	 ?and	 ?tradable	 ?unit,	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?credit,	 ?with	 ?each	 ?credit	 ?representing	 ?the	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?1	 ?ton	 ?of	 ?CO2	 ?or	 ?CO2	 ?equivalent	 ?(tCO2e	 ?)7	 ?emitted.	 ?Carbon	 ?credits	 ?can	 ?be	 ?created	 ?in	 ?a	 ?number	 ?of	 ?different	 ?ways	 ?and	 ?contexts.	 ?Improved	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?are	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?many	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?can	 ?qualify	 ?for	 ?carbon	 ?credits.	 ?Their	 ?qualification	 ?is	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?GHGs	 ?emitted	 ?through	 ?reduced	 ?fuel	 ?use	 ?and	 ?increased	 ?combustion	 ?efficiencies.	 ?Only	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?with	 ?some	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?7	 ?Additional	 ?GHGs	 ?beyond	 ?CO2,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?CH4,	 ?are	 ?measured	 ?in	 ?some	 ?cases	 ?and	 ?converted	 ?to	 ?tCO2e	 ?units	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?total	 ?emissions	 ?reductions	 ?in	 ?one	 ?metric.	 ?	 ? 9	 ?percentage	 ?of	 ?non-??renewable	 ?fuel	 ?usage	 ?qualify	 ?for	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?since	 ?the	 ?equations	 ?for	 ?calculating	 ?tCO2e	 ?reduction	 ?is	 ?based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?non-??renewable	 ?fuel	 ?reduced	 ?and	 ?emission	 ?factors	 ?for	 ?GHGs	 ?included	 ?in	 ?the	 ?respective	 ?equations.	 ?Woody	 ?biomass,	 ?some	 ?of	 ?which	 ?is	 ?harvested	 ?at	 ?a	 ?non-??renewable	 ?rate,	 ?is	 ?the	 ?most	 ?common	 ?fuel	 ?used.	 ?Therefore	 ?areas	 ?with	 ?high	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?non-??renewable	 ?harvesting	 ?(or	 ?deforestation)	 ?will	 ?qualify	 ?for	 ?the	 ?most	 ?amounts	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?credits,	 ?where	 ?areas	 ?that	 ?are	 ?being	 ?harvested	 ?at	 ?a	 ?100%	 ?renewable	 ?rate	 ?will	 ?not	 ?qualify	 ?at	 ?all.	 ?Though	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?only	 ?make	 ?up	 ?a	 ?fraction	 ?of	 ?global	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?programs,	 ?these	 ?numbers	 ?have	 ?been	 ?rapidly	 ?increasing	 ?(Blunck	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011).	 ?	 ?In	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?projects,	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?means	 ?to	 ?achieve	 ?financial	 ?sustainability	 ?without	 ?requiring	 ?end-??users	 ?to	 ?be	 ?able	 ?to	 ?pay	 ?the	 ?full	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?the	 ?stove.	 ?They	 ?are	 ?potentially	 ?a	 ?significant	 ?enabling	 ?mechanism	 ?to	 ?extend	 ?the	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?cookstoves	 ?on	 ?a	 ?much	 ?larger	 ?scale.	 ?In	 ?addition	 ?to	 ?providing	 ?much	 ?needed	 ?financial	 ?capital,	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?also	 ?ensure	 ?longer	 ?project	 ?timelines	 ?that	 ?have	 ?integrated	 ?monitoring,	 ?evaluation	 ?and	 ?stove	 ?maintenance	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?ensure	 ?continued	 ?offsets	 ?for	 ?the	 ?life	 ?of	 ?the	 ?project	 ?(Simon	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012).	 ?This	 ?overcomes	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?major	 ?limitations	 ?of	 ?prior	 ?stove	 ?projects,	 ?which	 ?suffered	 ?from	 ?poor	 ?follow-??up	 ?and	 ?lacked	 ?ongoing	 ?support	 ?for	 ?stove	 ?maintenance	 ?and	 ?replacement.	 ?At	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time,	 ?significant	 ?resources	 ?are	 ?needed	 ?to	 ?implement	 ?such	 ?programs	 ?including	 ?time,	 ?technical	 ?expertise	 ?and	 ?financial	 ?capital	 ?to	 ?pay	 ?for	 ?the	 ?certification	 ?process,	 ?all	 ?of	 ?which	 ?can	 ?act	 ?as	 ?barriers.	 ?	 ?Cookstove	 ?projects	 ?can	 ?be	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?certified	 ?for	 ?both	 ?the	 ?regulated	 ?compliance	 ?market	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?Kyoto	 ?Protocol	 ?targets	 ?(e.g.	 ?European	 ?Emissions	 ?Trading	 ?Scheme),	 ?or	 ?the	 ?voluntary	 ?market	 ?where	 ?credits	 ?can	 ?be	 ?bought	 ?by	 ?individuals,	 ?groups	 ?or	 ?organizations	 ?that	 ?choose,	 ?but	 ?are	 ?not	 ?required	 ?to	 ?offset	 ?emissions	 ?(e.g.	 ?to	 ?offset	 ?a	 ?personal	 ?flight).	 ?	 ?	 ? 10	 ?For	 ?the	 ?compliance	 ?market	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?are	 ?certified	 ?through	 ?the	 ?Clean	 ?Development	 ?Mechanism	 ?(CDM),	 ?which	 ?under	 ?the	 ?Kyoto	 ?Protocol	 ?mandate	 ?includes:	 ???	 ?stimulat[ing]	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?and	 ?emission	 ?reductions??	 ?(UNFCCC	 ?2011).	 ?It	 ?aims	 ?to	 ?promote	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?by	 ?allowing	 ?developing	 ?countries	 ?to	 ?sell	 ?their	 ?carbon	 ?offsets	 ?to	 ?developed	 ?countries	 ?with	 ?commitments	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?under	 ?the	 ?Kyoto	 ?Protocol.	 ?This	 ?provides	 ?a	 ?mechanism	 ?for	 ?developing	 ?countries	 ?to	 ?make	 ?additional	 ?income,	 ?which	 ?can	 ?stimulate	 ?development	 ?through	 ?a	 ?less	 ?carbon	 ?intensive	 ?path	 ?(UN	 ?1998,	 ?UNFCCC	 ?2011).	 ?The	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?within	 ?CDM	 ?projects	 ?undergo	 ?external	 ?certification	 ?and	 ?monitoring	 ?with	 ?detailed	 ?methodologies	 ?developed	 ?for	 ?calculating	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?for	 ?different	 ?types	 ?of	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?The	 ?development	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?a	 ?CDM	 ?project	 ?do	 ?not	 ?have	 ?the	 ?same	 ?type	 ?of	 ?certification	 ?process	 ?and	 ?as	 ?long	 ?as	 ?a	 ?project	 ?is	 ?deemed	 ?to	 ?contribute	 ?to	 ?development	 ?by	 ?the	 ?Designated	 ?National	 ?Authority	 ?within	 ?the	 ?project	 ?country,	 ?it	 ?qualifies	 ?for	 ?CDM	 ?credits.	 ?	 ?Partially	 ?as	 ?a	 ?result	 ?of	 ?this	 ?difference	 ?in	 ?approach	 ?for	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?and	 ?development	 ?benefits,	 ?the	 ?CDM	 ?has	 ?been	 ?criticized	 ?as	 ?not	 ?achieving	 ?its	 ?first	 ?goal,	 ?sustainable	 ?development,	 ?and	 ?instead	 ?being	 ?driven	 ?mainly	 ?by	 ?the	 ?goal	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?emissions	 ?(For	 ?a	 ?review	 ?of	 ?the	 ?literature:	 ?Olsen	 ?2007,	 ?Also	 ?see:	 ?Cosbey	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2005,	 ?Figueres	 ?2006,	 ?Pearson	 ?2006,	 ?Sterk	 ?and	 ?Wittneben	 ?2006,	 ?Bumpus	 ?and	 ?Cole	 ?2010).	 ?Critics	 ?argue	 ?that	 ?using	 ?monetary	 ?incentives	 ?for	 ?the	 ?implementation	 ?of	 ?CDM	 ?projects	 ?can	 ?result	 ?in	 ?the	 ?easiest	 ?credits	 ?being	 ?reached	 ?first,	 ?which	 ?may	 ?not	 ?achieve	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?goals	 ?(Cosbey	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2005,	 ?Figueres	 ?2006,	 ?Pearson	 ?2006,	 ?Sterk	 ?and	 ?Wittneben	 ?2006,	 ?Olsen	 ?2007,	 ?Bumpus	 ?and	 ?Cole	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?In	 ?contrast,	 ?the	 ?Gold	 ?Standard	 ?(GS)	 ?is	 ?a	 ?methodology	 ?developed	 ?to	 ?explicitly	 ?address	 ?meeting	 ?the	 ?goal	 ?of	 ?creating	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?alongside	 ?emission	 ?reductions.	 ?GS	 ?certification	 ?can	 ?be	 ?used	 ?in	 ?conjunction	 ?with	 ?the	 ?CDM,	 ?generating	 ?premium	 ?credits	 ?for	 ?the	 ?compliance	 ?market,	 ?or	 ?alone,	 ?	 ? 11	 ?generating	 ?credits	 ?for	 ?the	 ?voluntary	 ?market	 ?(GS	 ?2012).8	 ?To	 ?ensure	 ?higher	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?GS	 ?requires	 ?environmental	 ?impact	 ?assessments	 ?that	 ?account	 ?for	 ?more	 ?than	 ?just	 ?greenhouse	 ?gas	 ?generation,	 ?stakeholder	 ?consultations	 ?to	 ?ensure	 ?local	 ?participation,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?their	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?matrix	 ?(GS	 ?2011).	 ?However,	 ?Olsen?s	 ?(2007)	 ?review	 ?of	 ?the	 ?literature	 ?does	 ?not	 ?find	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?sustainability	 ?assessment	 ?tools,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?GS?s	 ?sustainability	 ?matrix,	 ?to	 ?effectively	 ?offset	 ?market	 ?forces	 ?to	 ?ensure	 ?sustainable	 ?development:	 ??While	 ?rhetorically	 ?[sustainable	 ?development	 ?benefits	 ?are]	 ?mandated	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Kyoto	 ?Protocol,	 ?they	 ?are	 ?not	 ?monetized	 ?and	 ?therefore	 ?play	 ?a	 ?limited	 ?role	 ?in	 ?directing	 ?investments.?	 ?She	 ?asserts	 ?that	 ?this	 ?does	 ?not	 ?mean	 ?these	 ?efforts	 ?should	 ?be	 ?abandoned,	 ?but	 ?that	 ?the	 ?inclusion	 ?of	 ?such	 ?tools	 ?alone	 ?will	 ?not	 ?necessarily	 ?result	 ?in	 ?sustainable	 ?development.	 ?	 ?In	 ?addition	 ?to	 ?their	 ?different	 ?approaches	 ?to	 ?ensure	 ?development	 ?benefits,	 ?the	 ?CDM	 ?and	 ?GS	 ?have	 ?different	 ?approaches	 ?to	 ?calculate	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?generated	 ?by	 ?cookstove	 ?projects.	 ?Though	 ?both	 ?have	 ?undergone	 ?revisions	 ?to	 ?improve	 ?the	 ?accuracy	 ?in	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?tCO2e	 ?reduction	 ?calculated,	 ?there	 ?still	 ?remain	 ?uncertainties	 ?in	 ?both	 ?methodologies	 ?(Johnson	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2010,	 ?Bumpus	 ?2011,	 ?GACC	 ?2011).	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?accurate	 ?estimates	 ?of	 ?the	 ?fraction	 ?of	 ?non-??renewable	 ?biomass	 ?are	 ?especially	 ?challenging	 ?to	 ?calculate	 ?and	 ?can	 ?have	 ?great	 ?influence	 ?on	 ?the	 ?number	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?calculated	 ?(Johnson	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2010,	 ?GACC	 ?2011,	 ?Simon	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012).	 ?Additionally	 ?neither	 ?equation	 ?includes	 ?all	 ?climate-??forcing	 ?agents.	 ?The	 ?CDM	 ?equation	 ?only	 ?accounts	 ?for	 ?CO2	 ?reductions	 ?whereas	 ?the	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?8	 ?When	 ?projects	 ?are	 ?certified	 ?under	 ?GS	 ?for	 ?the	 ?voluntary	 ?market	 ?methodology	 ?for	 ?calculating	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?developed	 ?by	 ?GS	 ?is	 ?used.	 ?Yet	 ?when	 ?projects	 ?are	 ?certified	 ?under	 ?both	 ?CDM	 ?and	 ?GS,	 ?the	 ?CDM	 ?methodology	 ?is	 ?used	 ?for	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?calculations.	 ?Under	 ?both	 ?scenarios	 ?the	 ?framework	 ?of	 ?GS,	 ?which	 ?addresses	 ?the	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?component	 ?is	 ?applied.	 ?In	 ?this	 ?paper	 ?when	 ?the	 ?GS	 ?methodology	 ?is	 ?referred	 ?to	 ?it	 ?is	 ?referring	 ?to	 ?credits	 ?calculated	 ?for	 ?the	 ?voluntary	 ?market.	 ?	 ? 12	 ?GS	 ?includes	 ?the	 ?Kyoto	 ?gases	 ?that	 ?are	 ?emitted	 ?by	 ?cookstoves:	 ?CO2,	 ?CH4	 ?and	 ?N2O	 ?(though	 ?in	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?N2O	 ?is	 ?usually	 ?negligible).	 ?	 ?Still,	 ?both	 ?do	 ?not	 ?account	 ?for	 ?black	 ?carbon,	 ?organic	 ?carbon,	 ?sulfur	 ?dioxide	 ?(SO2),	 ?NMHC,	 ?or	 ?CO	 ?all	 ?of	 ?which	 ?have	 ?climate	 ?impacts	 ?(Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011).	 ?Therefore	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?do	 ?not	 ?encompass	 ?the	 ?entirety	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?forcings	 ?and	 ?potential	 ?climate	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?projects,	 ?but	 ?are	 ?used	 ?as	 ?a	 ?crude	 ?measure	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?benefits	 ?is	 ?this	 ?article?s	 ?comparison.	 ?A	 ?critical	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?calculation	 ?specifics	 ?of	 ?the	 ?methodologies	 ?and	 ?their	 ?uncertainties	 ?are	 ?beyond	 ?the	 ?scope	 ?of	 ?this	 ?article	 ?and	 ?the	 ?subject	 ?of	 ?ongoing	 ?research.	 ?	 ?Measuring	 ?Health	 ?Benefits	 ?There	 ?are	 ?many	 ?different	 ?kinds	 ?of	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?cookstove	 ?projects,	 ?mostly	 ?impacting	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children	 ?(Rehfuess	 ?2006).	 ?The	 ?most	 ?cited	 ?health	 ?effects	 ?of	 ?IAP,	 ?which	 ?also	 ?have	 ?the	 ?strongest	 ?scientific	 ?support,	 ?are	 ?chronic	 ?obstructive	 ?pulmonary	 ?disease	 ?(COPD),	 ?acute	 ?lower	 ?respiratory	 ?infections	 ?(ALRI)	 ?and	 ?lung	 ?cancer	 ?(Rehfuess	 ?2006).	 ?Many	 ?studies	 ?use	 ?these	 ?more	 ?defendable	 ?health	 ?measures	 ?to	 ?evaluate	 ?the	 ?health	 ?implications	 ?of	 ?different	 ?kinds	 ?of	 ?cookstoves.	 ?Including	 ?only	 ?these	 ?three	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?IAP	 ?impacts,	 ?the	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ?concentrated	 ?smoke	 ?from	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?inefficient	 ?cookstoves	 ?are	 ?estimated	 ?to	 ?cause	 ?1.6	 ?million	 ?deaths	 ?annually	 ?(Rehfuess	 ?2006).	 ?	 ?The	 ?IAP	 ?from	 ?solid	 ?fuel	 ?burning	 ?is	 ?the	 ?result	 ?of	 ?PICs	 ?created	 ?through	 ?inefficient	 ?combustion	 ?of	 ?fuel.	 ?The	 ?extent	 ?of	 ?the	 ?health	 ?impact	 ?will	 ?largely	 ?be	 ?dependent	 ?on	 ?the	 ?intake	 ?of	 ?particulate	 ?matter	 ?emitted	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?PICs.	 ?Cookstoves	 ?with	 ?a	 ?venting	 ?system,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?a	 ?chimney,	 ?can	 ?help	 ?to	 ?greatly	 ?reduce	 ?this	 ?intake	 ?fraction	 ?(Mehta	 ?and	 ?Shahpar	 ?2004,	 ?Smith	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009b),	 ?but	 ?these	 ?emissions	 ?may	 ?still	 ?contribute	 ?to	 ?ambient	 ?air	 ?pollution,	 ?which	 ?could	 ?still	 ?have	 ?negative	 ?health	 ?implications	 ?in	 ?some	 ?scenarios	 ?particularly	 ?if	 ?in	 ?a	 ?densely	 ?populated	 ?location	 ?(Zhou	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011,	 ?Wilkinson	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009).	 ?	 ?	 ? 13	 ?Other	 ?health	 ?impacts	 ?related	 ?to	 ?cookstove	 ?use	 ?include	 ?fatigue	 ?and	 ?physical	 ?strain	 ?or	 ?injury	 ?while	 ?cooking	 ?and/or	 ?collecting	 ?fuelwood	 ?(Parikh	 ?2011).	 ?Additional	 ?dangers	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?collection	 ?of	 ?fuelwood	 ?are	 ?increased	 ?vulnerability	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?for	 ?woman	 ?and	 ?young	 ?girls	 ?(Patrick	 ?2007),	 ?and	 ?injury	 ?from	 ?animals	 ?and	 ?other	 ?natural	 ?hazards	 ?(Holdren	 ?and	 ?Smith	 ?2000,	 ?Wickramasinghe	 ?2003,	 ?Matinga	 ?2008).	 ?In	 ?this	 ?article	 ?the	 ?measures	 ?of	 ?health	 ?are	 ?based	 ?upon	 ?those	 ?that	 ?other	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?used,	 ?which	 ?in	 ?most	 ?cases	 ?are	 ?COPD	 ?and/or	 ?ALRI.	 ?	 ?Tradeoffs	 ?Between	 ?Climate	 ?and	 ?Health	 ?A	 ?study	 ?by	 ?Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2011)	 ?shows	 ?that	 ?health	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?benefits	 ?do	 ?not	 ?have	 ?a	 ?linear	 ?relationship	 ?for	 ?all	 ?cookstove	 ?types.	 ?Instead,	 ?some	 ?improved	 ?stoves	 ?generate	 ?higher	 ?climate	 ?benefits	 ?(the	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?GHGs	 ?and	 ?other	 ?climate-??forcing	 ?agents)	 ?while	 ?others	 ?generate	 ?higher	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?(in	 ?this	 ?case	 ?relative	 ?risk	 ?of	 ?cardiopulmonary	 ?and	 ?cardiovascular	 ?disease	 ?mortality	 ?based	 ?on	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ?PM2.5).9	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?the	 ?unvented	 ?charcoal	 ?stove	 ?included	 ?in	 ?the	 ?analysis	 ?performed	 ?better	 ?than	 ?most	 ?of	 ?the	 ?biomass	 ?stoves	 ?in	 ?reducing	 ?relative	 ?health	 ?risk,	 ?but	 ?was	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?top	 ?emitters	 ?of	 ?GHGs10.	 ?The	 ?stoves	 ?with	 ?the	 ?highest	 ??win-??win?	 ?benefits,	 ?having	 ?both	 ?low	 ?emission	 ?of	 ?GHGs	 ?and	 ?PM2.5,	 ?were	 ?the	 ?liquid	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?stoves	 ?included	 ?in	 ?the	 ?analysis,	 ?the	 ?kerosene	 ?and	 ?liquid	 ?petroleum	 ?gas	 ?(LPG)	 ?fueled	 ?stoves.	 ?Another	 ?study	 ?by	 ?Mehta	 ?and	 ?Shahpar	 ?(2004),	 ?also	 ?find	 ?fossil	 ?fuels	 ?stoves	 ?to	 ?have	 ?the	 ?highest	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?in	 ?comparison	 ?with	 ?other	 ?improved	 ?biomass	 ?stoves,	 ?but	 ?note	 ?that	 ?kerosene	 ?creates	 ?slightly	 ?more	 ?IAP	 ?than	 ?LPG.	 ?Additionally	 ?they	 ?state	 ?kerosene	 ?has	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?9	 ?See	 ?Table	 ?1	 ?for	 ?stove	 ?performances	 ?of	 ?stoves	 ?included	 ?in	 ?Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2011)?s	 ?study	 ?ranked	 ?for	 ?both	 ?health	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?benefits.	 ?10	 ?Due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?large	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?GHGs	 ?emissions	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?charcoal	 ?production	 ?the	 ?analysis	 ?included	 ?charcoal	 ?production	 ?in	 ?the	 ?total	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ? 14	 ?other	 ?health	 ?dangers	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?its	 ?use,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?poisoning	 ?and	 ?carcinogenic	 ?effects,	 ?making	 ?LPG	 ?the	 ?best	 ?overall	 ?stove	 ?for	 ?achieving	 ?health	 ?benefits.	 ?	 ?Though	 ?Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2011),	 ?provides	 ?the	 ?most	 ?comprehensive	 ?demonstration	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?tradeoffs	 ?in	 ?cookstove	 ?projects,	 ?other	 ?studies	 ?also	 ?have	 ?found	 ?tradeoffs	 ?in	 ?other	 ?cookstove	 ?scenarios.	 ?In	 ?a	 ?review	 ?of	 ?China?s	 ?national	 ?cookstove	 ?program,	 ?Sinton	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2004)	 ?found	 ?that	 ?although	 ?the	 ?program	 ?was	 ?seen	 ?as	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?largest	 ?successes	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?distribution	 ?on	 ?a	 ?large	 ?scale,	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?were	 ?not	 ?always	 ?automatically	 ?generated	 ?along	 ?with	 ?the	 ?targeted	 ?environmental	 ?benefits	 ?included	 ?in	 ?the	 ?program?s	 ?objectives.	 ?This	 ?demonstrates	 ?an	 ?unintentional	 ?tradeoff	 ?made	 ?between	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?for	 ?a	 ?project	 ?who?s	 ?main	 ?objective	 ?was	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?pressures	 ?on	 ?biomass	 ?sources.	 ?Another	 ?study	 ?by	 ?Bailis	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2005)	 ?specifically	 ?examined	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?tradeoffs	 ?between	 ?charcoal	 ?and	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?stoves.	 ?They	 ?found	 ?that	 ?although	 ?both	 ?have	 ?relatively	 ?high	 ?health	 ?benefits,	 ?charcoal	 ?stoves	 ?have	 ?high	 ?negative	 ?climate	 ?impacts	 ?from	 ?the	 ?emission	 ?of	 ?GHGs	 ?both	 ?during	 ?production	 ?and	 ?burning	 ?of	 ?the	 ?fuel.	 ?Again	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?stoves	 ?performed	 ?the	 ?best	 ?for	 ?both	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?outcomes.	 ?	 ?	 ? 15	 ?Table	 ?1:	 ?Different	 ?stoves	 ?ranked	 ?based	 ?on	 ?their	 ?health	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?performance	 ?from	 ?Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2011).	 ?Climate	 ?benefits	 ?have	 ?two	 ?categories,	 ??Kyoto	 ?Gases?	 ?which	 ?only	 ?includes	 ?CO2	 ?and	 ?CH4	 ?and	 ??Total	 ?GWP?	 ?which	 ?includes	 ?CO2,	 ?CH4,	 ?CO,	 ?NMHC,	 ?OC,	 ?BC,	 ?and	 ?SO2.	 ?Health	 ?benefits	 ?are	 ?estimated	 ?and	 ?ranked	 ?by	 ?an	 ?individual	 ?intake	 ?fraction	 ?in	 ?mg	 ?PM2.5	 ?per	 ?day.	 ?	 ?Stoves	 ?are	 ?ranked	 ?from	 ?the	 ?least	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?emissions	 ?or	 ?intake	 ?at	 ?the	 ?top	 ?to	 ?the	 ?most	 ?emissions	 ?or	 ?intake	 ?at	 ?the	 ?bottom	 ?for	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?categories.	 ?The	 ?stoves	 ?included	 ?in	 ?their	 ?analysis:	 ?W-?Tr-?U	 ?=	 ?traditional	 ?unvented	 ?wood	 ?stove;	 ?W-?Im-?U	 ?=	 ?improved,	 ?Indian,	 ?unvented,	 ?metal,	 ?wood	 ?stove;	 ?W-?Im-?V	 ?=	 ?improved,	 ?Chinese,	 ?unvented,	 ?brick,	 ?wood	 ?stove;	 ?W-?Pat-?V	 ?=	 ?improved,	 ?Mexican,	 ??Patsari?,	 ?vented,	 ?mason,	 ?wood	 ?stove;	 ?W-?Gas-?U	 ?=	 ?gasifer,	 ?Indian,	 ?unvented,	 ?metal,	 ?wood	 ?stove;	 ?W-?Fan-?U	 ?=	 ??Philips	 ?Fan?,	 ?unvented,	 ?metal,	 ?wood	 ?stove;	 ?Char-?U	 ?=	 ?Indian,	 ?unvented,	 ?metal/mud,	 ?charcoal	 ?stove	 ?(climate	 ?emissions	 ?include	 ?both	 ?use	 ?and	 ?production);	 ?Coal-?U	 ?=	 ?Chinese,	 ?unvented,	 ?metal,	 ?coal	 ?stove;	 ?Coal-?V	 ?=	 ?Chinese,	 ?vented,	 ?metal,	 ?coal	 ?stove;	 ?Ker-?U	 ?=	 ?Indian,	 ?unvented,	 ?metal,	 ?kerosene	 ?wick	 ?stove;	 ?LPG-?U	 ?=	 ?Indian,	 ?unvented,	 ?metal,	 ?LPG	 ?stove.	 ?Health	 ?Benefits	 ?(Individual	 ?PM2.5	 ?Intake	 ?Fraction)	 ? Climate	 ?Benefits	 ?(Kyoto	 ?Gases)	 ? Climate	 ?Benefits	 ?(Total	 ?GWP)	 ?LPG-?U	 ? LPG-?U	 ? LPG-?U	 ?<1	 ?mg/day	 ?PM2.5	 ? Ker-?U	 ? Ker-?U	 ?W-?Fan-?U	 ? W-?Fan-?U/	 ?Ker-?U	 ?	 ?(~1mg/day)	 ? W-?Fan-?U	 ?Char-?U	 ? W-?Gas-?U	 ? W-?Gas-?U	 ?W-?Pat-?V	 ? W-?Pat-?V	 ? W-?Pat-?V	 ?Coal-?V	 ? W-?Im-?V	 ? W-?Im-?U	 ?W-?Im-?V	 ? W-?Im-?U	 ? W-?Im-?V	 ?1-??10	 ?mg/day	 ?PM2.5	 ?W-?Gas-?U	 ? W-?Tr-?U	 ? Coal-?V	 ?W-?Im-?U	 ? Coal-?V	 ? W-?Tr-?U	 ?Coal-?U	 ? Coal-?U	 ? Coal-?U	 ?10-??100	 ?mg/day	 ?PM2.5	 ? W-?Tr-?U	 ? Char-?U	 ? Char-?U	 ?	 ?Cost-?Effectiveness	 ?In	 ?addition	 ?to	 ?the	 ?benefits	 ?that	 ?stoves	 ?can	 ?create	 ?and	 ?the	 ?tradeoffs	 ?involved,	 ?another	 ?major	 ?factor	 ?influencing	 ?the	 ?type	 ?of	 ?stove	 ?actually	 ?chosen,	 ?is	 ?their	 ?differing	 ?cost.	 ?This	 ?can	 ?influence	 ?which	 ?interventions	 ?are	 ?possible	 ?on	 ?what	 ?scale	 ?and	 ?therefore	 ?the	 ?corresponding	 ?benefits	 ?included.	 ?Cookstoves	 ?are	 ?viewed	 ?in	 ?general	 ?to	 ?be	 ?a	 ?cost-??effective	 ?investment	 ?to	 ?achieve	 ?development	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?benefits.	 ?There	 ?have	 ?been	 ?both	 ?cost-??effectiveness	 ?analyses	 ?and	 ?one	 ?cost-??benefit	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?such	 ?programs	 ?all	 ?providing	 ?strong	 ?rational	 ?for	 ?the	 ?investment	 ?in	 ?cookstoves	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?	 ? 16	 ?The	 ?World	 ?Health	 ?Organization	 ?(WHO)	 ?conducted	 ?the	 ?first	 ?cost-??benefit	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?finding	 ?them	 ?to	 ?be	 ?a	 ?cost-??effective	 ?intervention	 ?based	 ?upon	 ?the	 ?high	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?benefits	 ?created	 ?when	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?the	 ?total	 ?costs	 ?(Hutton	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2006).	 ?In	 ?their	 ?analysis,	 ?they	 ?compared	 ?net	 ?cost	 ?and	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?investing	 ?in	 ?three	 ?different	 ?intervention	 ?scenarios:	 ?an	 ?improved	 ?rocket	 ?stove11,	 ?a	 ?biofuel	 ?(ethanol)	 ?stove	 ?and	 ?a	 ?LPG	 ?stove.	 ?For	 ?costs	 ?they	 ?included:	 ?fuel,	 ?stove,	 ?and	 ?program	 ?costs.	 ?Economic	 ?benefits	 ?included	 ?measures	 ?for:	 ?health,	 ?productivity	 ?gains,	 ?time	 ?savings	 ?from	 ?reduced	 ?fuel	 ?collection	 ?and	 ?cooking	 ?time,	 ?and	 ?local	 ?and	 ?global	 ?environmental	 ?impacts.	 ?The	 ?analysis	 ?was	 ?divided	 ?into	 ?different	 ?global	 ?locations	 ?and	 ?each	 ?of	 ?these	 ?was	 ?further	 ?divided	 ?into	 ?urban	 ?and	 ?rural	 ?categories.	 ?For	 ?all	 ?scenarios,	 ?the	 ?benefits	 ?outweighed	 ?the	 ?costs	 ?with	 ?the	 ?majority	 ?of	 ?the	 ?benefits	 ?calculated	 ?attributable	 ?to	 ?time	 ?savings.	 ?In	 ?many	 ?scenarios,	 ?including	 ?almost	 ?all	 ?with	 ?the	 ?improved	 ?rocket	 ?stoves,	 ?the	 ?costs	 ?were	 ?actually	 ?negative	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?high	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?benefits	 ?generated.	 ?Though	 ?there	 ?had	 ?been	 ?previous	 ?cost-??effective	 ?analyses	 ?for	 ?cookstoves,	 ?this	 ?was	 ?the	 ?first	 ?analysis	 ?using	 ?an	 ?economic	 ?tool	 ?for	 ?comparison,	 ?the	 ?cost-??benefit	 ?analysis.	 ?	 ?	 ?Other	 ?cost-??effective	 ?analyses	 ?have	 ?compared	 ?the	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?the	 ?various	 ?interventions	 ?providing	 ?similar	 ?benefits	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?the	 ?most	 ?cost-??effective	 ?intervention.	 ?To	 ?examine	 ?cost-??effectiveness	 ?of	 ?health	 ?gains	 ?alone	 ?of	 ?improved	 ?cooking	 ?technologies,	 ?Mehta	 ?and	 ?Shahpar	 ?(2004)	 ?compare	 ?three	 ?scenarios,	 ?switching	 ?to:	 ?a)	 ?cleaner	 ?fuels	 ?(in	 ?their	 ?case	 ?LPG	 ?or	 ?kerosene),	 ?b)	 ?an	 ?improved	 ?stove	 ?with	 ?a	 ?chimney	 ?or	 ?other	 ?form	 ?of	 ?outdoor	 ?venting,	 ?or	 ?c)	 ?a	 ?combination	 ?of	 ?both	 ?a	 ?and	 ?b.	 ?In	 ?this	 ?case,	 ?health	 ?gains	 ?were	 ?determined	 ?by	 ?measures	 ?of	 ?ALRI	 ?and	 ?COPD	 ?in	 ?average	 ?annual	 ?gain	 ?in	 ?healthy	 ?years.	 ?LPG	 ?and	 ?kerosene	 ?had	 ?the	 ?highest	 ?health	 ?gains,	 ?but	 ?were	 ?also	 ?the	 ?most	 ?costly.	 ?Switching	 ?to	 ?the	 ?improved	 ?biomass	 ?stoves	 ?resulted	 ?in	 ?a	 ?wide	 ?variation	 ?of	 ?health	 ?gains,	 ?though	 ?they	 ?were	 ?significantly	 ?lower	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?11	 ?A	 ?rocket	 ?stove	 ?is	 ?a	 ?common	 ?design	 ?of	 ?a	 ?biomass	 ?stove	 ?that	 ?follows	 ?a	 ?set	 ?of	 ?basic	 ?principles,	 ?which	 ?results	 ?in	 ?more	 ?complete	 ?combustion	 ?and	 ?decreased	 ?fuel	 ?demand.	 ?	 ? 17	 ?cost	 ?interventions.	 ?When	 ?both	 ?approaches	 ?were	 ?combined,	 ?scenario	 ??c?,	 ?there	 ?were	 ?more	 ?consistent	 ?health	 ?gains	 ?while	 ?simultaneously	 ?decreasing	 ?the	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?intervention	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?that	 ?of	 ?LPG	 ?or	 ?kerosene	 ?alone.	 ?	 ?Bailis	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2005)	 ?also	 ?looked	 ?at	 ?cost-??effectiveness,	 ?but	 ?compared	 ?both	 ?health	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?charcoal	 ?and	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?stove	 ?interventions.	 ?They	 ?found	 ?both	 ?interventions	 ?have	 ?significant	 ?benefits	 ?for	 ?health	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?other	 ?biomass	 ?stoves,	 ?but	 ?the	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?stoves	 ?and	 ?the	 ?subsequent	 ?fuel	 ?required	 ?far	 ?exceeded	 ?that	 ?of	 ?a	 ?charcoal	 ?stove.	 ?Yet	 ?at	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time	 ?they	 ?also	 ?found	 ?charcoal	 ?stoves	 ?to	 ?have	 ?significant	 ?climate	 ?impacts,	 ?their	 ??charcoal-??intensive?	 ?future	 ?projections	 ?predicted	 ?to	 ?increase	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?140-??190%.	 ?	 ?In	 ?general	 ?cookstove	 ?interventions	 ?have	 ?been	 ?shown	 ?to	 ?be	 ?cost-??effective	 ?investments	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?high	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?benefits	 ?that	 ?can	 ?result.	 ?Clean	 ?burning	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?stoves	 ?have	 ?been	 ?shown	 ?in	 ?a	 ?number	 ?of	 ?studies	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?the	 ?highest	 ?amounts	 ?of	 ??win-??win?	 ?benefits,	 ?but	 ?are	 ?also	 ?the	 ?most	 ?costly.	 ?Therefore	 ?the	 ?varying	 ?nuances	 ?of	 ?co-??benefits	 ?for	 ?each	 ?intervention	 ?in	 ?addition	 ?to	 ?cost	 ?must	 ?be	 ?examined	 ?together.	 ?	 ?Tradeoffs	 ?in	 ?Actual	 ?Implementation	 ?Though	 ?both	 ?the	 ?cost-??effective	 ?analyses	 ?and	 ?the	 ?cost-??benefit	 ?analysis	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?strong	 ?argument	 ?for	 ?improved	 ?stove	 ?interventions	 ?based	 ?upon	 ?non-??environmental	 ?benefits	 ?(e.g.	 ?either	 ?health	 ?or	 ?time	 ?savings),	 ?actually	 ?finding	 ?direct	 ?funding	 ?for	 ?these	 ?projects	 ?on	 ?this	 ?basis	 ?is	 ?limited.	 ?Carbon	 ?credits,	 ?on	 ?the	 ?other	 ?hand,	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?potential	 ?alternative	 ?source	 ?of	 ?funding	 ?that	 ?may	 ?be	 ?used	 ?to	 ?reach	 ?the	 ?world?s	 ?poorest.	 ?The	 ?success	 ?of	 ?such	 ?projects	 ?will	 ?be	 ?dependent	 ?how	 ?the	 ?projects	 ?are	 ?designed	 ?(e.g.	 ?the	 ?type	 ?of	 ?stove,	 ?the	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?the	 ?stove	 ?vs	 ?revenue	 ?from	 ?carbon	 ?credits,	 ?strength	 ?of	 ?local	 ?partnerships,	 ?etc)	 ?and	 ?the	 ?extent	 ?to	 ?which	 ?projects	 ?integrate	 ?lessons	 ?learned	 ?from	 ?past	 ?cookstove	 ?	 ? 18	 ?intervention	 ?failures.	 ?These	 ?include,	 ?but	 ?are	 ?not	 ?limited	 ?to:	 ?accounting	 ?for	 ?user-??preferences	 ?in	 ?stove	 ?design	 ?(Barnes	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?1993,	 ?Rai	 ?and	 ?McDonald	 ?2009),	 ?having	 ?a	 ?reliable	 ?supply	 ?chain	 ?established	 ?if	 ?switching	 ?to	 ?a	 ?different	 ?fuel	 ?(Rai	 ?and	 ?McDonald	 ?2009,	 ?Wickramasinghe	 ?2011),	 ?availability	 ?of	 ?replacement	 ?parts/stoves	 ?and	 ?maintenance	 ?resources	 ?(Rai	 ?and	 ?McDonald	 ?2009),	 ?and	 ?user	 ?buy-??in	 ?(Barnes	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?1993,	 ?Rai	 ?and	 ?McDonald	 ?2009,	 ?Shrimali	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011).	 ?Additionally,	 ?outcomes	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?projects	 ?will	 ?also	 ?largely	 ?be	 ?influenced	 ?by	 ?how	 ?success	 ?is	 ?defined	 ?(e.g.	 ?highest	 ?number	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?generated	 ?or	 ?stoves	 ?distributed,	 ?women	 ?empowerment,	 ?or	 ?improving	 ?health)	 ?and	 ?by	 ?whom.	 ?If	 ?equity	 ?is	 ?of	 ?concern	 ?in	 ?such	 ?projects,	 ?then	 ?market	 ?approaches	 ?alone	 ?will	 ?not	 ?suffice	 ?to	 ?deliver	 ?improved	 ?cooking	 ?technology	 ?to	 ?the	 ?poorest	 ?of	 ?the	 ?poor	 ?(Simon	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?Different	 ?implementing	 ?actors	 ?have	 ?different	 ?motivations	 ?for	 ?engaging	 ?in	 ?stove	 ?projects	 ?and	 ?this	 ?is	 ?inherently	 ?integrated	 ?in	 ?their	 ?implementation	 ?design	 ?(e.g.	 ?profit	 ?seeking	 ?market-??based	 ?approaches)	 ?or	 ?indicated	 ?in	 ?their	 ?mandate	 ?(e.g.	 ?an	 ?environmental	 ?NGO	 ?vs	 ?poverty-??alleviation	 ?NGO).	 ?Similarly	 ?they	 ?have	 ?different	 ?sources	 ?of	 ?funding,	 ?whether	 ?this	 ?is	 ?mostly	 ?donor,	 ?national,	 ?or	 ?investment	 ?funding	 ?which	 ?places	 ?limits	 ?on	 ?the	 ?scale	 ?of	 ?projects	 ?they	 ?can	 ?complete.	 ?These	 ?two	 ?factors	 ?combined	 ?with	 ?the	 ?target	 ?demographic	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?users	 ?in	 ?cookstove	 ?projects,	 ?greatly	 ?determine	 ?the	 ?financial	 ?capacity,	 ?scale,	 ?and	 ?design	 ?of	 ?such	 ?projects	 ?and	 ?the	 ?metrics	 ?used	 ?to	 ?measure	 ?success.	 ?	 ?Carbon	 ?Credits	 ?vs	 ?Health	 ?By	 ?design	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?automatically	 ?account	 ?for	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?global	 ?environmental	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?cookstoves;	 ?the	 ?metric	 ?of	 ?value,	 ?tCO2e	 ?reduced	 ?translated	 ?into	 ?a	 ?carbon	 ?credit,	 ?directly	 ?calculating	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?GHGs	 ?reduced.	 ?Again,	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?only	 ?represent	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?total	 ?climate	 ?interactions.	 ?Additionally,	 ?both	 ?methodologies,	 ?CDM	 ?and	 ?GS,	 ?base	 ?these	 ?calculations	 ?on	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?non-??renewable	 ?biomass	 ?harvested	 ?that	 ?is	 ?reduced	 ?through	 ?use	 ?of	 ?the	 ?more	 ?efficient	 ?	 ? 19	 ?stove.	 ?Therefore	 ?areas	 ?with	 ?high	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?non-??renewable	 ?harvest	 ?will	 ?result	 ?in	 ?the	 ?most	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?calculated.	 ?Though	 ?the	 ?methods	 ?for	 ?calculating	 ?this	 ?fraction	 ?involve	 ?significant	 ?uncertainty	 ?(Johnson	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2010;	 ?Simon	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2012),	 ?in	 ?theory	 ?using	 ?this	 ?fraction	 ?also	 ?integrates	 ?reduced	 ?pressures	 ?on	 ?local	 ?forest	 ?resources	 ?into	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?credits.	 ?However,	 ?such	 ?projects	 ?do	 ?not	 ?base	 ?their	 ?benefits	 ?on	 ?any	 ?direct	 ?measurements	 ?on	 ?health	 ?or	 ?development	 ?outcomes	 ?and	 ?instead	 ?most	 ?cookstove	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?projects	 ?are	 ?just	 ?assumed	 ?to	 ?be	 ??win-??win?.	 ?	 ?	 ?A	 ?much	 ?different	 ?approach	 ?is	 ?needed	 ?if	 ?using	 ?health	 ?as	 ?a	 ?measure	 ?of	 ?success	 ?for	 ?cookstove	 ?interventions.	 ?Smith	 ?and	 ?Peel	 ?(2010)	 ?examined	 ?the	 ?dose-??response	 ?curve	 ?for	 ?cardiovascular	 ?disease	 ?due	 ?to	 ?smoking	 ?and	 ?air	 ?pollution.	 ?They	 ?find	 ?there	 ?is	 ?a	 ?gap	 ?in	 ?available	 ?data	 ?about	 ?the	 ?health	 ?effects	 ?of	 ?inhalation	 ?of	 ?PM2.5	 ?from	 ?approximately	 ?10	 ?mg/day	 ?to	 ?1	 ?mg/day	 ?intake,	 ?the	 ?levels	 ?at	 ?which	 ?inhalation	 ?of	 ?PM2.5	 ?attributable	 ?towards	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?cookstoves	 ?fall.	 ?Though	 ?they	 ?express	 ?the	 ?need	 ?for	 ?more	 ?research	 ?to	 ?be	 ?done	 ?in	 ?this	 ?area,	 ?they	 ?extrapolate	 ?the	 ?number	 ?of	 ?deaths	 ?averted	 ?when	 ?switching	 ?from	 ?a)	 ?a	 ?heavy	 ?smoker	 ?to	 ?a	 ?light	 ?smoker,	 ?b)	 ?a	 ?light	 ?smoker	 ?to	 ?a	 ?village	 ?cook,	 ?c)	 ?a	 ?village	 ?cook	 ?to	 ?a	 ?passive	 ?smoker,	 ?and	 ?d)	 ?a	 ?passive	 ?smoker	 ?to	 ?a	 ?clean	 ?city.	 ?The	 ?most	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?deaths	 ?averted	 ?results	 ?from	 ?the	 ?last	 ?switch	 ?from	 ?a	 ?passive	 ?smoker	 ?to	 ?a	 ?clean	 ?city	 ?(1	 ?to	 ?0.1	 ?mg/day	 ?inhalation	 ?of	 ?PM2.5).	 ?The	 ?non-??linearity	 ?in	 ?the	 ?dose-??response	 ?curve	 ?indicates	 ?that	 ?improved	 ?stoves	 ?or	 ?modern	 ?fuels	 ?must	 ?result	 ?in	 ?significant	 ?reductions	 ?in	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?maximize	 ?health	 ?benefits.	 ?In	 ?Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2011)?s	 ?study	 ?the	 ?only	 ?stoves	 ?emitting	 ?less	 ?than	 ?1	 ?mg/day	 ?of	 ?PM2.5	 ?were	 ?the	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?stoves,	 ?LPG	 ?and	 ?kerosene	 ?(See	 ?Table	 ?1).	 ?Though	 ?Smith	 ?and	 ?Peel?s	 ?study	 ?only	 ?examined	 ?the	 ?effects	 ?of	 ?cardiovascular	 ?disease,	 ?they	 ?expect	 ?a	 ?similar	 ?dose-??response	 ?relationship	 ?for	 ?other	 ?diseases	 ?linked	 ?to	 ?intake	 ?of	 ?PM2.5,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?acute	 ?respiratory	 ?infections,	 ?pregnancy	 ?implications	 ?and	 ?cerebrovascular	 ?disease.	 ?Their	 ?one	 ?stated	 ?exception	 ?is	 ?lung	 ?cancer,	 ?which	 ?they	 ?predict	 ?would	 ?have	 ?more	 ?of	 ?a	 ?linear	 ?relationship.	 ?	 ?	 ? 20	 ?Even	 ?though	 ?theoretically	 ?based,	 ?this	 ?research	 ?has	 ?important	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?cookstove	 ?projects.	 ?Assuming	 ?the	 ?relationship	 ?projected	 ?by	 ?Smith	 ?and	 ?Peel	 ?(2010)	 ?is	 ?true,	 ?by	 ?far	 ?the	 ?best	 ?health	 ?intervention	 ?would	 ?be	 ?a	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?stove,	 ?more	 ?specifically	 ?LPG.	 ?In	 ?the	 ?case	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?credits,	 ?this	 ?would	 ?only	 ?be	 ?possible	 ?through	 ?a	 ?voluntary	 ?scheme	 ?as	 ?the	 ?CDM	 ?does	 ?not	 ?allow	 ?for	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?stoves	 ?to	 ?qualify	 ?for	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?unless	 ?switching	 ?from	 ?a	 ?high	 ?to	 ?low-??carbon	 ?intensive	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?(e.g.	 ?coal	 ?to	 ?LPG).	 ?Additionally,	 ?as	 ?fossil	 ?fuels	 ?are	 ?on	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?upper	 ?rungs	 ?of	 ?the	 ?transition	 ?from	 ?traditional	 ?to	 ?modern	 ?fuels12	 ?they	 ?are	 ?financially	 ?and	 ?physically	 ?available	 ?only	 ?to	 ?middle	 ?to	 ?upper	 ?income	 ?households	 ?living	 ?close	 ?enough	 ?to	 ?a	 ?town	 ?or	 ?city	 ?with	 ?an	 ?effective	 ?fuel	 ?supply	 ?chain.	 ?	 ?Many	 ?areas	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?urban	 ?areas	 ?in	 ?developing	 ?countries	 ?lack	 ?a	 ?well-??functioning	 ?supply	 ?chain	 ?to	 ?distribute	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?stoves	 ?and	 ?fuel	 ?to	 ?rural	 ?communities.	 ?Therefore	 ?to	 ?maximize	 ?health	 ?in	 ?more	 ?rural	 ?settings	 ?would	 ?require	 ?significant	 ?efforts	 ?to	 ?establish	 ?a	 ?supply	 ?chain	 ?and	 ?also	 ?provide	 ?appropriate	 ?subsidies	 ?for	 ?such	 ?fuels	 ?to	 ?be	 ?affordable	 ?for	 ?households	 ?who	 ?currently	 ?cannot	 ?afford	 ?such	 ?technology.	 ?Under	 ?current	 ?circumstances,	 ?it	 ?seems	 ?access	 ?to	 ?these	 ?fuels	 ?will	 ?still	 ?only	 ?be	 ?provided	 ?for	 ?those	 ?with	 ?high	 ?enough	 ?incomes,	 ?as	 ?fuel	 ?subsidies	 ?can	 ?only	 ?go	 ?so	 ?far	 ?and	 ?often	 ?can	 ?result	 ?in	 ?unintended	 ?misallocation	 ?of	 ?benefits	 ?(Zerriffi	 ?2011).	 ?	 ?Carbon	 ?credits	 ?could	 ?help	 ?to	 ?offset	 ?some	 ?of	 ?these	 ?costs	 ?by	 ?providing	 ?an	 ?internal	 ?subsidy,	 ?but	 ?again	 ?earning	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?when	 ?switching	 ?to	 ?fossil	 ?fuels	 ?as	 ?the	 ?improved	 ?technology	 ?is	 ?only	 ?possible	 ?under	 ?the	 ?voluntary	 ?methodology	 ?in	 ?most	 ?scenarios,	 ?which	 ?currently	 ?earns	 ?less	 ?per	 ?credit	 ?than	 ?credits	 ?sold	 ?in	 ?the	 ?compliance	 ?market	 ?(Peters-??Stanley	 ?and	 ?Hamilton	 ?2012).	 ?Additionally	 ?the	 ?money	 ?earned	 ?through	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?under	 ?either	 ?methodology	 ?may	 ?not	 ?be	 ?enough	 ?to	 ?make	 ?such	 ?a	 ?venture	 ?profitable	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?relatively	 ?high	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?LPG.	 ?More	 ?technologically	 ?advanced	 ?improved	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?12	 ?See	 ?Kowsari	 ?and	 ?Zerriffi	 ?(2011)	 ?for	 ?review	 ?of	 ?the	 ?household	 ?energy	 ?transition	 ?concept.	 ?	 ? 21	 ?biomass	 ?stoves	 ?such	 ?biomass	 ?gasifers	 ?or	 ?stoves	 ?with	 ?an	 ?integrated	 ?battery	 ?generated	 ?fan	 ?(e.g.	 ?Philip?s	 ??fan?	 ?stove13	 ?or	 ?Biolite?s	 ??HomeStove?14),	 ?have	 ?higher	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?combustion	 ?than	 ?other	 ?more	 ?simply	 ?designed	 ?improved	 ?stoves	 ?and	 ?therefore	 ?emit	 ?less	 ?PM2.5.	 ?Due	 ?to	 ?their	 ?more	 ?complex	 ?technology	 ?they	 ?also	 ?cost	 ?more,	 ?but	 ?less	 ?than	 ?LPG,	 ?and	 ?could	 ?be	 ?a	 ?potential	 ?alternative	 ?to	 ?the	 ?LPG	 ?stove	 ?intervention	 ?while	 ?still	 ?providing	 ?increased	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?more	 ?basic	 ?models	 ?of	 ?improved	 ?stoves.	 ?The	 ?most	 ?cost	 ?effective	 ?improved	 ?cookstove	 ?with	 ?relatively	 ?high	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?is	 ?the	 ?charcoal	 ?stove	 ?as	 ?discussed	 ?in	 ?Bailis	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2005),	 ?yet	 ?according	 ?to	 ?their	 ?projections,	 ?this	 ?would	 ?greatly	 ?increase	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?Representing	 ?Health	 ?in	 ?Carbon	 ?Credits?	 ?In	 ?Grieshop	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?(2011)?s	 ?analysis	 ?they	 ?included	 ?different	 ?GHGs	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?forcing	 ?species	 ?beyond	 ?those	 ?calculated	 ?in	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?markets.	 ?One	 ?climate-??forcing	 ?species	 ?with	 ?a	 ?large	 ?GWP	 ?is	 ?black	 ?carbon.	 ?As	 ?previously	 ?mentioned	 ?black	 ?carbon	 ?is	 ?part	 ?of	 ?particulate	 ?matter	 ?emitted,	 ?which	 ?causes	 ?many	 ?of	 ?the	 ?health	 ?problems	 ?previously	 ?discussed.	 ?Including	 ?black	 ?carbon	 ?in	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?calculations	 ?has	 ?been	 ?proposed	 ?(PCIA	 ?2011),	 ?but	 ?as	 ?of	 ?yet	 ?there	 ?has	 ?been	 ?no	 ?serious	 ?discussion	 ?of	 ?implementing	 ?this.	 ?Though	 ?there	 ?have	 ?not	 ?been	 ?any	 ?studies	 ?as	 ?of	 ?yet	 ?directly	 ?calculating	 ?the	 ?exact	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?that	 ?could	 ?be	 ?produced	 ?when	 ?including	 ?black	 ?carbon,	 ?it	 ?would	 ?probably	 ?increase	 ?them	 ?due	 ?to	 ?its	 ?high	 ?GWP.	 ?The	 ?inclusion	 ?of	 ?black	 ?carbon	 ?may	 ?also	 ?help	 ?to	 ?inherently	 ?include	 ?health	 ?considerations	 ?in	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?calculations	 ?as	 ?this	 ?has	 ?direct	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?health	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?13	 ?See:	 ?http://www.hedon.info/PhilipsWoodStove;	 ?http://www.research.philips.com/password/download/password_28.pdf	 ?14	 ?See:	 ?http://biolitestove.com/homestove/overview/	 ?	 ?	 ? 22	 ?unlike	 ?CO2	 ?and	 ?CH4,	 ?the	 ?current	 ?GHGs	 ?included	 ?in	 ?such	 ?calculations.	 ?At	 ?the	 ?moment,	 ?this	 ?is	 ?just	 ?speculation	 ?and	 ?the	 ?actual	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?changing	 ?the	 ?methodologies	 ?is	 ?unknown.	 ?	 ?Summary	 ?Although	 ?improved	 ?cookstove	 ?projects	 ?can	 ?achieve	 ??win-??win?	 ?benefits,	 ?as	 ?demonstrated	 ?in	 ?this	 ?paper,	 ?there	 ?are	 ?tradeoffs	 ?between	 ?the	 ?multiple	 ?benefits	 ?that	 ?can	 ?be	 ?produced.	 ?	 ?If	 ?health	 ?is	 ?the	 ?priority,	 ?then	 ?one	 ?must	 ?seriously	 ?consider	 ?whether	 ?or	 ?not	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?are	 ?the	 ?best	 ?mechanism	 ?to	 ?implement	 ?a	 ?cookstove	 ?project.	 ?Carbon	 ?credits	 ?limit	 ?the	 ?location	 ?in	 ?which	 ?such	 ?projects	 ?can	 ?be	 ?implemented	 ?to	 ?only	 ?those	 ?with	 ?fuel	 ?being	 ?harvested	 ?at	 ?non-??renewable	 ?rates,	 ?but	 ?at	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time	 ?provide	 ?an	 ?opportunity	 ?to	 ?fund	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?have	 ?the	 ?potential	 ?to	 ?have	 ?financial	 ?sustainability	 ?while	 ?targeting	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?world?s	 ?poorest	 ?population.	 ?For	 ?climate,	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?already	 ?help	 ?to	 ?support	 ?these	 ?objectives.	 ?	 ?If	 ??win-??win?	 ?benefits	 ?are	 ?an	 ?explicit	 ?goal	 ?of	 ?the	 ?project,	 ?then	 ?they	 ?need	 ?to	 ?be	 ?concretely	 ?defined.	 ?They	 ?should	 ?clearly	 ?delineate	 ?objectives	 ?and	 ?indicate	 ?how	 ?success	 ?is	 ?to	 ?be	 ?measured	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?design	 ?an	 ?appropriate	 ?cookstove	 ?project	 ?that	 ?can	 ?achieve	 ?high	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?multiple	 ?benefits.	 ?	 ?Conclusion	 ?When	 ?implementing	 ?cookstove	 ?projects,	 ?different	 ?models	 ?of	 ?improved	 ?cookstoves	 ?present	 ?tradeoffs	 ?between	 ?the	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?and	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?that	 ?can	 ?be	 ?achieved.	 ?Therefore	 ?achieving	 ??win-??win?	 ?benefits	 ?in	 ?such	 ?projects	 ?can	 ?also	 ?involve	 ?a	 ?tradeoff	 ?of	 ?benefits.	 ?When	 ?implementing	 ?cookstove	 ?projects,	 ?details	 ?such	 ?as	 ?type	 ?of	 ?stove,	 ?target	 ?demographic,	 ?and	 ?location	 ?will	 ?all	 ?impact	 ?the	 ?outcome	 ?of	 ?such	 ?projects	 ?and	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?different	 ?benefits	 ?generated.	 ?	 ?	 ? 23	 ?Without	 ?a	 ?conscious	 ?effort	 ?to	 ?balance	 ?the	 ?different	 ?benefits	 ?that	 ?can	 ?be	 ?generated,	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?will	 ?tend	 ?to	 ?prioritize	 ?climate	 ?over	 ?health	 ?benefits.	 ?Tools	 ?such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?matrix	 ?requirements	 ?under	 ?the	 ?GS	 ?framework	 ?are	 ?good,	 ?but	 ?are	 ?not	 ?considered	 ?enough	 ?to	 ?ensure	 ?sustainable	 ?development	 ?in	 ?such	 ?projects.	 ?This	 ?does	 ?not	 ?mean	 ?that	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?should	 ?be	 ?abandoned.	 ?Such	 ?financial	 ?opportunity	 ?can	 ?enable	 ?large-??scale	 ?cookstove	 ?diffusion	 ?and	 ?target	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?world?s	 ?poorest	 ?populations	 ?while	 ?improving	 ?prospects	 ?for	 ?financial	 ?sustainability.	 ?It	 ?does	 ?raise	 ?the	 ?question,	 ?however,	 ?of	 ?how	 ?other	 ?benefits	 ?can	 ?be	 ?incorporated	 ?into	 ?the	 ?crediting	 ?framework	 ?to	 ?ensure	 ?proper	 ?balance	 ?between	 ?different	 ?objectives.	 ?	 ?One	 ?possibility	 ?is	 ?the	 ?inclusion	 ?of	 ?black	 ?carbon	 ?in	 ?carbon	 ?credit	 ?calculations.	 ?This	 ?has	 ?the	 ?potential	 ?to	 ?incorporate	 ?some	 ?level	 ?of	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?directly	 ?into	 ?calculations,	 ?but	 ?actual	 ?implications	 ?of	 ?this	 ?are	 ?unknown.	 ?Objectives	 ?and	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?success	 ?of	 ?any	 ?cookstove	 ?project	 ?need	 ?to	 ?be	 ?explicitly	 ?and	 ?concretely	 ?defined	 ?at	 ?the	 ?beginning	 ?of	 ?the	 ?project,	 ?as	 ?these	 ?definitions	 ?will	 ?have	 ?great	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?project	 ?design	 ?and	 ?the	 ?resulting	 ?benefits	 ?created.	 ?If	 ?health	 ?is	 ?the	 ?priority	 ?and	 ?project	 ?funds	 ?are	 ?available,	 ?carbon	 ?credits	 ?may	 ?not	 ?always	 ?be	 ?the	 ?best	 ?method	 ?for	 ?implementing	 ?such	 ?a	 ?project.	 ?	 ?Acknowledgements	 ?The	 ?authors	 ?appreciate	 ?the	 ?insight	 ?and	 ?guidance	 ?from	 ?Dr.	 ?Andrew	 ?Grieshop	 ?(Dept.	 ?of	 ?Civil,	 ?Construction,	 ?and	 ?Environmental	 ?Engineering,	 ?North	 ?Carolina	 ?State	 ?University)	 ?who	 ?provided	 ?quintessential	 ?support.	 ?Additionally	 ?they	 ?would	 ?like	 ?to	 ?thank	 ?the	 ?organizers	 ?and	 ?participants	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Future	 ?Forestry	 ?Leaders	 ?Symposium	 ?for	 ?fostering	 ?a	 ?stimulating,	 ?intellectual	 ?environment	 ?to	 ?share	 ?and	 ?extend	 ?graduate	 ?students?	 ?research.	 ?Funding	 ?was	 ?provided	 ?through	 ?Natural	 ?Sciences	 ?and	 ?Engineering	 ?Research	 ?Council	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Bridge	 ?Canadian	 ?Institutes	 ?of	 ?Health	 ?Research	 ?Strategic	 ?Training	 ?Fellowship.	 ?	 ?	 ? 24	 ?References	 ?Bailis,	 ?R.,	 ?M.	 ?Ezzati	 ?and	 ?D.	 ?M.	 ?Kammen.	 ?2005.	 ?Mortality	 ?and	 ?Greenhouse	 ?Gas	 ?Impacts	 ?of	 ?Biomass	 ?and	 ?Petroleum	 ?Energy	 ?Futures	 ?in	 ?Africa.	 ?Science	 ?308:98?103.	 ?Bailis,	 ?R.,	 ?A.	 ?Cowan,	 ?V.	 ?Berrueta	 ?and	 ?O.	 ?Masera.	 ?2009.	 ?Arresting	 ?the	 ?Killer	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Kitchen:	 ?The	 ?Promises	 ?and	 ?Pitfalls	 ?of	 ?Commercializing	 ?Improved	 ?Cookstoves.	 ?World	 ?Development	 ?37:1694?1705.	 ?	 ?Barnes,	 ?D.F.,	 ?K.	 ?Openshaw	 ?,	 ?K.	 ?R.	 ?Smith	 ?and	 ?R.	 ?van	 ?der	 ?Plas.	 ?1993.	 ?The	 ?design	 ?and	 ?diffusion	 ?of	 ?improved	 ?cooking	 ?stoves.	 ?The	 ?World	 ?Bank	 ?Research	 ?Observer	 ?8:119?141.	 ?	 ?Blunck,	 ?M.,	 ?C.	 ?Griebenow,	 ?M.	 ?Rammelt	 ?and	 ?C.	 ?Zimm.	 ?2011.	 ?Carbon	 ?Markets	 ?for	 ?Improved	 ?Cooking	 ?Stoves.,	 ?A	 ?GIZ	 ?guide	 ?for	 ?project	 ?operators.	 ?GIZ-??HERA	 ??	 ?Poverty-??oriented	 ?Basic	 ?Energy	 ?Services:1?63.	 ?Bond	 ?T,	 ?C.	 ?Venkataraman	 ?and	 ?O.	 ?Masera.	 ?2004.	 ?Global	 ?atmospheric	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?residential	 ?fuels.	 ?Energy	 ?for	 ?Sustainable	 ?Development	 ?8:20?32.	 ?Bruce,	 ?N,	 ?R.	 ?Perez-?Padilla	 ?and	 ?R	 ?Albalak.	 ?2000.	 ?Indoor	 ?air	 ?pollution	 ?in	 ?developing	 ?countries:	 ?a	 ?major	 ?environmental	 ?and	 ?public	 ?health	 ?challenge.	 ?Bull.	 ?World	 ?Health	 ?Organ.	 ?78:1078?1092.	 ?Bumpus,	 ?A.	 ?G.	 ?2009.	 ?The	 ?geographies	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?offsets:	 ?governance,	 ?materialities	 ?and	 ?development.	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Oxford,	 ?Oxford,	 ?U.K.	 ?p.	 ?1-??365.	 ?Bumpus,	 ?A.G.	 ?and	 ?J.C.	 ?Cole.	 ?2010.	 ?How	 ?can	 ?the	 ?current	 ?CDM	 ?deliver	 ?sustainable	 ?development?	 ?WIREs	 ?Climate	 ?Change	 ?1:541?547.	 ?Bumpus,	 ?A.G.	 ?2011.	 ?The	 ?Matter	 ?of	 ?Carbon:	 ?Understanding	 ?the	 ?Materiality	 ?of	 ?tCO2e	 ?in	 ?Carbon	 ?Offsets.	 ?Antipode	 ?43:612?638.	 ?	 ?Chaurey,	 ?A.,	 ?P.R.	 ?Krithika,	 ?D.	 ?Palit,	 ?S.	 ?Rakesh	 ?and	 ?B.K.	 ?Sovacool.	 ?2012.	 ?New	 ?partnerships	 ?and	 ?business	 ?models	 ?for	 ?facilitating	 ?energy	 ?access.	 ?Energy	 ?Policy	 ?[In	 ?Press]	 ?:1?8.	 ?Cosbey,	 ?A.,	 ?J.	 ?Parry,	 ?J.	 ?Browne,	 ?Y.	 ?D.	 ?Babu,	 ?P.	 ?Bhandari,	 ?J.	 ?Drexhage	 ?and	 ?D.	 ?Murphy.	 ?2005.	 ?Realizing	 ?the	 ?Development	 ?Dividend:	 ?Making	 ?the	 ?CDM	 ?Work	 ?for	 ?Developing	 ?Countries	 ?(Phase	 ?I	 ?	 ? 25	 ?Report).	 ?International	 ?Institute	 ?for	 ?Sustainable	 ?Development	 ?[Internet]:1?72.	 ?(Available	 ?from:	 ?http://www.iisd.org/climate/global/dividend.asp).	 ?Cox,	 ?P.	 ?2011.	 ?Analysis	 ?of	 ?Cookstove	 ?Change-??Out	 ?Projects	 ?Seeking	 ?Carbon	 ?Credits.	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Minnesota	 ?Law	 ?School	 ?[Internet]:1-??51.	 ?(Available	 ?from:	 ?http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1839765).	 ?Elias,	 ?R.J.	 ?and	 ?D.G.	 ?Victor.	 ?2005.	 ?Energy	 ?transitions	 ?in	 ?developing	 ?countries:	 ?a	 ?review	 ?of	 ?concepts	 ?and	 ?literature.	 ?The	 ?Program	 ?on	 ?Energy	 ?and	 ?Sustainable	 ?Development,	 ?Standford	 ?University	 ?[Working	 ?Paper#	 ?40]:	 ?1-??33.	 ?Food	 ?and	 ?Agriculture	 ?Organization	 ?(FAO).	 ?2002.	 ?Chapter	 ?2:	 ?Wood	 ?As	 ?An	 ?Energy	 ?Source.	 ?In	 ?Economic	 ?Analysis	 ?of	 ?Wood	 ?Energy	 ?Systems.	 ?FAO.	 ?(Available	 ?from:	 ?http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y4327E/Y4327E00.HTM).	 ?Figueres	 ?,C.	 ?2006.	 ?Sectoral	 ?CDM:	 ?Opening	 ?the	 ?CDM	 ?to	 ?the	 ?yet	 ?Unrealized	 ?Goal	 ?of	 ?Sustainable	 ?Development.	 ?International	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Sustainable	 ?Development,	 ?Law	 ?&	 ?Policy	 ?2:1?20.	 ?Global	 ?Alliance	 ?for	 ?Clean	 ?Cookstoves	 ?(GACC).	 ?2011.	 ?Working	 ?Group	 ?Early	 ?Action	 ?Items.	 ?GACC	 ?[Internet]:1?47.	 ?(Available	 ?from:	 ?http://cleancookstoves.org/wp-??content/uploads/2011/06/Early-??Action-??Item-??Compilation-??FINAL.pdf).	 ?Grieshop	 ?A.P.,	 ?C.C.O.	 ?Reynolds	 ?CCO,	 ?M.	 ?Kandlikar	 ?and	 ?H.	 ?Dowlatabadi.	 ?2009.	 ?A	 ?black-??carbon	 ?mitigation	 ?wedge.	 ?Nature	 ?Publishing	 ?Group	 ?2:533?534.	 ?Grieshop,	 ?A.P.,	 ?J.	 ?D.	 ?Marshall	 ?and	 ?M.	 ?Kandlikar.	 ?2011.	 ?Health	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?cookstove	 ?replacement	 ?options.	 ?Energy	 ?Policy	 ?39:7530?7542.	 ?Hanbar,	 ?R.D.	 ?and	 ?P.	 ?Karve.	 ?2002.	 ?National	 ?Programme	 ?on	 ?Improved	 ?Chulha	 ?(NPIC)	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Government	 ?of	 ?India:	 ?an	 ?overview.	 ?Energy	 ?for	 ?Sustainable	 ?Development	 ?6:49?55.	 ?Holdren,	 ?J.P.	 ?and	 ?K.	 ?R.	 ?Smith.	 ?2000.	 ?Chapter	 ?3:	 ?Energy,	 ?the	 ?Environment,	 ?and	 ?Health.	 ?In	 ?Energy	 ?and	 ?the	 ?challenge	 ?of	 ?sustainability.	 ?United	 ?Nations	 ?Development	 ?Programme,	 ?New	 ?York:	 ?61-??104.	 ?Hutton,	 ?G.,	 ?E.	 ?Rehfuess,	 ?F.	 ?Tediosi	 ?and	 ?S.	 ?Weiss.	 ?2006.	 ?Evaluation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?costs	 ?and	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?	 ? 26	 ?household	 ?energy	 ?and	 ?health	 ?interventions	 ?at	 ?global	 ?and	 ?regional	 ?levels	 ?Summary.	 ?World	 ?Health	 ?Organization	 ?[Internet]:1?19.	 ?(Available	 ?from:	 ?http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/summary/en/index.html).	 ?Jetter,	 ?J.J.,	 ?and	 ?P.	 ?Kariher.	 ?2009.	 ?Solid-??fuel	 ?household	 ?cook	 ?stoves:	 ?Characterization	 ?of	 ?performance	 ?and	 ?emissions.	 ?Biomass	 ?and	 ?Bioenergy	 ?33:294?305.	 ?Johnson,	 ?M.,	 ?R.	 ?Edwards	 ?and	 ?O.	 ?Masera.	 ?2010.	 ?Improved	 ?stove	 ?programs	 ?need	 ?robust	 ?methods	 ?to	 ?estimate	 ?carbon	 ?offsets.	 ?Climatic	 ?Change	 ?102:641?649.	 ?Kowsari,	 ?R.	 ?and	 ?H.	 ?Zerriffi.	 ?2011.	 ?Three	 ?dimensional	 ?energy	 ?profile	 ?A	 ?conceptual	 ?framework	 ?for	 ?assessing	 ?household	 ?energy	 ?use.	 ?Energy	 ?Policy	 ?39:7505?7517.	 ?Legros,	 ?G.,	 ?I.	 ?Havet	 ?,	 ?N.	 ?Bruce	 ?and	 ?S.	 ?Bonjour.	 ?2009.	 ?The	 ?energy	 ?access	 ?situation	 ?in	 ?developing	 ?countries:	 ?a	 ?review	 ?focusing	 ?on	 ?the	 ?least	 ?developed	 ?countries	 ?and	 ?Sub-??Saharan	 ?Africa.	 ?United	 ?Nations	 ?Development	 ?Programme	 ?and	 ?the	 ?World	 ?Health	 ?Organization[Internet]:	 ?1-??130.	 ?(Available	 ?from:	 ?http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/energyaccesssituation/en/index.html).	 ?Matinga,	 ?M.N.	 ?2008.	 ?The	 ?making	 ?of	 ?hardiness	 ?in	 ?women?s	 ?experience	 ?of	 ?health	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?wood	 ?collection	 ?and	 ?use	 ?in	 ?Cuntwini,	 ?rural	 ?South	 ?Africa.	 ?Medische	 ?Anthropologie	 ?20:	 ?279?295.	 ?Mehta,	 ?S.	 ?and	 ?C.	 ?Shahpar.	 ?2004.	 ?The	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?interventions	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?indoor	 ?air	 ?pollution	 ?from	 ?solid	 ?fuel	 ?use:	 ?a	 ?cost-??effectiveness	 ?analysis.	 ?Energy	 ?for	 ?Sustainable	 ?Development	 ?8:1?7.	 ?Naeher,	 ?L.P.,	 ?M.	 ?Brauer,	 ?M.	 ?Lipsett,	 ?J.T.	 ?Zelikoff,	 ?C.D.	 ?Simpson,	 ?J.Q.	 ?Koenig	 ?and	 ?K.	 ?R.	 ?Smith.	 ?2007.	 ?Woodsmoke	 ?Health	 ?Effects:	 ?A	 ?Review.	 ?Inhalation	 ?Toxicology	 ?19:67?106.	 ?Olsen,	 ?K.H.	 ?2007.	 ?The	 ?clean	 ?development	 ?mechanism?s	 ?contribution	 ?to	 ?sustainable	 ?development:	 ?a	 ?review	 ?of	 ?the	 ?literature.	 ?Climatic	 ?Change	 ?84:59?73.	 ?Parikh,	 ?J.	 ?2011.	 ?Hardships	 ?and	 ?health	 ?impacts	 ?on	 ?women	 ?due	 ?to	 ?traditional	 ?cooking	 ?fuels	 ?A	 ?case	 ?study	 ?of	 ?Himachal	 ?Pradesh,	 ?India.	 ?Energy	 ?Policy	 ?39:7587?7594.	 ?Patrick,	 ?E.	 ?2007.	 ?Sexual	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?firewood	 ?collection	 ?in	 ?Darfur.	 ?Forced	 ?Migration	 ?Review	 ?27:40?41.	 ?	 ? 27	 ?Partnership	 ?for	 ?Clean	 ?Indoor	 ?Air	 ?(PCIA).	 ?2011.	 ?Perspectives:	 ?Allocating	 ?Carbon	 ?Revenue.	 ?Webinar,	 ?15	 ?Dec	 ?2011.	 ?PCIA	 ?[Internet]	 ?(Available	 ?from:	 ?http://www.pciaonline.org/Webinar_Perspectives_Allocating_Carbon_Revenue).	 ?Pearson,	 ?B.	 ?2006.	 ?Market	 ?failure:	 ?why	 ?the	 ?Clean	 ?Development	 ?Mechanism	 ?won't	 ?promote	 ?clean	 ?development.	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Cleaner	 ?Production	 ?15:247?252.	 ?Peters-?Stanley,	 ?M.	 ?and	 ?K.	 ?	 ?Hamilton.	 ?2012.	 ?Developing	 ?Dimension:	 ?State	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Voluntary	 ?Carbon	 ?Markets	 ?2012.	 ?Ecosystem	 ?Marketplace	 ?&	 ?Bloomberg	 ?New	 ?Energy	 ?Finance	 ?:1-??90.	 ?Pine,	 ?K.,	 ?R.	 ?Edwards,	 ?O.	 ?Masera,	 ?A.	 ?Schilmann,	 ?A.	 ?Marr?n-?Mares	 ?and	 ?H.	 ?Riojas-?Rodr?guez	 ?2011.	 ?Adoption	 ?and	 ?use	 ?of	 ?improved	 ?biomass	 ?stoves	 ?in	 ?Rural	 ?Mexico.	 ?Energy	 ?for	 ?Sustainable	 ?Development	 ?15:176?183.	 ?Pope,	 ?D.P.,	 ?V.	 ?Mishra,	 ?L.	 ?Thompson,	 ?A.R.	 ?Siddiqui	 ?,	 ?E.A.	 ?Rehfuess,	 ?M.	 ?Weber	 ?and	 ?N.G.	 ?Bruce.	 ?2010.	 ?Risk	 ?of	 ?Low	 ?Birth	 ?Weight	 ?and	 ?Stillbirth	 ?Associated	 ?With	 ?Indoor	 ?Air	 ?Pollution	 ?From	 ?Solid	 ?Fuel	 ?Use	 ?in	 ?Developing	 ?Countries.	 ?Epidemiologic	 ?Reviews	 ?32:70?81.	 ?Rai,	 ?K.	 ?and	 ?J.	 ?McDonald.	 ?2009.	 ?Cookstoves	 ?and	 ?Markets:	 ?Experiences,	 ?Successes	 ?and	 ?Opportunities.	 ?GVEP	 ?International	 ?:1-??41.	 ?Rehfuess,	 ?E.	 ?2006.	 ?Fuel	 ?for	 ?life:	 ?household	 ?energy	 ?and	 ?health.	 ?World	 ?Health	 ?Organization	 ?[Internet]:1-??42.	 ?(Available	 ?from:	 ?http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/fuelforlife/en/index.html).	 ?Roden,	 ?C.A.,	 ?T.C.	 ?Bond,	 ?S.	 ?Conway	 ?and	 ?A.B.O.	 ?Pinel	 ?2006.	 ?Emission	 ?Factors	 ?and	 ?Real-??Time	 ?Optical	 ?Properties	 ?of	 ?Particles	 ?Emitted	 ?from	 ?Traditional	 ?Wood	 ?Burning	 ?Cookstoves.	 ?Environ.	 ?Sci.	 ?Technol.	 ?40:6750?6757.	 ?Ruiz-?Mercado,	 ?I.,	 ?O.	 ?Masera,	 ?H.	 ?Zamora	 ?and	 ?K.R.	 ?Smith.	 ?2011.	 ?Adoption	 ?and	 ?sustained	 ?use	 ?of	 ?improved	 ?cookstoves.	 ?Energy	 ?Policy	 ?39:7557?7566.	 ?Shrimali,	 ?G.,	 ?X.	 ?Slaski,	 ?M.C.	 ?Thurber	 ?and	 ?H.	 ?Zerriffi.	 ?2011.	 ?Improved	 ?stoves	 ?in	 ?India:	 ?A	 ?study	 ?of	 ?sustainable	 ?business	 ?models.	 ?Energy	 ?Policy	 ?39:7543?7556.	 ?Simon,	 ?G.L.,	 ?A.G.	 ?Bumpus	 ?and	 ?P.	 ?Mann.	 ?2012.	 ?Win-??win	 ?scenarios	 ?at	 ?the	 ?climate?development	 ?	 ? 28	 ?interface:	 ?Challenges	 ?and	 ?opportunities	 ?for	 ?stove	 ?replacement	 ?programs	 ?through	 ?carbon	 ?finance.	 ?Global	 ?Environmental	 ?Change	 ?22:275?287.	 ?Sinton,	 ?J.E.,	 ?K.R.	 ?Smith,	 ?J.W.	 ?Peabody,	 ?L.	 ?Yaping,	 ?Z.	 ?Xiliang,	 ?R.	 ?Edwards	 ?and	 ?G.	 ?Quan.	 ?2004.	 ?An	 ?assessment	 ?of	 ?programs	 ?to	 ?promote	 ?improved	 ?household	 ?stoves	 ?in	 ?China.	 ?Energy	 ?for	 ?Sustainable	 ?Development	 ?8:33?52.	 ?Smith,	 ?K.R.,	 ?G.	 ?Shuhua,	 ?H.	 ?Kun,	 ?Q.	 ?Daxiong.	 ?1993.	 ?One	 ?hundred	 ?million	 ?improved	 ?cookstoves	 ?in	 ?China:	 ?how	 ?was	 ?it	 ?done?	 ?World	 ?Development	 ?21:941?961.	 ?Smith,	 ?K.R.,	 ?J.M.	 ?Samet,	 ?I.	 ?Romieu	 ?and	 ?N.	 ?Bruce.	 ?2000a.	 ?Indoor	 ?air	 ?pollution	 ?in	 ?developing	 ?countries	 ?and	 ?acute	 ?lower	 ?respiratory	 ?infections	 ?in	 ?children.	 ?Thorax	 ?55:518?532.	 ?Smith,	 ?K.R.,	 ?R.	 ?Uma,	 ?V.	 ?Kishore,	 ?J.	 ?Zhang,	 ?V.	 ?Joshi	 ?and	 ?M.	 ?Khalil.	 ?2000b.	 ?Greenhouse	 ?implications	 ?of	 ?household	 ?stoves:	 ?an	 ?analysis	 ?for	 ?India.	 ?Annu.	 ?Rev.	 ?Energy	 ?Environ.	 ?25:741?763.	 ?Smith,	 ?K.R.	 ?and	 ?S.	 ?Mehta.	 ?2003.	 ?The	 ?burden	 ?of	 ?disease	 ?from	 ?indoor	 ?air	 ?pollution	 ?in	 ?developing	 ?countries:	 ?comparison	 ?of	 ?estimates.	 ?Int	 ?J	 ?Hyg	 ?Environ	 ?Health	 ?206:279?289.	 ?Smith,	 ?K.R.	 ?and	 ?E.	 ?Haigler.	 ?2008.	 ?Co-??Benefits	 ?of	 ?Climate	 ?Mitigation	 ?and	 ?Health	 ?Protection	 ?in	 ?Energy	 ?Systems:	 ?Scoping	 ?Methods.	 ?Annu.	 ?Rev.	 ?Public.	 ?Health.	 ?29:11?25.	 ?Smith,	 ?K.R.,	 ?M.	 ?Jerrett,	 ?H.R.	 ?Anderson,	 ?R.T.	 ?Burnett,	 ?V.	 ?Stone,	 ?R.	 ?Derwent,	 ?R.W.	 ?Atkinson,	 ?A.	 ?Cohen,	 ?S.B.	 ?Shonkoff,	 ?D.	 ?Krewski,	 ?C.A.	 ?Pope	 ?III,	 ?M.J.	 ?Thun	 ?and	 ?G.	 ?Thurston.	 ?2009a.	 ?Public	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?strategies	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?greenhouse-??gas	 ?emissions:	 ?health	 ?implications	 ?of	 ?short-??lived	 ?greenhouse	 ?pollutants.	 ?The	 ?Lancet	 ?374:2091?2103.	 ?Smith,	 ?K.R.,	 ?J.P.	 ?Mccracken	 ?,	 ?L.	 ?Thompson,	 ?R.	 ?Edwards,	 ?K.N.	 ?Shields,	 ?E.	 ?Canuz	 ?and	 ?N.	 ?Bruce.	 ?2009b.	 ?Personal	 ?child	 ?and	 ?mother	 ?carbon	 ?monoxide	 ?exposures	 ?and	 ?kitchen	 ?levels:	 ?Methods	 ?and	 ?results	 ?from	 ?a	 ?randomized	 ?trial	 ?of	 ?woodfired	 ?chimney	 ?cookstoves	 ?in	 ?Guatemala	 ?(RESPIRE).	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Exposure	 ?Science	 ?and	 ?Environmental	 ?Epidemiology	 ?1?11.	 ?Smith,	 ?K.R.	 ?and	 ?J.L.	 ?Peel.	 ?2010.	 ?Mind	 ?the	 ?Gap.	 ?Environ	 ?Health	 ?Perspect	 ?118:1643?1645.	 ?	 ? 29	 ?	 ?Smith,	 ?K.R.	 ?and	 ?K.	 ?Dutta.	 ?2011.	 ??Cooking	 ?with	 ?Gas?.	 ?Energy	 ?for	 ?Sustainable	 ?Development	 ?15(2):115-??116.	 ?Sterk,	 ?W.	 ?and	 ?B.	 ?Wittneben.	 ?2006.	 ?Enhancing	 ?the	 ?clean	 ?development	 ?mechanism	 ?through	 ?sectoral	 ?approaches:	 ?definitions,	 ?applications	 ?and	 ?ways	 ?forward.	 ?Int	 ?Environ	 ?Agreements	 ?6:271?287.	 ?The	 ?Gold	 ?Standard	 ?(GS).	 ?2012.	 ?Validating	 ?carbon	 ?reductions	 ?and	 ?community	 ?development:	 ?GS	 ?Methodologies.	 ?The	 ?Gold	 ?Standard	 ?[Internet]	 ?(Available	 ?from:	 ?http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/project-??certification/gs-??methodologies)	 ?[Accessed	 ?24	 ?April	 ?2012].	 ?The	 ?Gold	 ?Standard	 ?(GS).	 ?2011.	 ?What	 ?we	 ?do.	 ?The	 ?Gold	 ?Standard	 ?[Internet]	 ?(Available	 ?from:	 ?http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/What-??we-??do.64.0.html)	 ?[Accessed	 ?08	 ?August	 ?2011].	 ?Top,	 ?N.,	 ?N.	 ?Mizoue,	 ?S.	 ?Ito	 ?and	 ?S.	 ?Kai.	 ?2004.	 ?Spatial	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?woodfuel	 ?supply	 ?and	 ?demand	 ?in	 ?Kampong	 ?Thom	 ?Province,	 ?Cambodia.	 ?Forest	 ?Ecology	 ?and	 ?Management	 ?194:369?378.	 ?Troncoso,	 ?K.,	 ?A.	 ?Castillo,	 ?L.	 ?Merino,	 ?E.	 ?Lazos	 ?and	 ?O.R.	 ?Masera.	 ?2011.	 ?Understanding	 ?an	 ?improved	 ?cookstove	 ?program	 ?in	 ?rural	 ?Mexico	 ?An	 ?analysis	 ?from	 ?the	 ?implementers'	 ?perspective.	 ?Energy	 ?Policy	 ?39:7600?7608.	 ?United	 ?Nations	 ?(UN).	 ?1998.	 ?Kyoto	 ?Protocol	 ?to	 ?the	 ?United	 ?Nationals	 ?framework	 ?convention	 ?on	 ?climate	 ?change.	 ?UNFCC,	 ?United	 ?Nations	 ?:1?21.	 ?United	 ?Nations	 ?Framework	 ?Convention	 ?on	 ?Climate	 ?Change	 ?(UNFCCC).	 ?2011.	 ?About	 ?CDM.	 ?UNFCCC	 ?[Internet]	 ?(Available	 ?from:	 ?http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/index.html)	 ?[Accessed	 ?08	 ?August	 ?2011].	 ?World	 ?Health	 ?Organization	 ?(WHO).	 ?2004.	 ?The	 ?global	 ?burden	 ?of	 ?disease,	 ?2004	 ?update.	 ?World	 ?Health	 ?Organization:1-??146.	 ?Wickramasinghe,	 ?A.	 ?2003.	 ?Gender	 ?and	 ?health	 ?issues	 ?in	 ?the	 ?biomass	 ?energy	 ?cycle:	 ?impediments	 ?to	 ?sustainable	 ?development.	 ?Energy	 ?for	 ?Sustainable	 ?Development	 ?7(3):	 ?51?61.	 ?	 ? 30	 ?Wickramasinghe,	 ?A.	 ?2011.	 ?Energy	 ?access	 ?and	 ?transition	 ?to	 ?cleaner	 ?cooking	 ?fuels	 ?and	 ?technologies	 ?in	 ?Sri	 ?Lanka	 ?Issues	 ?and	 ?policy	 ?limitations.	 ?Energy	 ?Policy	 ?39:7567?7574.	 ?Wilkinson,	 ?P.,	 ?K.R.	 ?Smith,	 ?M.	 ?Davies,	 ?H.	 ?Adair,	 ?B.G.	 ?Armstrong,	 ?M.	 ?Barrett,	 ?N.	 ?Bruce,	 ?A.	 ?Haines,	 ?I.	 ?Hamilton,	 ?T.	 ?Oreszczyn,	 ?I.	 ?Ridley,	 ?C.	 ?Tonne	 ?and	 ?Z.	 ?Chalabi.	 ?2009.	 ?Public	 ?health	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?strategies	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?greenhouse-??gas	 ?emissions:	 ?household	 ?energy.	 ?The	 ?Lancet	 ?374:1917?1929.	 ?Zerriffi,	 ?H.	 ?2011.	 ?Innovative	 ?business	 ?models	 ?for	 ?the	 ?scale-??up	 ?of	 ?energy	 ?access	 ?efforts	 ?for	 ?the	 ?poorest.	 ?Current	 ?Opinion	 ?in	 ?Environmental	 ?Sustainability	 ?3:272?278.	 ?Zhang,	 ?J.,	 ?K.R.	 ?Smith,	 ?Y.	 ?Ma,	 ?S.	 ?Ye,	 ?F.	 ?Jiang,	 ?W.	 ?Qi,	 ?P.	 ?Liu,	 ?M.	 ?Khalil,	 ?R.	 ?Rasmussen	 ?and	 ?S.	 ?Thorneloe.	 ?2000.	 ?Greenhouse	 ?gases	 ?and	 ?other	 ?airborne	 ?pollutants	 ?from	 ?household	 ?stoves	 ?in	 ?China:	 ?a	 ?database	 ?for	 ?emission	 ?factors.	 ?Atmospheric	 ?Environment	 ?34:4537?4549.	 ?Zhou,	 ?Z.,	 ?K.	 ?L.	 ?Dionisio,	 ?R.	 ?E.	 ?Arku,	 ?A.	 ?Quaye,	 ?A.	 ?F.	 ?Hughes,	 ?J.	 ?Vallarino,	 ?J.D.	 ?Spengler,	 ?A.	 ?Hill,	 ?S.	 ?Agyei-?Mensah	 ?and	 ?M.	 ?Ezzati.	 ?2011.	 ?Household	 ?and	 ?community	 ?poverty,	 ?biomass	 ?use,	 ?and	 ?air	 ?pollution	 ?in	 ?Accra,	 ?Ghana.	 ?PNAs	 ?108(27):	 ?11028-??11033.	 ?

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0132672/manifest

Comment

Related Items