UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Maximizing climate and health benefits in household energy carbon credit projects Freeman, Olivia Esther 2012

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2012_fall_freeman_olivia.pdf [ 2.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0073206.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0073206-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0073206-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0073206-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0073206-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0073206-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0073206-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0073206-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0073206.ris

Full Text

MAXIMIZING(CLIMATE(AND(HEALTH(BENEFITS(IN(HOUSEHOLD( ENERGY(CARBON(CREDIT(PROJECTS( by# Olivia#Esther#Freeman# # B.Sc.,#University#of#British#Columbia,#2009# # # A#THESIS#SUBMITTED#IN#PARTITIAL#FULFILLMENT#OF# #THE#REQUIREMENTS#FOR#THE#DEGREE#OF# # MASTER#OF#SCIENCE# in# The#Faculty#of#Graduate#Studies# (Resource#Management#and#Environmental#Studies)# # THE#UNIVERSITY#OF#BRITISH#COLUMBIA# (Vancouver)# # September#2012# # # @#Olivia#Esther#Freeman,#2012#  ABSTRACT( ‘Improved’#cooking#technologies,#which#in#general#are#cleaner#burning#with#higher# levels#of#complete#combustion,#greater#efficiency#and#better#heat#transfer#then#lessX efficient#cooking#technologies,#have#been#generally#understood#in#the#global# community#to#be#a#‘winXwin’#development#intervention#creating#a#multitude#of# benefits.#Yet#as#in#most#environmentXdevelopment#efforts#there#are#many# unacknowledged#tradeoffs#that#exist#under#the#allXencompassing#‘winXwin’#claims.# In#this#study#tradeoffs#made#between#two#coXbenefits#of#cookstove#projects,#climate# and#health,#are#examined#under#the#framework#of#carbon#financing#mechanisms.# Two#methodologies#used#to#calculate#carbon#credits#for#cookstove#projects#are# compared,#the#Gold#Standard#method#and#the#Clean#Development#Mechanism# method.#Different#carbon#credit#scenarios#are#evaluated#for#how#they#compare#to# estimated#health#impacts#when#switching#from#a#traditional#biomass#stove#to#each# of#the#other#ten#alternative#stoveXfuel#combinations#including#three#basic#improved# biomass#stoves,#two#gasifying#biomass#stoves,#two#coal#stoves,#one#charcoal#stove# and#two#liquid#fossil#fuel#stoves.#Tradeoffs#between#the#maximization#of#coXbenefits# were#found#to#exist,#with#carbon#credits#inherently#accounting#for#climate#benefits,# but#not#health.# #The#three#stove#types#achieving#the#highest#levels#of#coXbenefits#were#the#two#liquid# fossil#fuel#fueled#stoves#included#in#the#analyses,#kerosene#and#liquid#petroleum#gas,# and#a#more#technologically#advanced#gasifying#biomass#stove#with#a#battery# powered#fan.#Yet#they#were#also#the#most#expensive#and#the#fossil#fuel#stoves#were#  #  ii!  treated#very#differently#in#the#two#methodologies,#creating#a#diffusion#barrier#to# achieve#the#highest#maximization#of#coXbenefits.# The#Gold#Standard#methodology#consistently#calculated#more#carbon#credits#than# the#Clean#Development#Mechanism,#largely#due#to#its#inclusion#of#methane# emissions#in#its#calculations.#Including#black#carbon#emissions#in#theoretical#carbon# credit#calculations#also#significantly#increased#the#number#of#credits#calculated.#If# accounted#for#in#such#equations#this#could#greatly#increase#the#amount#of#income# earned#per#project#as#well#as#change#how#such#projects#are#designed#and# approached#due#to#the#large#increase#in#potential#credits#calculated.#As#health#and# other#development#benefits#are#not#inherently#included#in#carbon#credit# calculations,#in#order#to#achieve#‘winXwin’#outcomes,#deliberate#decisions#about# project#design#need#to#be#made#to#ensure#such#objectives#are#actually#met#and#not# simply#assumed.#  #  iii!  PREFACE( The#research#in#this#thesis#will#be#published#in#two#peerXreviewed#articles.#Both#will# be#coXauthored#by#my#supervisor,#Dr.#Hisham#Zerriffi#and#me.#The#first#is#based#on# the#literary#review#included#in#the#A"Review"of"the"Literature#section.#The#second# covers#the#main#research#material#in#this#thesis.#The#conceptual#idea#for#this# research#was#proposed#by#Dr.#Hisham#Zerriffi.#I#carried#out#the#literature#review#and# analyses#under#Dr.#Hisham#Zerriffi’s#supervision.#I#wrote#the#manuscripts#for#both# papers#and#Dr.#Hisham#Zerriffi#contributed#towards#the#revision#of#both#in# preparation#for#publication.# # # # # # # # # # # # # #  #  iv!  TABLE(OF(CONTENTS(( ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................ii# PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................iv# LIST(OF(TABLES .................................................................................................................... viii# LIST(OF(FIGURES .....................................................................................................................ix# LIST(OF(ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. x# ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................................xi# 1# INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1# 2# A(REVIEW(OF(THE(LITERATURE ..................................................................................5# 2.1# Overview................................................................................................................................... 5# 2.2# ‘Improved’(Stoves(and(Their(Benefits............................................................................. 6# 2.3# Products(of(Incomplete(Combustion:(Health(and(Climate(Implications ............. 8# 2.4# Carbon(Credits:(How(They(Work ....................................................................................10# 2.5# Carbon(Credit(Calculations ...............................................................................................13# 2.6# Measuring(Health(Benefits ...............................................................................................16# 2.7# Comparing(Climate(and(Health(Benefits ......................................................................18# 2.8# Additional(Tradeoffs(in(Actual(Project(Implementation ........................................20# 2.9# Knowledge(Gap .....................................................................................................................22#  3# METHODS.......................................................................................................................... 24# 3.1# Overview.................................................................................................................................24# 3.2# Stove(Types ............................................................................................................................24# 3.3# Emission(Factors ..................................................................................................................27#  #  v!  3.4# Measuring(Climate(Impacts:(Carbon(Credits ..............................................................30# 3.4.1# CDM..................................................................................................................................................... 30# 3.4.2# GS ......................................................................................................................................................... 31# 3.5# CDM(vs(GS ...............................................................................................................................32# 3.6# Accounting(for(Additional(Climate(Forcings...............................................................33# 3.7# fNRB(Sensitivity(Analysis ..................................................................................................34# 3.8# Estimating(Health(Impacts:(Individual(Exposure(and(Relative(Risk ..................35# 3.9# Comparing(Health(and(Climate(Benefits ......................................................................37#  4# RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 39# 4.1# CDM(vs(GS:(Carbon(Credits(Calculated ..........................................................................39# 4.1.1# Accounting#for#Additional#Climate#Forcings ..................................................................... 41# 4.1.2# Fraction#of#NonXRenewable#Biomass................................................................................... 42# 4.2# Health(Performance............................................................................................................44# 4.3# Climate(vs(Health .................................................................................................................45#  5# DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................... 50# 5.1# Choosing(a(Methodology....................................................................................................50# 5.2# Methodological(Game(Changers......................................................................................51# 5.2.1# Black#Carbon................................................................................................................................... 51# 5.2.2# fNRB.................................................................................................................................................... 52# 5.2.3# Propagation#of#Uncertainty ...................................................................................................... 54# 5.3# Reducing(Already(Low(Levels(of(Exposure?................................................................54# 5.4# Maximizing(Climate(and(Health(Benefits.....................................................................55# 5.5# Fostering(Sustainable(Development .............................................................................57#  6# CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 59# #  vi!  REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 61# #  #  vii!  (  LIST(OF(TABLES( Table(1###Average#price#of#carbon#credits#in#2011#for#voluntary#emission#reduction# (VER)#and#certified#emission#reduction#(CER)#credits………………………...…..…13# Table(2###Inventory#and#details#of#stoves#included#in#this#study……………..…………….26# Table(3###Inventory#of#emission#factors#for#each#stove/species………………………...…..28# Table(4###Global#Warming#Potential#(GWP100)#used#for#all#species#in#this#study….…34# Table(5###Climate#and#health#scenarios#ranked#for#different#scenarios………………….46#  #  viii!  LIST(OF(FIGURES( Figure(1###Comparing#the#two#methodologies#for#calculating#carbon#credits#for# cookstove#projects:#Clean#Development#Mechanism#(CDM)#and#Gold#Standard# (GS)………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………….40## Figure(2###Breakdown#of#specific#species#reductions#for#CDM#and#GS……………….…..42# Figure(3#Sensitivity#analyses#of#the#fraction#of#nonXrenewable#biomass#for#CDM#and# GS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...43# Figure(4#Comparing#climate#and#health#benefits#for#CDM#and#GS………………………...47# Figure(5#Adjusted#relative#risk#vs#individual#exposure#of#PM2.5#in#mg/day#for#each# different#stove………………………………………………………………………………………………....…48# Figure(6#Scenarios#ranked#by#the#number#of#carbon#credits#calculated………………..49#  #  ix!  LIST(OF(ACRONYMS(( ALRI# # BC# # CER( ( CDM( ( CH4# # CO( ( CO2# # COPD( ( CVD# # EF# # fNRB# # GHGs( ( GS# # GWP# # IAP( # IPCC# # LPG# # N2O# # NGO# # NMHC## NOx( ( OC# # PICs# # PM2.5( ( PM10( ( SO2# # tCO2e# # VER# # WBT# #  #  Acute#Lower#Respiratory#Infections# Black#Carbon# Certified#Emission#Reduction# Clean#Development#Mechanism# Methane# Carbon#Monoxide# Carbon#Dioxide# Chronic#Obstructive#Pulmonary#Disease# Cardiovascular#Disease# Emission#Factor# Fraction#of#NonXRenewable#Biomass# Greenhouse#Gases# Gold#Standard# Global#Warming#Potential# Indoor#Air#Pollution# Intergovernmental#Panel#on#Climate#Change# Liquid#Petroleum#Gas# Nitrous#Oxide# NonXGovernmental#Organization# NonXMethane#Hydrocarbons# Nitrogen#Oxide( Organic#Carbon# Products#of#Incomplete#Combustion# Particulate#Matter#Equal#to#or#Smaller#than#2.5#Microns#in#Diameter# Particulate#Matter#Equal#to#or#Smaller#than#10#Microns#in#Diameter# Sulfur#Dioxide# 1#Tonne#of#CO2#Equivalent# Voluntary#Emission#Reduction# Water#Boiling#Test#  x!  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS( First#I#would#like#to#acknowledge#my#supervisor#Dr.#Hisham#Zerriffi,#for#his#support# and#insight#during#this#journey.#I#have#appreciated#his#openness#and#flexibility# throughout#the#process.#Next#I#would#like#to#thank#Dr.#Andrew#Grieshop.#His# clarification#and#guidance#significantly#contributed#towards#my#understanding#of# the#subject#material.#To#my#committee#members,#Dr.#Michael#Brauer#and#Dr.#Robert# Bailis,#thank#you#for#your#contributions,#participation#and#support.#I#have#really# appreciated#the#input#you#both#have#contributed#from#your#respective#areas#of# expertise,#greatly#improving#my#depth#of#knowledge.# The#completion#of#this#Master’s#was#financially#made#possible#by:#the#Natural# Sciences#and#Engineering#Research#Council#of#Canada,#the#Bridge#Canadian# Institutes#of#Health#Research#Strategic#Training#Fellowship,#and#the#UBC# International#Research#Mobility#Award,#all#of#which#I#am#extremely#grateful#for.# To#my#fellow#colleagues,#a#big#thank#you#to#Reza#Kowsari,#Gerald#Singh,#and#Brian# Just#for#your#technical#and#intellectual#support.#It#would#have#been#a#much#more# lonely#and#difficult#road#without#you.#To#all#my#colleagues#in#the#IRES,#the#Bridge# Program,#the#IDRN#and#UBC,#you#are#awesome.#I#am#so#lucky#to#have#been# surrounded#by#an#amazing,#intelligent,#interesting#and#genuine#group#of#people.#You# are#largely#responsible#for#making#these#last#two#years#so#great.#Lastly#I#would#like# to#acknowledge#the#additional#mentorship#and#support#from#other#staff#and#faculty# members.#I#would#especially#like#to#thank#Dr.#Robin#Naidoo,#Dr.#Tim#McDaniels,#and# Dr.#Hadi#Dowlatabadi.#It#has#been#a#pleasure#working#with#all#of#you. #  xi!  1  INTRODUCTION(  On#the#surface,#using#carbon#credits#to#fund#the#diffusion#of#improved#cooking# technologies#in#the#developing#world#would#seem#to#be#an#appealing#approach#to# mitigating#two#of#the#grand#challenges#facing#the#world#today:#climate#change#and# the#negative#health#impacts#from#indoor#air#pollution#(IAP)#resulting#in# approximately#1.3#million#premature#deaths#annually#in#lowXincome#countries#and#2# million#globally1#(Mathers#et#al.,#2009).#Roughly#3#billion#people#globally#rely# directly#on#inefficiently#burning#solid#materials#like#wood,#charcoal,#dung#and#coal#to# meet#their#daily#cooking#needs#(Legros#et#al.,#2009).#On#the#one#hand#this#has#direct# environmental#effects#ranging#from#emissions#of#greenhouse#gases#(GHGs)#to# pressures#on#local#forest#resources.#On#the#other#hand,#indoor#emissions#creating# major#health#impacts#and#the#need#to#spend#time#and#energy#collecting#fuel#that# could#be#productively#used#otherwise#makes#this#a#major#development#problem.# Cookstoves#projects#that#can#reduce#or#eliminate#solid#fuel#use,#reduce#indoor# emissions#and#reduce#GHG#emissions#are#framed#as#‘winXwin’#projects#and#have# gained#traction#globally#as#of#late.#This#includes#increased#international#investment# in#proXpoor#cookstove#companies#and#organizations,#the#creation#of#the# international#publicXprivate#partnership,#the#Global#Alliance#for#Clean#Cookstoves2,# which#has#the#ambitious#goal#to#provide#100#million#households#with#improved# cooking#technologies#by#2020,#and#the#opportunity#to#apply#for#carbon#credit# ######################################################## 1#Due#to#the#burning#of#solid#fuels#only.#Globally#the#impacts#are#experienced#in#middleX#and#  lowXincome#countries#only#(based#upon#countries#categorized#by#gross#national#income#per# capitaX#lowXincome:#US$825#or#less;#middleXincome:#$825X$10.066#(Mathers#et#al.,#2009)).# 2#http://www.cleancookstoves.org/#[Accessed:#September#1,#2012]#  #  1!  funding.#In#the#case#of#carbon#credits,#cookstove#projects#are#viewed#as#being#one#of# the#few#projects#directly#promoting#sustainable#development#through#the# incremental,#direct#development#and#climate#benefits#they#can#create# simultaneously#(Bumpus,#2009;#Simon#et#al.,#2012;#PetersXStanley#and#Hamilton,# 2012).# As#is#the#case#in#other#developmentXenvironment#initiatives#framed#as#‘winXwin’# there#are#inherent#tradeoffs#made#between#potential#benefits#or#‘wins’,#sometimes# creating#‘winners’#and#‘losers’#(McShane#et#al.,#2011;#Simon#et#al.,#2012;#Tailis#et#al.,# 2008).#In#an#analysis#of#World#Bank#projects#with#dual#environmental#and# development#objectives#only#16%#were#found#to#effectively#address#both#(Tailis#et# al.,#2008).#In#the#case#of#cookstoves,#Simon#et#al.#(2012)#state#that#some#of#the# challenges#with#implementing#carbon#financed#cookstove#projects#can#result#in# mutually#supported#impediments.#For#example#the#large#scale#at#which#such# projects#need#to#be#implemented#to#be#profitable#can#make#the#already#existing# development#challenge#of#providing#appropriate#uptake#of#technology#on#a#local,# longXterm#scale#an#intensified#impediment#for#project#success.# Though#there#can#be#overall#improvement#in#many#potential#benefits#of# developmentXenvironment#initiatives,#some#benefits#may#be#preferentially# privileged#over#others.#Therefore#the#term#‘winXwin’#contains#many#subtle#nuances# often#not#explicitly#recognized#or#addressed.#The#seduction#of#‘winXwin’#initiatives# presents#the#danger#of#developmentXenvironment#initiatives#resulting#in#varied# performance#with#unacknowledged#tradeoffs.#  #  2!  Drawing#on#the#literature#and#three#cookstove#specific#case#studies#Simon#et#al.# (2012)#provides#an#overview#of#such#‘winXwin’#nuances#for#carbon#financed# cookstove#projects.#They#stress#that#‘winXwin’#climate#and#development#benefits#are# not#automatically#achieved#through#carbon#financed#cookstove#projects.#Of# particular#importance,#the#definition#of#‘winXwin’#can#have#direct#implications#on# outcomes#of#such#projects#influencing#who#benefits#and#how.#Focusing#mainly#on# development#benefits#more#generally,#they#do#not#compare#specific#tradeoffs# between#the#maximization#of#health#and#climate#benefits,#mentioning#only#that# health#benefits#are#incrementally#created#along#with#climate#benefits.#While#this#is# the#case#in#many#scenarios,#there#are#tradeoffs#that#exist#between#the#maximization# of#health#vs#climate#benefits;#some#stoves#are#optimized#to#reduce#GHGs#while# others#are#better#at#reducing#exposure#to#particulate#matter,#resulting#in#higher# health#benefits#(Grieshop#et#al.,#2011).# This#research#addresses#the#knowledge#gaps#that#exist,#specifically#focusing#on# tradeoffs#between#the#maximization#of#climate#and#health#benefits#for#cookstoves#in# the#context#of#carbon#credit#markets.#As#carbon#credit#programs#provide#large# potential#to#help#fund#cookstove#initiatives#and#the#number#of#applications#for# cookstove#carbon#credit#projects#continue#to#increase#(Blunck#et#al.,#2011),# implications#of#carbon#credit#certification#on#health#outcomes#is#salient.# Additionally#this#research#examines#some#of#the#specifics#in#the#calculations#of# carbon#credits,#comparing#two#different#methodologies,#the#Clean#Development# Mechanism#(CDM)#and#the#Gold#Standard#(GS),#and#exploring#the#impact#on#carbon#  #  3!  credits#calculated#when#a#more#extensive#set#of#climate#forcings#are#included#in#the# calculations.#Both#of#these#have#a#large#impact#on#how#climate#benefits#are# represented#in#cookstove#carbon#credit#projects,#which#are#then#compared#with# health#benefits.#Potential#tradeoffs#are#examined#in#three#main#areas:#the#choice#of# carbon#credit#methodology,#methodological#considerations#within#the#calculations,# and#how#overall#health#and#climate#benefits#of#carbon#credit#cookstove#projects# compare#for#the#different#types#of#cookstoves#included#in#this#study.# Through#these#analyses,#this#work#touches#on#debates#about#the#technicalities#of# carbon#accounting,#integration#of#measures#for#promoting#sustainable#development# through#carbon#credit#projects,#and#some#of#the#benefit#tradeoffs#involved#in# implementing#cookstove#projects#under#a#carbon#credit#framework.#The#aim#is#that# the#findings#from#this#research#provide#informative#material#that#can#be#taken#into# consideration#in#the#future#implementation#of#carbon#credit#cookstove#projects.#  #  4!  2  A(REVIEW(OF(THE(LITERATURE3(  2.1 Overview( To#compare#the#relative#climate#and#health#benefits#of#different#cookstove#scenarios# under#the#carbon#credit#framework#a#summary#of#relevant#concepts#and#previous# work#are#presented.#In#this#section#the#following#areas#are#reviewed:# •  the#definition#of#an#‘improved’#cookstove#and#the#corresponding#potential# benefits;#  •  the#climate#and#health#implications#resulting#from#cookstove#emissions;#  •  an#introduction#to#carbon#credits#and#the#two#different#carbon#credit# methodologies#cookstove#projects#can#become#certified#under;#  •  some#methodological#concerns#in#the#current#cookstove#carbon#credit# methodologies#including#the#extent#to#which#climate#forcings#are# represented;#  •  the#two#estimates#of#potential#health#benefits#created#by#‘improved’# cookstoves#employed#in#the#analyses;#  •  previous#work#looking#at#tradeoffs#between#climate#and#health#benefits#in# cookstove#projects;#  •  additional#tradeoffs#involved#in#actual#cookstove#project#implementation;#  ######################################################## 3#This#section#draws#on#work#from#two#manuscripts#that#are#being#prepared#for#publication.#  Sections#2.2,#2.3,#part#of#2.6,#2.7#and#2.8#draw#on#work#written#for#publication#in#the#Forestry" Chronicle.#This#paper#has#been#accepted,#but#not#yet#published.#Sections#2.4,#2.5,#part#of#2.6# and#2.9#are#from#a#manuscript#under#preparation#to#be#submitted#to#a#peerXreviewed# publication#after#completion#of#the#thesis.#The#rest#of#the#material#in#this#document#from#the# methods#section#on#draws#directly#from#the#same#work#written#for#the#second#publication.#  #  5!  •  #and#finally#the#knowledge#gap#which#is#addressed#in#this#study#is#identified.#  2.2 ‘Improved’(Stoves(and(Their(Benefits( Nearly#half#of#the#wood#harvested#globally#is#used#as#fuelwood#(FAO,#2002).#More# than#3#billion#people#rely#on#some#form#of#solid#fuels#(traditional#biomass,#charcoal# and#coal)#to#meet#their#cooking#and#heating#needs#almost#all#of#which#are#in# developing#countries,#the#largest#concentrations#of#users#living#specifically#in#Asia# and#subXSaharan#Africa#(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#use#an#‘improved’#cookstove#on#a#daily#basis,#more#than#twoXthirds#of#which# live#in#China#(Legros#et#al.,#2009).# #An#‘improved’#cooking#technology#is#a#term#that#is#used#liberally4.#It#usually#refers# to#a#stove#with#increased#efficiency,#more#complete#combustion,#and#better#heat# transfer.5##This#corresponds#to#a#decrease#in#fuel#use,#and#decreased#emission#of# products#of#incomplete#combustion.#As#a#result,#switching#from#a#traditional6#or#less# efficient#cooking#technology#to#an#improved#cooking#technology#has#long#been# considered#a#‘winXwin’#development#project#due#to#the#coXbenefits#that#can#result# ######################################################## 4#See#Smith#and#Dutta#(2011)#for#discussion#about#the#appropriateness#of#the#word#  ‘improved’#to#describe#cleaner#cooking#technologies.# 5#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,#liquefied#petroleum#gas#(LPG)#and#biogas#stoves#that#avoid#using#solid#fuels#in#the# household#entirely.#Here#such#distinction#is#not#made#with#both#types#of#stoves#referred#to# as#‘improved’.# 6#Traditional#cookstoves#include#‘threeXstone’#fires#and#hand#built#mud#stoves.#Both#are#  characterized#by#inefficiency#and#generation#of#smoke.##  #  6!  (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#IAP# (Bruce#et#al.,#2000;#Smith#et#al.,#2000c;#Smith#and#Mehta,#2003;#Rehfuess,# 2006),#reduced#physical#burden#and#risk#associated#with#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# emitted#(e.g.#GHGs)#(Bond#et#al.,#2004;#Smith#and#Haigler,#2008;#Grieshop#et# al.,#2011)#  •  Economic(benefits((See#Barnes#et#al.,#1993;#Hutton#et#al.,#2006:#Rehfuess,# 2006):#reduced#expenditures#(if#paying#for#fuel),#time#savings,#increased# productivity,#decreased#health#costs,#potential#engagement#in#other#economic# generating#activities,#job#creation#  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#nonX  #  7!  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.,#2000c;#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;#RuizXMercado#et#al.,#2011;#Wickramasignhe#et#al.,#2011).# 2.3 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#  #  8!  and#health.#PICs#consist#of:#inorganic#gases#(e.g.#carbon#monoxide#(CO),#nitrous# oxide#(N2O)),#hydrocarbons#(e.g.#nonXmethane#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#80X99%#depending#on#the#type#of#fuel#and#stove#that#is#being# used#(Smith#et#al.,#2000b).7#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#(OC)#and#sulfates#are#both#climate#cooling,#while#black# carbon#(BC)#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,#different#cooking#fuels#have#different#climate# benefits#associated#with#them.#For#example,#charcoal#and#fossil#fuels#(including#coal)# ######################################################## 7#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#as# heat,#heat"transfer"efficiency#is#the#amount#of#heat#that#is#transferred#to#the#pot#and#total" energy"efficiency"of"combustion#or"thermal"efficiency"is#overall#efficiency#of#the#stove# integrating#both#nominal#combustion#efficiency#and#heat#transfer#efficiency#values#together.#  #  9!  have#upstream#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#BC.#In#general,#the#cleaner#burning#the#fuel,#the#higher#the# combustion#efficiency,#and#the#less#fuel#used#for#a#given#cooking#task,#the#less# climateXforcing#and#healthXdamaging#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.# 2.4 Carbon(Credits:(How(They(Work( The#carbon#market#was#developed#to#address#concerns#about#climate#change#by# providing#an#economic#mechanism#to#incentivize#the#reduction#of#CO2#and#other# GHGs#emitted.#Carbon#credits#are#tradable#units#that#represent#the#reduction#of#1# tonne#of#CO2#equivalent#(tCO2e)#that#can#be#used#to#offset#emissions.#They#can#be# bought#and#sold#in#two#types#of#carbon#markets,#the#regulated#and#the#voluntary# markets.#Cookstove#projects#are#one#of#the#many#projects#that#can#become#carbon# credit#certified#when#switching#from#the#baseline#to#project#stoves#based#upon#the# amount#of#nonXrenewable#fuel#that#is#reduced#and#in#some#cases#also#based#upon# their#reduction#of#emissions#of#GHGs.#Currently#there#are#two#main#methodologies# by#which#cookstoves#projects#are#certified#to#sell#carbon#credits:#the#CDM#method# (UNFCCC,#2011d)#and#the#GS#method#(The#Gold#Standard,#2011b).# #  10!  The#CDM#is#an#instrument#built#into#the#internationally#negotiated#treaties#to#reduce# greenhouse#gas#emissions#(the#United#Nations#Framework#Convention#on#Climate# Change#and#subsequent#Kyoto#Protocol).##It#accredits#emissionXreduction#projects#in# developing#countries#with#certified#emission#reductions#(CER)#credits,#which#can#be# sold#on#the#regulated#market#(e.g.#European#Emissions#Trading#Scheme).# Industrialized#countries#with#commitments#under#the#Kyoto#Protocol#can#buy#these# credits#to#offset#their#emissions#in#the#most#costXefficient#manner#(UN,#1998;# UNFCCC,#2011a).#At#the#same#time,#developing#countries#that#produce#credits#are# supposed#to#gain#some#development#benefit#from#the#project#as#determined#by#the# Designated#National#Authority#(DNA)#within#the#country.##Since#the#standards# between#the#DNAs#in#countries#can#differ,#this#dearth#of#consistency#results#in#highly# varying#sustainable#development#outcomes.#Due#to#the#lack#of#strong#and#unified# efforts#to#realize#development#benefits#alongside#emission#reductions,#the#CDM#has# been#criticized#for#not#addressing#the#sustainable#development#component#of#their# mandate#(For#a#review#of#the#literature:#Olsen,#2007;#Also#see#Bumpus#and#Cole,# 2010;#Cosbey#et#al.,#2005;#Figueres,#2006;#Pearson,#2006;#Sterk#and#Wittneben,# 2006).# In#comparison,#the#GS#framework#aims#to#provide#higher#levels#of#sustainable# development#than#those#carbon#credits#accredited#under#other#methodologies#such# as#the#CDM.#To#achieve#this#they#limit#the#scope#of#acceptable#project#types#(The# Gold#Standard,#2011c),#make#conservative#baseline#estimates#and#additionality# evaluations#(Drupp,#2011;#The#Gold#Standard,#2011c),#and#require#stakeholder# participation,#environmental#impact#assessments,#and#the#use#of#their#sustainable# #  11!  development#matrix#(The#Gold#Standard,#2011c).#This#strong#commitment#to# sustainable#development#outcomes#in#addition#to#emission#reductions#is#attractive# to#many#different#types#of#buyers#and,#in#theory,#earns#a#premium#on#the#market.# The#GS#framework#can#be#used#to#certify#both#CERs#for#the#regulated#market#or# voluntary#emission#reduction#(VER)#credits.#VER#credits#are#sold#and#traded#in#an# unregulated#carbon#market#to#individuals,#sociallyXresponsible# companies/corporations#and#other#actors#without#regulated#emission#reduction# commitments.#The#GS#CER#credits#are#jointly#certified#under#the#CDM#and#GS#using# CDM#calculations#and#methodology,#but#requiring#the#extra#steps#in#GS#certification# to#ensure#a#higher#quality#credit.#This#can#result#in#the#GS#CER#credits#being#sold#at#a# 5X25%#higher#price#than#CER#credits#alone#(Drupp,#2011).#The#VER#credits#are# calculated#using#a#GS#developed#methodology,#which#has#a#number#of#significant# differences#in#comparison#to#the#CDM#methodology.#In#this#study#when#the#GS# method#is#referred#to,#it#is#referring#to#the#methodology#for#calculating#GS#VER# credits.## In#2011,#cookstove#projects#made#up#4%#of#total#VER#credits#sold.#These#projects# are#relatively#new#in#the#market#and#due#to#the#perceived#‘winXwin’#nature#of#the# projects,#fetched#the#highest#average#price#of#all#VER#project#types,#higher#than#the# average#GS#project#price#and#approximately#$4#below#the#average#price#for#CER# credits#(See#Table"1)#(PetersXStanley#and#Hamilton,#2012).#As#future#investment#in# carbon#markets#are#still#uncertain,#the#current#trends#may#change.#Still#cookstove# credits#are#comparatively#highly#attractive#to#buyers,#specifically#in#the#voluntary#  #  12!  market#as,#“…the#high#price#not#only#reflects#the#cost#to#implement#and#maintain#the# projects,#but#also#corporates’#desire#to#support#projects#with#community#health#and# other#social#benefits”#(PetersXStanley#and#Hamilton,#2012).#Specific#prices#for# cookstove#projects#CER#credits#and#the#difference#in#price#between#average#CER#and# average#CER#GS#credits#were#not#available#for#this#analysis.# Table(1#Price#of#VER#and#CER#credits#in#2011:#all#project#types#vs#GS#projects#vs#cookstove#projects.# Specific#prices#for#CER#GS#and#cookstove#projects#were#not#available.#Prices#were#taken#from:#PetersX Stanley#and#Hamilton#(2012).#  Average(Prices(in(2011( #  All(Projects(  GS(Projects(  Cookstove(Projects(  VER(  $6.20#  $10.40#  $13#  CER( #  $17.38#  N/A#  N/A#  2.5 Carbon(Credit(Calculations( For#carbon#financing#to#uphold#its#integrity,#it#is#crucial#there#are#accurate#carbon# accounting#methods#representative#of#actual#emission#reductions.#Although#the#GS# method#provides#a#more#detailed#calculation#of#emission#reductions#by#including# more#extensive#descriptions#about#input#measurement#and#monitoring#procedures# (The#Gold#Standard,#2011b),#both#CDM#and#GS#methodologies#have#been#criticized# for#lacking#scientific#rigor#to#accurately#calculate#the#amount#of#emission#reductions# (Johnson#et#al.,#2010;#Bumpus,#2011;#GACC,#2011).# The#costs#of#acquiring#measurements#of#variables#rise#with#accuracy.#A#current# challenge#is#determining#an#acceptable#amount#of#uncertainty#in#calculations#while# not#requiring#such#costly#procedures#that#inhibit#the#ability#of#cookstove#projects#to# apply#for#carbon#credits.#In#both#CDM#and#GS#cases,#the#methodology#for#the# #  13!  measurement#of#the#three#primary#inputs,#the#amount#of#wood/fuel#consumed#by# each#technology#(By),#the#fraction#of#the#woody#biomass#(or#other#type#of#fuel)#that# is#nonXrenewable#(fNRB)#and#the#emission#factors#(EFs)#of#technologies,#used#to# calculate#the#amount#of#emissions#reductions#all#include#varying#levels#of# uncertainty#(See#Johnson#et#al.,#2010).# The#fNRB#has#particularly#high#levels#of#uncertainty#involved#in#its#calculation,# which#go#unreported#in#accredited#offsets#(Johnson#et#al.,#2010).#GS#provides#more# guidance#about#how#to#obtain#this#value,#but#both#methodologies#leave#a#lot#of#room# for#interpretation.#As#the#fNRB#determines#the#amount#of#wood#saved#that#is#eligible# for#CO2#offsets,#it#has#a#large#influence#on#the#number#of#carbon#credits#calculated.# The#third#primary#variable,#the#EF#of#the#baseline#technology,#is#misrepresented#by# the#CDM#method#using#a#default#value#based#on#a#weighted#fossil#fuel#mix#(UNFCCC,# 2011c).#This#default#therefore#does#not#reflect#actual#EFs#involved#in#emission# reduction#cookstove#projects.#By#contrast,#the#GS#method#uses#either#the#EFs#of#the# actual#stoves#involved#in#the#project#or#the#Intergovernmental#Panel#on#Climate# Change#(IPCC)#default#EFs#for#both#the#baseline#and#project#technologies#(The#Gold# Standard,#2011b).# Though#carbon#credits#represent#relative#climate#impacts#of#each#stove,#neither# methodology#encompasses#all#climate#forcings#in#their#equations.#Emissions#of#nonX CO2#climateXforcing#species#result#in#a#positive#emission#rate#contributing#to#climate# warming#even#in#the#case#of#renewably#harvested#biomass#(Smith#et#al.,#2000b).# Cookstoves#emit#three#of#the#six#GHGs#included#in#the#Kyoto#protocol:#CO2,#CH4,#and#  #  14!  N2O#(UNFCCC,#2011b;#The#Gold#Standard,#2011b).#In#general,#very#little#N2O#is# emitted#by#cookstoves,#so#it#is#omitted#from#most#calculations8#(Smith#et#al.,#2000b;# Grieshop#et#al.,#2011)#and#therefore#is#not#included#in#this#study’s#calculations.#For# cookstove#projects,#CDM#only#accounts#for#CO2#(UNFCCC,#2011d)#where#the#GS# includes#all#three#relevant#Kyoto#GHGs.#However,#cookstoves#also#emit#climateX forcing#species#that#are#not#included#in#the#Kyoto#Protocol.#One#challenge#with# including#additional#nonXKyoto#climateXforcing#species#is#the#lack#of#agreement#on# Global#Warming#Potential#(GWP)#values#assigned#for#them#or,#in#some#cases,#even# methods#of#measurement.#In#practice#a#number#of#climateXforcing#species#are#left# out#of#both#methodologies:#CO,#NMHC,#BC,#OC#and#sulfur#dioxide#(SO2).# BC#is#commonly#known#as#soot#and#emitted#in#particulate#matter.#Although#it#is# considered#a#‘shortXlived#particle’#persisting#in#the#atmosphere#from#a#period#of# days#to#weeks#it#has#a#very#high#GWP#and#therefore#can#have#significant#shortXterm# climate#impacts#(Bond#and#Sun,#2005;#Kandlikar#et#al.,#2009).#Due#to#its#very#high# GWP,#there#has#been#increased#support#to#focus#on#BC#as#one#mitigation#piece#to# curb#global#warming#(Bond#and#Sun,#2005;#Grieshop#et#al.,#2009;#Jacobson,#2002;# Kandlikar#et#al.,#2009;#Ramanathan#and#Carmichael,#2008;#Reynolds#and#Kandlikar,# 2008).#Globally,#household#fires#and#cookstoves#have#been#identified#as#one#of#the# main#emitters#of#BC#due#to#the#inefficient#combustion#of#fuels.#Advocates#of#BC# mitigation#stress#the#additional#resulting#health#benefits#as#particulate#matter#is# simultaneously#reduced#with#BC#through#the#use#of#more#completely#combusting# ######################################################## 8#With#the#exception#of#coalXfueled#stoves#in#some#cases.#Still,#in#this#study,#N2O#is#not#  included#for#any#of#the#scenarios.#  #  15!  stoves#(Grieshop#et#al.,#2009;#Jacobson,#2002;#Kandlikar#et#al.,#2009).#Due#to#BC’s# high#GWP,#including#it#in#carbon#credit#calculations#could#markedly#increase#the# amount#of#carbon#credits#received#from#clean#cookstove#projects.#Including#OC#and# SO29#are#also#important#as#they#have#negative#GWPs,#contributing#to#climate#cooling,# may#also#have#negative#health#impacts,#and#are#coXemitted#with#BC#(Smith#et#al.,# 2009;#Grieshop#et#al.#2009).# 2.6 Measuring(Health(Benefits( There#are#many#health#benefits#associated#with#cookstove#projects,#the#effects#of# which#are#mostly#experienced#by#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,#the#emissions#of#concentrated#smoke# from#the#use#of#inefficient#cookstoves#are#estimated#to#cause#1.6#million#preXmature# 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# individual#inhalation#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# ######################################################## 9The#emission#of#SO2#is#only#relevant#for#coal#and#kerosene#fueled#stoves#as#biomass,#  charcoal#and#LPG#fueled#stoves#have#low#or#no#emission#of#SO2.#  #  16!  (Mehta#and#Shahpar,#2004;#Smith#et#al.,#2009b),#but#these#emissions#may#still# contribute#to#ambient#air#pollution,#which#could#have#negative#health#implications#in# some#scenarios,#particularly#if#in#a#densely#populated#location#(Zhou#et#al.,#2011;# Wilkinson#et#al.,#2009).# Other#health#impacts#related#to#cookstove#use#include#fatigue,#physical#strain,# and/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).# Although#there#are#other#associated#development#benefits#beyond#decreasing#the# impacts#of#IAP,#health#provides#a#good#comparable#measure#to#evaluate#tradeoffs# between#climate#and#development#benefits#in#carbon#credit#cookstove#programs.# Health#impacts#are#far#reaching#and#can#be#estimated#based#upon#ambient# concentrations#of#stove#emissions#similar#to#climate#benefits#estimated#by#direct# stove#emissions.#Individual#exposure#to#particulate#matter#can#directly#be#translated# into#relative#risk#for#different#diseases#associated#with#IAP.#To#evaluate#health# impacts#of#different#stoves#measures#of#individual#exposure#to#PM2.5#and#relative# risk#are#employed.#Individual#exposure#provides#a#linear#measure#of#potential# relative#health#benefits#of#each#different#technology,#where#relative#risk,#translates# these#exposure#values#to#represent#the#potential#pattern#that#disease#linked#to#IAP# could#follow.#Both#measures#are#based#on#exposure#to#PM2.5,#as#PM2.5#is#a#common#  #  17!  measure#to#quantify#overall#health#impacts#of#IAP#(Sinton#et#al.,#2004;#Naeher#et#al.,# 2007;#Grieshop#et#al.,#2011).# 2.7 Comparing(Climate(and(Health(Benefits( 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# generated#higher#climate#benefits#(the#reduction#of#GHGs#and#other#climateXforcing# agents)#while#others#generated#higher#health#benefits#(in#this#case#relative#risk#of# cardiopulmonary#and#cardiovascular#disease#mortality#based#on#emissions#of#PM2.5).# 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#‘winXwin’#benefits,#having#both# low#emission#of#GHGs#and#PM2.5,#were#the#liquid#fossil#fuel#stoves11#included#in#the# analysis,#the#kerosene#and#liquid#petroleum#gas#(LPG)#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#other# health#dangers#associated#with#its#use,#such#as#poisoning#and#carcinogenic#effects,# making#LPG#the#best#overall#stove#for#achieving#health#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.# 11#When#fossil#fuels#are#referenced#from#here#on#they#refer#to#the#clean#burning#‘modern’#  liquid#fossil#fuels,#specifically#in#this#case#kerosene#and/or#liquid#petroleum#gas#(LPG),# excluding#coal#unless#otherwise#noted.#  #  18!  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#resources.#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#the#burning#of#fuel.#Again#fossil#fuel#stoves#performed#the#best#for# both#climate#and#health#outcomes.# In#the#case#of#carbon#credits#the#CDM#does#not#accept#projects#switching#to#nonX renewable#fuels#unless#it#is#from#high#to#lowXcarbon#intensive#fossil#fuels#(e.g.#coal#to# LPG).#Therefore#the#majority#of#scenarios#with#woody#biomass#as#the#baseline# would#not#be#eligible#to#switch#to#fossil#fuel#stoves#under#this#framework#(UNFCCC,# 2011d).#Comparatively#the#GS#VER#methodology#allows#projects#switching#to#any# kind#of#stove#to#be#accredited#as#long#as#there#are#in#fact#emission#reductions#and# the#project#meets#all#other#methodological#criteria.#Therefore,#if#cookstove# programs#shift#to#become#motivated#by#the#carbon#credit#programs#and#policies#are# static,#under#market#forces,#stoves#eligible#for#carbon#credit#certification#with#the# #  19!  highest#GHG#reduction#will#dominate#and#may#create#tradeoffs#between#the# maximization#of#climate#vs#health#benefits.# 2.8 Additional(Tradeoffs(in(Actual(Project(Implementation( Economic#rationale#has#been#provided#for#the#implementation#of#cookstove#projects# and#programs#based#upon#the#low#relative#cost#of#cookstoves#compared#to#the#large# number#of#benefits#they#can#create#(Mehta#and#Shahpar,#2004;#Bailis#et#al.,#2005;# Bruce#et#al.,#2006;#Hutton#et#al.,#2006).#Still#effective#cookstove#dissemination#has# faced#many#challenges#including#making#userXappropriate#technology,#providing# affordable#stoves#for#the#targeted#population,#and#developing#effective#business# models#for#diffusion#of#improved#cookstove#technology#(Hanbar#and#Karve,#2002;# Rehman#and#Malhotra,#2004;#Bailis#et#al.,#2009;#Troncoso,#2011;#Shrimali#et#al.,# 2011).# Given#that#a#large#portion#of#the#population#that#could#most#benefit#from#improved# cooking#technologies#is#comprised#of#financially#poor#families,#in#many#cases# cookstove#dissemination#needs#to#be#subsidized#(Bailis#et#al.,#2009;#Troncoso,#2011;# Zerriffi#,2011).#Currently#there#are#a#number#of#different#national#and#international# forXprofit#cookstove#businesses#(e.g.#EcoZoom#(EcoZoom,#2012),#Biolite#(Biolite,# 2012),#Philips#(HHEN,#2010;#Philips,#2011),#Envirofit#(Envirofit,#2011),#First#Energy# (PCIA,#2011a;#First#Energy,#2012)).#Most#have#had#some#form#of#international# financial#or#inXkind#support#during#their#business#development,#are#relatively#young,# and#have#yet#to#demonstrate#a#longXterm#sustainable#business#model#(Shrimali#et#al.,# 2011).#Businesses#are#limited#to#targeting#consumer#demographics#that#can#afford#  #  20!  to#buy#a#stove,#whereas#donorXfunded#projects#are#limited#in#scale#by#the#amount# and#frequency#of#funding.#The#opportunity#to#earn#carbon#credits#has#the#potential# to#be#a#financial#mechanism#that#can#support#cookstove#projects#on#a#much#larger# scale#and#target#lower#income#demographics#while#still#being#a#financially# sustainable#business#model.# The#success#of#such#projects#will#be#dependent#on#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#intervention#failures.#These#include,#but#are#not#limited#to:# accounting#for#userXpreferences#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#buyXin#(Barnes#et#al.,#1993;#Rai#and#McDonald,#2009;#Shrimali#et#al.,#2011).# 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,#which#are#inherently#integrated#in#their#implementation#design#(e.g.#profit# seeking#marketXbased#approaches)#or#indicated#in#their#mandate#(e.g.#an#  #  21!  environmental#NGO#vs#povertyXalleviation#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.# 2.9 Knowledge(Gap( There#have#been#some#studies#comparing#the#sustainable#development#outcomes# between#GS#and#CDM#(Nussbaumer,#2009;#Drupp,#2011)#and#motivations#for#using# higher#standard#certification#methodologies#such#as#GS#(Boyd#and#Salzman,#2011)# for#all#project#types,#but#there#is#limited#literature#comparing#the#CDM#and#GS# methodology#specifically#for#cookstove#carbon#credit#projects.#One#study#looks#at# the#scientific#robustness#of#GS#and#CDM#methodological#equations#to#calculate# carbon#credits#for#cookstove#programs#(Johnson#et#al.,#2010),#but#there#have#been# no#studies#in#the#peerXreviewed#literature#that#have#compared#the#amount#of#carbon# credits#that#are#calculated#using#each#methodology#in#different#scenarios.(Simon#et# al.#(2012)#examines#tradeoffs#between#‘winXwin’#benefits#of#carbon#credit#cookstove# projects,#but#do#not#examine#the#tradeoffs#directly#between#health#and#climate,# mentioning#only#that#health#benefits#are#incrementally#created#along#with#climate# benefits#without#accounting#for#the#tradeoffs#in#levels#of#each#benefit#achieved.# Specific#tradeoffs#between#climate#and#health#benefits#of#cookstove#projects#have# been#examined#by#Grieshop#et#al.#(2011),#in#which#comparisons#were#made#between# eleven#stoves.#However,#Grieshop#et#al.#(2011)#do#not#use#carbon#credits#as#a# #  22!  measure#of#climate#benefits#and#instead#base#their#comparisons#on#actual#stove# emissions.##The#global#warming#commitments#calculated#per#stove#in#their#study#do# not#compare#emission#reductions#between#stove#switches#and#they#do#not#base# calculations#on#the#carbon#credit#methodologies;#therefore#Grieshop#et#al.#(2011)# cannot#account#for#how#tradeoffs#might#be#made#in#the#actual#market#for#carbon# credits.# The#analyses#in#this#study#focus#on#three#areas.#First,#the#two#different# methodological#approaches#for#calculating#carbon#credits#currently#available# through#the#CDM#and#the#GS#and#the#number#of#carbon#credits#calculated#under# each#are#compared.#Second,#some#methodological#specifics#are#examined.#Current# climateXforcing#interactions#included#in#the#two#methods,#CDM#and#GS,#are# compared#to#other#calculations#with#a#more#complete#inventory#of#climateXforcing# species#and#impacts#of#the#fNRB#variable#on#the#amount#of#carbon#credits#calculated# are#explored#through#a#sensitivity#analysis.#Lastly,#tradeoffs#between#the#amounts#of# climate#and#health#benefits#created#in#different#scenarios#are#examined#using#the# number#of#carbon#credits#calculated,#and#the#estimated#individual#exposure#to#PM2.5# and#relative#risk#of#potential#disease#mortality#as#measures#of#climate#and#health# benefits.# # #  #  23!  3  METHODS(  3.1 Overview( Drawing#on#work#by#Grieshop#et#al.#(2011)#discussed#above,#this#study#compares# tradeoffs#between#climate#and#health,#employing#the#same#stoves#used#in#their# analysis,#and#their#methods#for#measuring#health#impacts.#For#climate#benefits,# instead#of#emulating#their#methods#to#calculate#direct#stove#emission#reductions#the# CDM#and#the#GS#methods#were#used#to#calculate#carbon#credits#as#a#measure#of# climate#impacts.#Additional#climateXforcing#species#that#are#included#in#Grieshop#et# al.’s#(2011)#“GWCXAll”#scenario#were#also#employed#in#other#carbon#credit# calculations#in#order#to#theoretically#demonstrate#the#impact#of#a#more#complete# accounting#of#climateXforcings.#These#calculations#were#made#under#the#framework# of#the#two#carbon#credit#methodologies,#though#neither#equation#accounts#for#these# additional#species#at#this#time.# In#this#section#the#various#methods#and#values#used#for#this#study’s#analyses#are# described,#which#include:#the#different#stoves#and#EF#values#included#in#the# analyses,#the#methods#for#calculating#health#benefits#and#carbon#credits#under#both# methodologies,#CDM#and#GS,#the#methods#for#including#additional#climateXforcing# interactions#in#the#carbon#credit#calculations,#and#finally#how#climate#and#health# benefits#in#each#different#scenario#are#compared.# 3.2 Stove(Types( Eleven#stoves#are#included#in#this#study.#These#can#be#roughly#grouped#into#six# categories#based#on#similarities#in#thermal#efficiency,#amount#of#fuel#use#and#fuel# #  24!  type:#traditional#biomass#stove#(WXTradXU),#basic#improved#biomass#stoves#(WXImX U,#WXImXV,#WXPatXV),#gasifying#biomass#stoves#(WXGasXU,#WXFanXU),#coalXfueled# stoves#(CoalXU,#CoalXV),#charcoalXfueled#stove#(CharXU)#and#the#cleaner#burning# liquid#fossil#fuel#stoves#(KeroXU,#LPGXU).#There#still#may#be#a#lot#of#variation#in# specific#stoves#not#included#in#this#study#that#fall#into#one#of#these#categories,#but# generally#speaking#the#stoves#included#here#provide#a#rough#representation#of#the# categories#of#stoves#listed#above.#In#this#study#the#stoves#are#referred#to#both# individually#and#in#these#loosely#defined#groups.#For#all#the#analyses#the#baseline# stove#was#assumed#to#be#a#traditional#stove#(WXTradXU).#Therefore#all#the# calculations#of#emission#reductions#are#when#switching#from#the#WXTradXU#to#one#of# the#other#ten#stoves#outlined#in#Table"2.  #  25!  Table&2!A!list!of!the!eleven!stoves!in!this!study,!including!details!about!the!location!the!stove!is!used,!a!brief!description!of!the!stove!itself,!and!thermal! efficiency!and!amount!of!fuel!used!for!each!stove.!Assumed!energy!densities!per!fuel!type!employed!in!the!carbon!credit!calculations!are!also!included.!  Stove& Code&  Location&  Description&  Thermal& Efficiency&  Estimated& Fuel&Use& (t/yr)f,12&  Energy&Densities& (TJ/t)f&  W<Tr<U!  Indiaa/Mexicob!  Traditional!‘three<stone’!stove!or!hand!built!mud!stove.!  18%a!  2.69!  0.015!(wood)a!  W<Im<U!  Indiaa!  Unvented,!free<standing!metal!wood!stove.!  23%a!  2.07!  0.015!(wood)a!  W<Im<V!  Chinac!  Brick!wood!stove!with!a!chimney.!  24%c!  2.02!  0.015!(wood)a!  W<Pat<V!  Mexicob!  Masoned!wood!stove!with!chimney.!  24%g!  2.06!  0.015!(wood)a!  W<Gas<U!  Indiad!  Unvented,!free<standing,!top<feed,!gasifying!wood!stove.!  32%d,h!  1.53!  0.015!(wood)a!  W<Fan<U!  Philip’s!Stoved!  Unvented,!free<standing,!Philip’s!‘Fan’!wood!stove!with!battery! powered!fan.!  40%d,h!  1.21!  0.015!(wood)a!  Coal<U!  Chinac!  Unvented,!metal!coal!stove.!  14%a!  1.87!  0.027!(coal)c!  Coal<V!  Chinac!  Metal!coal!stove!with!chimney.!  17%c!  1.54!  0.027!(coal)c!  Char<U!  Indiae!  Unvented,!free<standing!basic!charcoal!stove.!  18%c!  1.58!  0.026!(charcoal)a!  Ker<U!  Indiaa/Chinac!  Unvented,!free<standing!kerosene!wick!stove.!  50%a!  0.34!  0.043!(kerosene)a!  LPG<U!  Indiaa/Chinac!  Unvented,!free<standing!liquid!petroleum!gas!stove.!  54%a!  0.30!  0.046!(LPG)a!  aSmith!et!al.,!2000a;!bJohnson!et!al.,!2008;!cZhang!et!al.,!2000;!dMacCarty!et!al.,!2008;!eBailis!et!al.,!2003;!fValues!taken!from!Grieshop!et!al.,!2011.!Original!sources!of!data!  cited!where!relevant.;!gBerrueta!et!al.,!2008;!hJetter!and!Kariher,!2009  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 12!Grieshop!et!al.!(2011)!estimated!annual!fuel!use!by!dividing!‘at<the<cookpot’!annual!energy!consumption!(assumed!to!be!7300!MJ/yr)!  by!the!product!of!thermal!efficiency!(MJ!delivered!to!pot/MJ!of!chemical!potential!in!the!fuel)!and!fuel!energy!content!(MJ!chemical! potential/kg).!They!used!values!from!laboratory!tests!as!these!provided!consistent,!comparable!measures,!even!though!efficiencies!during! in<home!cooking!usually!vary!from!lab!results.!  !  26!  3.3 Emission)Factors) All!EF!values!were!measured!from!water!boiling!tests!(WBTs),!a!common!measure! to!determine!stove!performance!based!upon!heat!transfer!and!combustion! efficiency!(For!a!description!of!WBTs!see!Jetter!and!Kariher,!2009).!Though!this! does!not!provide!representative!measures!of!actual!EFs!during!cooking!in!homes,!it! provides!a!consistent,!measure!to!compare!all!the!stoves!against.!InIhome!stoves! likely!have!higher!EFs!than!those!reported!through!WBTs,!especially!for!PM2.5! (Johnson!et!al.,!2008).!For!the!WITradIU!stove,!inIhome!EFs!not!derived!by!WBTs!in! Johnson!et!al.!(2008)!and!Roden!et!al.!(2006)!were!higher!than!the!WBT! measurements!included!in!this!study.!This!was!particularly!true!for!the!emission!of! particulate!matter,!suggesting!negative!health!impacts!of!traditional!stoves!may!be! higher!than!estimated!in!this!study.! The!GS!methodology!includes!production!and!transportation!EFs!of!fuel!in!addition! to!direct!fuel!use!where!relevant.!Production!EFs!were!included!in!calculations!for! coal,!charcoal,!kerosene,!and!LPG!fuels!in!the!GS!calculations,!but!EFs!for! transportation!of!fuel!were!omitted!as!these!will!be!varied!based!on!the!specific! location!and!context!of!each!project.  !  27!  Table&3!Emission!factors!used!in!this!study’s!calculations!for!each!different!stove!type!in!gC/kg!unless!otherwise!noted.! Stove&  CO2&  CO&  CH4&  NMHC&  OC&  BC&  SO2&(g/kg)&  PM2.5&&(g/kg)&  Production13&  W?Tr?Ua!  382.28!±!13.77!  20.67!±!1.67!  2.92!±!0.68!  3.65!±!0.44!  2.15!±!0.59!  1.10!±!0.25!  0.27!±!0.30!  2.78!±!0.60!  N/A!  W?Im?Ub!  391.75!±!38.82!  27.50!±!5.25!  3.00!±!1.02!  8.61!±!2.39!  1.41!±!0.53!  0.53!±!0.19!  0.27!±!0.30!  3.00!±!0.72!  N/A!  W?Im?Vc!  425.45!±!12.76!  10.11!±!1.82!  0.45!±!0.13!  0.09!±!0.08!  0.72!±!0.23!  0.27!±!0.08!  0.27!±!0.30!  1.54!±!0.20!  N/A!  W?Pat?Vd!  370!±!21.35!  22.33!±!4.86!  2.70!±!0.93!  4.10!±!1.67!  2.03!±!0.66!  0.93!±!0.45!  0.27!±!0.30!  3.23!±!1.16!  N/A!  W?Gas?Ue!  463.64*!  18.38*!  1.74*!  2.87*!  0.59*!  0.28*!  0.27!±!0.30!  1.10*!  N/A!  W?Fan?Ue!  463.64*!  1.67*!  0.21*!  0.97*!  0.10*!  0.06*!  0.27!±!0.30!  0.20*!  N/A!  Coal?Uf!  684.55*!  30.30*!  7.73*!  1.61*!  2.35!±!1.95!  3.08!±!2.32!  0.15*!  5.43!±!3.03!  0.52*!  Coal?Vf!  736.36!±!66.27!  40.93!±!15.55!  2.64!±!3.01!  0.87!±!0.90!  2.35!±!1.95!  3.08!±!2.32!  0.88!±!1.33!  5.43!±!3.03!  0.52*!  Char?Ug!  621.82!±!9.27!  111.43!±!4.29! 13.50!±!4.50!  2.13!±!0.60!  0.25!±!0.32!  !0.18!±!0.23!  0.40*!  0.40!±!0.50!  524.90!±!6.41!  Ker?Uh!  838.20!±!28.39!  5.65!±!1.21!  0.12!±!0.07!  5.05!±!0.64!  0.04!±!0.02!  0.03!±!0.02!  0.03!±!0.03!  0.26!±!0.15!  179.84*!  LPG?Uh!  842.06!±!22.28!  3.69!±!0.85!  0.22!±!0.35!  7.35!±!2.04!  0.07!±!0.06!  0.07!±!0.06!  N/A!  0.52!±!0.45!  96.78*!  *No!standard!deviation!values!available!in!original!studies.! a!CO2,!CO,!CH4,!NMHC!(Johnson!et!al.,!2008;!Smith!et!al.,!2000a);!OC,!EC,!PM2.5!(Johnson!et!al.,!2008);!SO2!(Andreae!and!Merlet,!2001)!bCO2,!CO,!CH4,!NMHC!(Smith!et!al.,!  2000a);!OC,!EC,!PM2.5!(Roden!et!al.,!2006);!SO2!(Andreae!and!Merlet,!2001)!cCO2,!CO,!CH4,!NMHC!(Zhang!et!al.,!2000);!OC,!EC,!PM2.5!(Roden!et!al.,!2006);!SO2!(Andreae!and! Merlet,!2001)!dCO2,!CO,!CH4,!NMHC,!OC,!EC,!PM2.5!(Johnson!et!al.,!2008);!SO2!(Andreae!and!Merlet,!2001)!eCO2,!CO,!CH4,!NMHC,!OC,!EC,!PM2.5!(MacCarty!et!al.,!2008);!SO2! (Andreae!and!Merlet,!2001)!fCO2,!CO,!CH4,!NMHC,!SO2,!PM2.5!(Zhang!et!al.,!2000);!OC!and!EC!fractions!(Bond!et!al.,!2004);!Production!(IPCC,!1996)!gCO2,!CO,!CH4,!NMHC,!  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 13!Emissions!of!CO2,!CH4!and!N2O!were!included!in!the!estimation!of!the!production!EF.!As!the!EFs!for!production!were!not!available!for!all!  of!the!climate!forcers!included!in!the!All#Species!scenarios!(See!Section!3.7),!production!EFs!were!not!included!in!these!calculations,!only!in! the!Allowable!Credits!scenarios!(See!Section!3.6).!  !  28!  PM2.5!(Bailis!et!al.,!2003);!OC!and!EC!fractions!(Bond!et!al.,!2004);!SO2!(Andreae!and!Merlet,!2001);!Production(Pennise!et!al.,!2001)!hCO2,!CO,!CH4,!NMHC,!PM2.5!(Zhang!et! al.,!2000;!Smith!et!al.,!2000a);!OC!and!EC!fractions!(Bond!et!al.,!2004);!SO2!(Value!for!Kero?U!only,!Zhang!et!al.,!2000)!;Production!(Defra,!2012)  !  29!  3.4 Measuring-Climate-Impacts:-Carbon-CreditsFor!climate!benefits,!carbon!credits!of!cookstove!projects!were!calculated!using!both! the!CDM!and!GS!methodologies.!All!emissions!calculated!are!in!tCO2e,!where!one! tCO2e!equals!one!carbon!credit.!Carbon!credits!reported!here!represent!amount!of! tCO2e!reduced!per!year!per!stove.!For!both!equations!CO2!emitted!from!burning!of! renewable!biomass!is!not!included!as!it!is!assumed!to!be!carbon!neutral,!with!the! amount!of!carbon!emitted!being!reGsequestered!through!forest!regeneration.!This! assumption!is!reflected!through!the!inclusion!of!the!fNRB!variable!in!both!equations.! The!equations!for!both!methodologies!are!outlined!below.! 3.4.1  CDM)  The!CDM!methodology!used!for!calculating!CER!credits!for!cookstoves!is!called,! “AMSGII.G!Energy!efficiency!measures!in!thermal!applications!of!nonGrenewable! biomass”!(UNFCCC,!2011d).!There!are!four!variables!used!to!calculate!emission! reductions!(ERy)!which!is!expressed!in!tCO2e!during!the!year!y:! ERy!=!By,savings*fNRB,y*NCV*EFprojected!fossilfuel!(Equation-C.1)! Where!By,savings!is!the!amount!of!fuel!saved!in!tonnes!through!the!project!activities!in! year!y,!which!here!only!the!amount!per!stove!is!included,!fNRB,y!is!the!fraction!of!nonG renewable!biomass!saved!in!year!y,-NCV!is!the!net!calorific!value!of!the!woody! biomass!or!other!type!of!fuel,!and!EFprojected-fossilfuel!is!the!default!emission!factor,! 81.6!tCO2/TJ,!representing!the!“substitution!of!nonGrenewable!woody!biomass!by! similar!consumers”!based!on!a!mix!of!weighted!fossil!fuels.!There!are!two!important! notes!to!be!made!regarding!this!use!of!a!fossilGfuel!EF.!!First,!this!factor!is!on!an! !  30!  energy!basis!(tCO2/TJ)!while!the!EFs!presented!in!Table)3!are!on!a!mass!basis! (gC/kg!fuel).!Second,!it!represents!the!EF!of!the!baseline!stove!in!the!project,!usually! a!traditional!stove.!The!equation!still!bases!the!amount!of!fuel!saved!on!the!actual! baseline!and!project!stoves’!relative!efficiencies!and!the!amount!fuel!needed!for! meeting!energy!requirements,!but!utilizes!a!misrepresentative!default!fossilGfuel!EF.! This!is!meant!to!provide!conservative!estimates!without!requiring!the!actual! measurement!of!the!traditional!stove!EFs,!but!at!the!same!time!it!does!not!reflect!the! actual!specific!emission!reductions.! It!is!also!important!to!note!that!the!CDM!does!not!allow!fossil!fuel!based!stoves!(e.g.! LPG)!to!obtain!credits!unless!switching!from!a!high!to!low!carbon!intensive!fossil! fuel!(e.g.!coal!to!LPG).!Therefore,!in!the!results!reported!below!there!are!two! numbers!included!for!the!LPG!and!kerosene!stoves:!zero!for!the!actual!credits! possible!under!the!CDM!and!a!second!value!for!the!credits!that!would!be!generated! using!Equation)C.1!above,!if!switching!from!a!traditional!to!fossil!fuel!stove!was! allowed.! 3.4.2  GS)  To!calculate!GS!VER!credits!the!GS!methodology,!“Technologies!and!Practices!to! Displace!Decentralized!Thermal!Energy!Consumption”!was!used!(The!Gold! Standard,!2011b).!For!EFs!GS!allows!the!use!of!IPCC!defaults!for!baseline!and/or! project!emissions,!if!they!cannot!be!measured!directly!in!the!project!context.!Overall! GS’s!estimates!are!more!representative!of!actual!emission!reductions!even!when!  !  31!  using!default!EF!values,!than!the!CDM!method!as!they!calculate!both!baseline!and! project!emissions.!The!equation!used!is!as!follows:! ERy!=!∑b,p!Np,y!*!Up,y*!(fNRB,b,y*ERb,p,y,!CO2+ERb,p,y,!nonGCO2)!G!∑!LEp,y!(Equation-G.1)! Where!∑b,p!is!the!sum!of!all!the!different!baseline!and!project!scenarios,!Np,y!is!the! number!of!‘technologyGdays’!included!in!the!project!period!in!year!y,!here!assumed! to!be!365!days,!Up,y!is!the!rate!of!usage!of!project!technologies!during!year!y!as!a! fraction,!here!assumed!to!be!100%,!fNRB,b,y!is!the!fraction!of!nonGrenewable!biomass! for!the!baseline!scenario!in!year!y,!ERb,p,y,-CO2!is!the!emission!reductions!of!CO2!when! switching!from!the!baseline!to!project!technology!in!year!y,!measured!in!tCO2!per! day,!ERb,p,y,-nonKCO2!is!the!amount!of!emission!reductions!of!nonGCO2!emissions,!CH4! and!N2O,!when!switching!from!the!baseline!to!project!technology!in!year!y,!in!units! of!tCO2e!per!year,!for!which!only!CH4!is!included!in!this!study’s!equations,!and!LEp,y! is!leakage!for!the!project!scenario!in!year!y,!in!tCO2e!per!year,!here!assumed!to!be! zero!for!all!calculations.! 3.5 CDM-vs-GSThe!amount!of!carbon!credits!were!calculated!and!compared!when!switching!from! the!WGTradGU!stove!to!all!other!stoves!included!in!the!study!under!the!two!different! methodologies,!CDM!and!GS!using!Equation)C.1!and!Equation)G.1.!These!scenarios! are!referred!to!as!‘Allowable)Credits’.!For!both!these!calculations!the!fNRB!was! assumed!to!be!a!value!of!75%.!After!a!review!of!the!current!registered!cookstove! projects!both!under!CDM!and!GS,!75%!was!found!to!be!at!the!lower!end!of!the! estimated!reported!values.!Many!projects!include!fNRB!values!up!into!the!90th! !  32!  percentile!range.!Therefore!by!applying!this!value!in!these!calculations,!the!resulting! carbon!credits!calculated!are!relatively!conservative!estimates.!Additionally,! approximately!how!much!can!be!earned!per!scenario!(which!again!measures! number!of!carbon!credits!per!stove!per!year)!was!calculated!employing!the!prices! found!in!Table)1.!The!average!price!per!carbon!credit!was!used!for!all!project!types! under!the!CDM!for!the!CER!credits!and!the!average!price!specifically!for!cookstove! projects!for!the!VER!credits.!This!is!only!an!approximation!and!actual!prices!and! income!may!greatly!vary!from!the!ones!provided!here.! 3.6 Accounting-for-Additional-Climate-ForcingsAs!neither!methodology!accounts!for!all!climate!forcers,!climate!impacts!were! calculated!using!the!framework!of!both!methodologies!by!including!the!following! species:!CO2,!CH4,!CO,!NMHC,!OC,!BC!and!SO2.!These!calculation!scenarios!are! referred!to!as!‘All)Species’.!EF!values!found!in!Table)3!were!used,!derived!from! previous!studies!for!these!calculations.!Each!specific!species’!EFs!were!employed!in! the!CDM!methodology!instead!of!using!the!default!EF!value!and!the!amount!of! carbon!credits!for!each!different!species!was!calculated!individually.!For!nonGCO2! gases!the!fNRB!variable!was!omitted!from!the!equation.!The!sum!of!all!the!individual! species!calculations!equal!the!total!carbon!credits!calculated!for!the!All)Species! scenarios.!GWP!values!for!a!100Gyear!period!applied!for!each!different!species!can!  !  33!  be!found!in!Table)414!.!These!All)Species!carbon!credit!values!are!then!compared!with! the!amount!calculated!in!the!Allowable)Credits!scenarios.! Table-4!GWP100!values!for!all!species!included!in!the!study.!  Species-  GWP100-  Kyoto)Gases) CO2!  1a!  CH4!  25a!  Other)Species! CO!  1.9a!  NMHC!  3.4a!  BC!  455b!  OC!  G35b!  SO2!  G76c!  aIPCC,!2007;!bReynolds!and!Kandlikar,!2008;!cShindell!et!al.,!2009!  3.7 fNRB-Sensitivity-AnalysisThe!methods!to!calculate!the!fNRB!lack!specificity!in!both!methodologies!though!GS! provides!marginally!more!detailed!guidelines!than!CDM.!Under!both!approaches! high!levels!of!uncertainty!through!coarse!estimates!and!inconsistent!methodological! approaches!are!incorporated!into!estimates!of!the!fNRB.!It!is!beyond!the!scope!of! this!study!to!analyze!the!process!in!determining!this!value.!Instead!the!variability! that!different!values!of!fNRB!can!create!is!demonstrated.!Using!a!sensitivity!analysis! carbon!credits!were!calculated!under!both!methodologies!using!Equation)C.1!and) Equation)G.1,!for!all!stoves!using!values:!25%,!50%,!75%,!85%!and!95%.!The! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14!The!time!frame!for!which!the!GWPs!are!defined!by!can!greatly!change!the!values!  calculated.!This!is!particularly!true!for!BC!which!is!a!very!shortGlived!climate!forcer.!For! example,!one!estimate!of!a!GWP!value!for!a!20Gyear!period!for!BC!is!2200!(Bond!and!Sun,! 2005).!  !  34!  majority!of!reported!values!in!actual!projects!are!in!the!range!of!75G100%.!Including! the!values!25%!and!50%!demonstrate!the!potential!variability!in!carbon!credits! calculated!if!the!reported!range!was!extended.! 3.8 Estimating-Health-Impacts:-Individual-Exposure-and-Relative-RiskTwo!health!effect!estimates!are!employed!in!this!study:!reduction!of!individual! exposure!to!PM2.5!and!relative!risk!of!disease!mortality.!For!both!effect!estimates,! individual!exposure!to!PM2.5!in!mg!per!day!for!each!different!kind!of!stove!was!first! calculated!based!upon!the!PM2.5!emissions!per!stove,!the!amount!of!fuel!burned,!and! the!exposure!fraction!an!individual!experiences!(See!Equation)H.1).!Reduced! exposure!to!emissions!due!to!a!venting!system!such!as!a!chimney!or!flue!was!also! incorporated!into!the!calculation.! To!determine!the!first!effect!estimate!of!health,!values!of!individual!exposure!to! PM2.5!were!translated!into!relative!risk!of!disease!mortality!using!Pope!et!al.! (2009)’s!logGlinear!intakeGresponse!relationship!(relative!risk!=! 1+0.2968(dose)0.2107)!developed!for!cardiovascular!disease!(CVD)!(See!Figure)5).! Pope!et!al.!(2009)’s!intake!response!curve!for!CVD!is!primarily!based!on!empirical! data!from!urban!air!pollution!and!second!hand!smoke!at!the!lower!end!of!the!scale! and!primary!cigarette!smoking!at!the!higher!end!of!the!scale.!Typical!doses!from! cookstoves!are!in!between!these!two!exposure!ranges!and!it!has!also!been!proposed! that!two!of!the!three!main!health!impacts!more!strongly!associated!with!IAP,!COPD! and!ALRI,!exhibit!a!similar!nonGlinear!relationship!(Smith!and!Peel,!2010).!There!has! not!yet!been!any!direct!empirical!evidence!to!support!this!theory,!therefore!the!  !  35!  relative!risk!relationship!presented!here!is!only!theoretical!and!includes!high!levels! of!uncertainty.!Including!relative!risk!demonstrates!the!additional!complexity!of! health!benefit!estimations,!as!these!are!probably!not!incremental!(with!the! exception!of!lung!cancer,!which!most!likely!does!follow!a!linear!relationship!(Smith! and!Peel,!2010))!and!reflects!a!nonGlinear!relationship,!which!the!health!impacts!of! IAP!could!likely!follow.! The!second!health!effect!included!in!the!analyses!estimates!the!relative!health! benefit!when!switching!from!the!baseline!stove!to!the!other!ten!stoves!included!in! this!study.!These!values!were!determined!by!calculating!the!difference!between! individual!exposure!values!to!determine!the!overall!reduction!in!individual! exposure!to!PM2.5!(See!Table)5).!In!comparison!to!the!measure!of!relative!risk,!the! measure!in!the!difference!of!individual!exposure!reflects!a!linear!relationship.!As!its! values!are!based!more!directly!on!stove!performance!and!emissions,!these!values! incorporate!less!uncertainty,!but!are!limited!in!the!representation!of!actual!impact! on!health!conditions.!It!better!reflects!the!relative!performance!of!each!stove’s! potential!health!benefits,!but!not!actual!potential!health!impacts.! Both!health!effects!provide!an!estimate!of!health!per!individual,!a!unit!easily! comparable!to!carbon!credits,!which!are!incrementally!calculated!per!stove.!Yet,! these!values!only!provide!an!approximate!measure!of!health!impacts!per!stove!as! they!have!different!levels!of!uncertainty!associated!with!their!values!and!actual! impacts!in!such!projects!may!vary!greatly!due!to!a!number!of!variables!impacting!  !  36!  outcomes.!Still!they!are!effective!relative!measures!by!which!to!compare! performance!between!the!individual!stoves!and!corresponding!carbon!credits.! Individual!Exposure!=!AFU*EFPM2.5*iFi*funv*1/365!(Equation-H.1)! This!equation!is!derived!from!an!individual!intake!fraction!equation!from!Bennett!et! al.!(2002)!linking!mass!emitted!and!mass!inhaled.!Here!individual!intake!is!instead! referred!to!as!individual!exposure!as!it!better!describes!what!the!calculated!values! represent.!Individual!exposure!is!measured!in!mg!per!day!where!AFU!is!the!annual! fuel!use!measured!in!kg!fuel!per!year,!EFPM2.5!is!the!emission!factor!of!PM2.5,!iFi!is! the!individual!exposure!fraction!measured!in!mg!exposed!per!mg!emitted!here! assumed!to!be!1300*10^G6!mg!per!mg!based!upon!a!median!of!the!most!exposed! and!highest!risk!group,!females!from!16G50!years!of!age!(Grieshop!et!al.,!2011),!and! funv!is!the!fraction!of!emissions!not!vented!via!a!chimney.!When!there!is!no!chimney! present!funv!is!assumed!to!be!1.!For!the!vented!stoves!included!in!this!study,!a!value! of!0.18!is!used,!which!was!derived!by!Grieshop!et!al.!(2011)!from!a!conglomerate!of! studies.!The!equation!is!lastly!multiplied!by!1/365!to!get!a!measurement!per!day!not! per!year,!a!standard!unit!of!measure!of!health!impacts!in!this!area!of!study.! 3.9 Comparing-Health-and-Climate-BenefitsWith!the!amount!of!carbon!credits!resulting!from!both!the!Allowable)Credits!and!All) Species!calculations,!the!scenarios!were!ranked!from!those!creating!the!most!carbon! credits!to!the!least.!Similarly!the!different!stoves!were!also!ranked!to!represent! health!benefits!based!upon!the!reduction!of!individual!exposure!to!PM2.5!from!the! highest!reduction!to!the!least!and!for!relative!risk!from!the!least!to!the!most!risk.! !  37!  Finally!the!rankings!of!climate!and!health!benefits!for!each!stove!were!compared! under!both!CDM!and!GS!methodologies!for!Allowable)Credits!and!All)Species) scenarios.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  !  38!  4  RESULTS-  4.1 CDM-vs-GS:-Carbon-Credits-CalculatedFigure)1!compares!GS!and!CDM!methodologies!for!all!Allowable)Credits!scenarios.!In! all!cases!except!for!CoalGU!and!CharGU,!where!both!have!‘negative’!carbon!credits! (i.e.!GHG!emissions!increase!rather!than!decrease),!GS!outGperforms!CDM!in!the! number!of!credits!calculated.!When!including!EFs!for!production!of!processed!or! extracted!fuels,!the!LPGGU!stove!creates!the!most!carbon!credits!under!the!GS! methodology,!closely!followed!by!the!KeroGU.!Under!GS!the!next!best!performing! stove!for!climate!is!the!WGFanGU!stove,!but!it!calculates!more!than!0.5!of!a!credit!less! than!kerosene.!Under!the!CDM!methodology,!the!WGFanGU!stove!performs!the!best! as!the!CDM!does!not!credit!projects!switching!from!biomass!to!fossil!fuel!stoves.!If! they!did!include!such!stoves!in!their!methodology,!KeroGU!and!LPGGU!would! generate!the!highest!amount!of!carbon!credits!out!of!the!CDM!scenarios!included!in! the!analysis,!but!with!WGFanGU!closer!in!comparison!to!these!two!fossil!fuel!stoves! than!under!GS.!The!income!generated!per!scenario!varied;!neither!methodology! calculated!a!higher!income!per!stove!in!all!scenarios.! For!the!biomass!stoves,!the!FanGU!and!GasGU,!the!more!technologically!advanced! models,!outGperformed!the!other!stoves.!When!comparing!the!basic!models!of! biomass!stoves!(WGImGU,!WGImGV,!WGPatGV)!along!with!the!coal!stoves,!the!vented! stoves!performed!better!under!GS,!with!the!WGPatGV!generating!the!most!amount!of! carbon!credits.!There!wasn’t!much!of!a!difference!between!the!basic!biomass!stoves! under!the!CDM!methodology.!For!the!CoalGU,!CoalGV!and!CharGU!stoves,!these!had!  !  39!  values!of!close!to!zero,!zero,!or!negative!emissions!reductions!under!both! methodologies.! If!just!comparing!the!emission!reductions!of!CO2!calculated!under!each!methodology! there!is!much!more!variation!as!to!which!methodology!exceeds!the!other!in!each! different!scenario.!  ! Figure-1!Comparing!CDM!and!GS!methodologies!for!the!number!of!carbon!credit!calculated.!!All! scenarios!are!switching!from!the!WGTradGU!stove!to!one!of!the!ten!improved!stoves!using!a!75%! value!for!the!fNRB.!As!GS!can!include!EFs!associated!with!the!production!of!processed!or!extracted! fuels,!the!production!EFs!for!CoalGU,!CoalGV,!CharGU,!KeroGU!and!LPGGU!are!included!in!these!GS! calculations,!indicated!by!the!red!dots.!The!CharGU!stove!has!particularly!high!emissions!associated! with!its!production!resulting!in!the!extra!negative!amount!of!carbon!credits!calculated.!As!CDM!uses! a!default!EF,!there!are!no!confidence!bounds!for!any!of!the!CDM!calculations.!For!GS,!standard! deviation!was!not!available!in!the!original!studies!for!WGGasGU,!WGFanGU!or!CoalGU!and!therefore! these!stove!scenarios!do!not!include!the!confidence!bounds.!As!CDM!does!not!accept!cookstove! projects!that!switch!to!a!fossil!fuel!stove!from!a!traditional!stove,!the!real!values!for!KeroGU!and!LPGG U!would!be!zero!(blue!diamonds),!but!a!theoretical!calculation!applying!the!CDM!equation!to!these! stoves!was!included!as!a!comparison!to!GS.!  !  40!  4.1.1  Accounting)for)Additional)Climate)Forcings)  Figure)2!displays!the!impact!of!including!different!climateGforcing!species!using!both! carbon!credit!methodologies.!The!inclusion!of!BC!has!the!most!significant!impact!on! the!amount!of!carbon!credits!calculated!as!it!increases!the!values!in!all!the!scenarios! with!the!exception!of!CoalGU!and!CoalGV,!even!when!including!OC!and!SO2,!climate! cooling!species.!An!EF!for!fuel!production!was!not!included!in!any!of!these! calculations!as!values!could!not!be!obtained!for!all!species.!Therefore!carbon!credit! estimates!for!the!coal,!charcoal!and!fossil!fuel!stoves!under!the!GS!methodology!are! overestimated.!The!top!three!performing!stoves!under!both!methodologies!are! again!the!WGFanGU!biomass!stove!and!the!two!fossil!fuel!stoves,!KeroGU!and!LPGGU.! The!other!biomass!stoves!perform!differently!under!the!two!different! methodologies.!The!WGGasGU!stove!does!relatively!well!under!both!CDM!and!GS! whereas!WGImGU,!WGImGV,!and!WGPatGV!have!approximately!the!same!number!of! carbon!credits!under!the!CDM!and!are!much!more!varied!under!the!GS.!In!these! scenarios,!GS!still!calculates!more!carbon!credits!than!the!CDM,!even!when!the!CDM! methodology!employs!actual!EFs!and!does!not!use!the!default!EF!value.!  !  41!  ! Figure-2!Breakdown!of!the!different!climateGforcing!species!included!in!the!All)Species)analysis!for! each!different!stove!under!each!different!methodology!when!switching!from!the!WGTradGU!stove!to! each!respective!project!technology.!For!all!calculations!a!75%!value!for!the!fNRB!was!used.!Values!of! Allowable)Credits!under!normal!CDM!and!GS!methodologies!are!indicated!by!the!black!dots.!Since! CDM!does!not!certify!projects!that!switch!to!fossil!fuels!from!a!traditional,!biomass!stove,!their! hypothetical!normal!values!are!indicated!by!the!yellow!dots.!For!All)Species!calculated!under!the!CDM! methodology!actual!EF!values!were!used!instead!of!the!default!EF.!Emissions!from!production!of! fuels!were!not!included!in!the!individual!species!emissions!calculations.!Therefore!the!carbon!credits! calculated!in!these!All)Species!scenarios!may!be!overestimated!for:!CoalGU,!CoalGV,!CharGU,!KeroGU!and! LPGGU.!  4.1.2  Fraction)of)NonLRenewable)Biomass)  Figure)3!compares!the!different!stove!scenarios!under!CDM!and!GS!when!using! different!values!of!the!fNRB!in!the!calculations.!In!general!the!higher!the!value!of!the! fNRB!the!higher!the!amount!of!carbon!credits!per!year!per!stove!calculated!under! both!methodologies!with!the!exception!of!CoalGU,!CoalGV!and!CharGU,!in!which!the! inverse!relationship!is!true!(exception:!CharGU!under!CDM,!where!it!equaled!zero! when!using!all!different!values!of!the!fNRB).!For!the!other!seven!stoves!the! !  42!  difference!of!carbon!credits!calculated!when!using!25%!and!95%!values!of!fNRB! ranged!from!0.44!to!1.99!carbon!credits!with!an!average!difference!of!0.68!carbon! credits!under!the!GS!and!0.62!carbon!credits!under!the!CDM.!!For!the!fNRB!values!of! 75%!and!95%!the!difference!in!the!number!of!credits!calculated!for!the!seven!stoves! ranged!from!0.13!to!0.57!with!an!average!difference!of!0.18!for!CDM!and!0.20!for!GS.! For!the!fossil!fuel!stoves!the!differing!values!of!the!fNRB!have!an!especially!large! impact!on!the!number!of!carbon!credits!calculated!with!high!values!of!the!fNRB! greatly!increasing!the!number!of!carbon!credits!calculated.!  ! Figure-3-Sensitivity!analyses!for!the!fraction!of!nonGrenewable!biomass!under!both!the!CDM!and!GS! using!values!of!25%,!50%,!75%,!85%!and!95%.!Note!the!difference!in!scale!as!the!GS!values!span!a! much!larger!range!of!values!than!the!CDM.!Since!CDM!calculations!employ!a!default!EF!there!is!no! uncertainty!represented!for!any!of!these!values.!For!the!GS!calculations,!values!of!standard!deviation!  !  43!  were!not!available!for!the!EFs!of!the!WGGasGU,!WGFanGU!and!CoalGU!stoves!and!therefore!uncertainty! is!not!represented!for!these!stoves!either.!  4.2 Health-PerformanceTable)5!lists!estimated!health!performance!for!the!stoves!included!in!the!study.!The! stoves!are!ranked!from!top!performing!(having!the!least!relative!risk!and!greatest! reduction!in!individual!exposure)!to!the!worst!(with!the!most!relative!risk!and!least! reduction!in!individual!exposure).!All!stoves!besides!the!CoalGU!stove!have!a!lower! relative!risk!than!the!WGTradGU!stove.!Figure!5!visually!demonstrates!the!estimated! relationship!between!relative!risk!and!individual!exposure!for!each!stove.!This!nonG linear!doseGresponse!relationship!shows!reductions!in!exposure!at!already!low! levels!of!exposure!will!have!the!greatest!impact!in!reducing!the!amount!of!relative! risk.!This!is!only!a!rough!estimation!of!health!impacts!based!on!Smith!and!Peel! (2010)’s!interpolation!of!Pope!et!al.!(2009)’s!CVD!dose!response!curve.!!However,! there!is!no!direct!empirical!evidence!as!of!yet!for!the!relationship!between!PM2.5! from!household!combustion!and!CVD.15!Based!on!this!theoretical!work,!Smith!and! Peel!(2010)!show!that!to!achieve!the!highest!levels!of!positive!health!impacts!and!to! achieve!the!highest!reduction!in!relative!risk,!individual!intake!of!PM2.5!needs!to!be! less!than!1!mg/day.!In!this!analysis!only!the!top!three!performing!stoves!meet!these! levels,!the!KeroGU,!LPGGU!and!WGFanGU!stoves!(corresponding!to!a!relative!risk!of! less!than!1.3),!but!again!currently!this!is!only!a!theoretical!threshold.!Regardless,!the! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15!The!best!evidence!for!health!effects!of!household!smoke!are!its!impacts!on!respiratory!  diseases!such!as!COPD!and!ALRI.!Smith!and!Peel!propose!that!these!also!follow!a!similar! nonGlinear!function.!The!relative!risks!calculated!here!are!not!for!those!diseases,!as!a!doseG response!curve!has!not!been!developed!for!them!as!of!yet.!  !  44!  two!effect!estimates!of!health!demonstrated!here,!both!the!linear!individual! exposure!and!nonGlinear!relative!risk,!can!be!used!as!relative!estimates!to!compare! the!health!performance!between!stoves.! 4.3 Climate-vs-HealthThe!top!three!stoves!for!both!climate!and!health!in!all!scenarios,!with!the!exception! of!CDM’s!Allowable)Credits!(where!fossil!fuel!stoves!are!excluded),!are!KeroGU,!LPGG U!and!WGFanGU!(See!Figure)4!and!Table)5).!Climate!benefits!are!maximized!in!the!All) Species!scenarios,!but!the!actual!pattern!of!ranked!climate!benefits!depends!on!the! type!of!stove,!methodology!and!scenario!(See!Figure)6).!For!health,!with!the! exception!of!the!high!performing!WGFanGU!stove,!the!vented!stoves!performed! better!in!the!analysis!than!nonGvented!stoves!when!comparing!the!biomass!or!coal! stoves.!Charcoal!performs!well!for!individual!exposure!as!it!burns!relatively!cleanly! (See!Table)5!and!Figure)5)!and!has!a!low!relative!risk!value.!Yet!the!climate! emissions!of!charcoal!during!the!production!phase!are!so!high,!this!results!in!zero!or! negative!values!of!carbon!credits.!The!WGGasGU!stove!is!the!4th!topGperforming!stove! for!climate!benefits!in!all!the!scenarios,!yet!it!is!the!3rd!worst!stove!for!health! benefits.!Still!its!health!benefits!far!exceed!those!of!the!two!worst!performing!stoves! as!the!WGGasGU!associated!individual!exposure!value!is!less!than!10!mg/day,! situating!it!in!Smith!and!Peel!(2008)’s!second!best!tier!for!health!measures.!The!coal! stoves!perform!especially!poorly!for!both!climate!and!health!benefits,!but!including! a!chimney!can!significantly!improve!health!performance!measures.  !  45!  Table&5!Ranking!different!scenarios!for!climate!and!health!benefits.!The!climate!scenarios!are!ranked!based!on!the!number!of!carbon!credits!calculated.! A!potential!income!for!each!scenario!is!also!included!using!2011!average!carbon!prices!for!cookstove!projects!for!GS!($13)!and!all!projects!for!CDM! ($17.38)!(See!Table&1).!The!All&Species!climate!scenario!is!theoretical!and!includes!all!the!climateKforcing!species!included!in!Figure&2:!CO2,!CH4,!CO,! NMHC,!OC,!BC!and!SO2.! Climate:&Allowable&Credits&  Climate:&All&Species&  Carbon!Credits!(tCO2e/year)!and!Potential!Income!($)!  Carbon!Credits!(tCO2e/year)!and!Potential!Income!($)!  GS&  CDM&  GS&  Health&  CDM&  Reduction!of! Individual!Exposure! to!PM2.5!(mg/day)!  Relative! Risk!  LPG=U&  2.74!  $35.62!  LPG=U&  1.65*!  $28.68!  LPG=U&  7.49!  $97.37!  LPG=U&  5.37!  $93.23!  Kero=U&  26.34!  1.23!  Kero=U&  2.54!  $33.02!  Kero=U&  1.58!*!  $27.46!  Kero=U&  7.21!  $93.73!  Kero=U&  5.15!  $89.51!  LPG=U&  26.11!  1.26!  W=Fan=U&  1.98!  $25.74!  W=Fan=U&  1.36!  $23.64!  W=Fan=U&  6.44!  $83.72!  W=Fan=U&  4.43!  $76.99!  W=Fan=U&  25.80!  1.29!  W=Gas=U&  1.35!  $17.55!  W=Gas=U&  1.08!  $18.77!  W=Im=V&&  5.12!  $66.56!  W=Gas=U&  3.52!  $61.18!  W=Im=V&  24.67!  1.34!  W=Im=V&  1.10!  $14.30!  W=Im=V&  0.62!  $10.78!  W=Gas=U&  4.88!  $63.44!  W=Im=V&  2.01!  $34.93!  Char=U&  24.41!  1.35!  W=Pat=V&  0.94!  $12.22!  W=Pat=V&  0.62!  $10.78!  W=Im=U&  3.34!  $43.42!  W=Pat=V&  2.01!  $34.93!  W=Pat=V&  22.39!  1.40!  W=Im=U&  0.75!  $9.75!  W=Im=U&  0.54!  $9.39!  W=Pat=V&  2.40!  $31.20!  W=Im=U&  1.75!  $30.42!  Coal=V&  21.30!  1.42!  Coal=V&  0.00!  $0!  Char=U&  0.00!  $0!  Char=U&  1.89!  $24.57!  Char=U&  0.00!  $0!  W=Gas=U&  20.67!  1.43!  Coal=U&  K1.38!  $0!  Coal=V&  K0.15!  $0!  Coal=V&  K2.95!  $0!  Coal=V&  K0.47!  $0!  W=Im=U&  4.56!  1.57x!  Char=U&  K8.78!  $0!  Coal=U&  K0.71!  $0!  Coal=U&  K6.19!  $0!  Coal=U&  K2.30!  $0!  Coal=U&  K9.50!  1.63x!  *Scenarios!not!possible!under!current!CDM!methodological!framework.! xThe!relative!risk!of!WKTradKU!is:!1.59,!which!falls!between!WKImKU!and!CoalKU  !  46!  !  !  & Figure&4!Comparing!measures!of!climate!benefits!in!the!form!of!carbon!credits!calculated!and!health!benefits!in!the!form!of!reduction!of!individual! exposure!to!PM2.5!under!both!methodologies,!CDM!and!GS.!In!each!comparison!Allowable&Credits!and!All&Species!scenarios!are!included.!For!the!CDM!a! ‘Kyoto’!scenario!is!also!included,!which!calculates!emission!reduction!of!both!CO2!and!CH4.!As!GS!methodology!already!includes!both!these!species!in!its! Allowable&Credits!scenario,!this!in!not!included!for!GS.!Since!LPG!and!kerosene!fueled!stoves!are!not!eligible!for!CDM!credits!when!switching!from!a! biomass!stove,!the!yellow!circles!represent!the!theoretical!credits!that!could!be!received!under!normal!calculations!if!these!stoves!were!eligible!for! credits.!Note!the!two!breaks!in!the!xKaxis.  !  47!  ! Figure'5'Adjusted!relative!risk!vs!individual!exposure!of!PM2.5!in!mg/day.!Relative!risk!is!assumed!to! be!equal!to:!1+0.2968(dose)0.2107,!derived!from!Pope!et!al.!(2009),!where!the!dose!is!individual! exposure!to!PM2.5.!The!only!stove!to!perform!worse!than!the!WPTradPU!is!CoalPU.!In!all!other! scenarios!a!switch!from!the!WPTradPU!stove!to!another!stove!provides!some!level!of!health! improvement.!  !  48!  ! Figure'6'Scenarios!based!on!the!type!of!stove,!methodology!and!scenario!ranked!for!the!amount!of! carbon!credits!calculated!from!most!to!least.!In!general!All#Species!scenarios!perform!better!than! Allowable#Credits!and!GS!better!than!CDM.!The!scenarios!in!the!top!quartile!include!the!LPGPU,!KeroP U,!FanPU,!GasPU,!ImPV!and!ImPU!stoves.!The!scenarios!in!the!bottom!quartile!include!the!CharPU,!CoalP U,!and!CoalPV!stoves.!  ! ! ! ! !  !  49!  5  DISCUSSION'  5.1 Choosing'a'Methodology' One!salient!finding!of!this!research!is!the!difference!in!carbon!credits!calculated! between!the!two!methodologies.!In!almost!all!scenarios!the!carbon!credits!under!the! GS!methodology!exceeds!those!calculated!by!CDM!(up!to!1.79!times!under!the! Allowable#Credit#scenarios).!The!inclusion!of!CH4!in!GS!calculations!largely!accounts! for!this!discrepancy.!For!CO2!reductions!only,!neither!methodology!is!dominant! across!all!stoves16.!When!comparing!theoretical!prices!per!stove!scenario,!on!the! outset!it!would!seem!CDM!would!earn!more!per!stove!offset!due!to!the!higher! average!price!per!credit.!Yet,!as!GS!calculated!more!credits!per!stove!than!CDM!in! most!scenarios!and!cookstoves!projects!specifically!earned!more!than!the!average! project!in!the!voluntary!market,!there!is!more!variation,!without!one!methodology! consistently!having!a!higher!theoretical!price!per!stove.!As!the!state!of!carbon! markets!continue!to!be!uncertain!these!relationships!could!drastically!change.!In! addition,!there!is!no!data!specifically!for!cookstove!project!CERs,!which!could!mean! that!cookstove!credits!under!the!CDM!could!potentially!have!even!higher!prices.! Overall,!the!GS!methodology!more!accurately!represents!actual!emission!reductions! as!it!bases!these!on!the!difference!between!the!project!and!baseline!stoves!rather! than!a!default!EF!based!equation.!Still,!the!choice!to!use!CDM!or!GS!will!probably!be! most!dependent!upon!whether!or!not!the!project!developer!wants!to!apply!for!CER! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 16!Note,!these!values!are!highly!dependent!on!the!poorly!defined!fNRB!estimation.!Therefore!  this!relationship!will!vary!depending!on!the!values!of!fNRB!employed.!  !  50!  or!VER!credits.!There!are!many!considerations!made!in!this!decision,!such!as!the! cost!of!becoming!certified,!the!size!of!the!project,!the!types!of!credits!potential! investors!are!interested!in!and!the!price!earned!per!credit.!No!previous!studies!were! found!to!have!compared!the!difference!in!calculable!credits!between!the!two! methodologies.!Therefore!this!research!presents!another!consideration!to!be! included!when!making!such!decisions,!the!effect!of!which!will!likely!be!directly! dependent!on!the!prices!of!credits!in!both!carbon!markets.! 5.2 Methodological'Game'Changers' 5.2.1  Black#Carbon#  The!inclusion!of!BC!in!both!methodological!calculations!would!greatly!increase!the! number!of!carbon!credits!certified!for!cookstove!projects.!This!is!the!case!even! when!including!both!OC!and!SO2,!two!cooling!species!that!are!coPemitted!with!BC.! These!additional!credits!could!considerably!enhance!the!profitability!of!such! projects,!the!largest!positive!change!in!the!scenarios!in!this!study!resulting!in!more! than!a!4Pfold!increase!in!the!number!of!carbon!credits.!There!has!been!some! discussion!regarding!allowing!credits!for!BC!(PCIA,!2011b),!but!there!has!not!been! any!serious!momentum!to!push!this!idea!forward.!One!of!the!challenges!for! integrating!BC!into!such!calculations!is!that!there!is!no!agreed!upon!GWP!value!and! estimates!of!this!can!vary!widely!with!higher!levels!of!uncertainty!as!it!is!much!more! variable!than!longer!lived!climate!forcers!such!as!CO2.!As!BC!climate!impacts!are! created!during!a!very!short!time!period,!the!use!of!different!GWP!time!frames!will! greatly!influence!how!the!impact!of!BC!is!perceived.!Therefore!representing!the! impacts!of!BC!with!GWP!is!not!ideal,!but!is!the!current!standard!widely!used!for! !  51!  understanding!climatePforcing!impacts.!Additionally!the!impacts!of!BC!can!be!very! different!depending!on!the!regional!location.!As!its!warming!effect!is!due!to!the! absorption!of!sunlight!through!decreased!albedo,!if!these!particles!land!on!a!black! surface,!such!as!pavement,!the!warming!impact!will!be!very!different!than!when! landing!on!a!white!surface,!such!as!a!glacier;!the!prior!having!minimal!or!no! warming!impact!with!the!latter!greatly!increasing!the!climate!forcing!effect.!This! presents!a!challenge!to!represent!actual!climate!impacts!without!making!the! methodologies!by!which!to!determine!them!prohibitively!complex.!As! approximately!60%!of!global!BC!emissions!are!from!contained!combustion!(Bond!et! al.,!2004),!incentivizing!the!reduction!of!BC!through!cookstove!projects!has!the! potential!to!significantly!mitigate!climate!warming!relevant!emissions.!In!addition,! the!emission!of!BC,!unlike!CO2!and!CH4,!is!directly!related!to!the!emissions!of!PM2.5.! However,!in!this!analysis!the!inclusion!of!BC!does!not!reflect!the!same!pattern!of! health!benefits!for!all!stove!scenarios!(See!Table#5).!Therefore!simply!including!BC! will!not!account!for!all!health!considerations!even!though!it!does!significantly! account!for!additional!climate!impacts!not!currently!included!in!either!methodology.! More!research!into!the!relationship!between!BC!and!climate!and!health!benefits!of! cookstoves!could!help!to!further!clarify!these!interactions.! 5.2.2  fNRB#  The!fNRB!is!another!variable!that!can!greatly!influence!the!amount!of!carbon!credits! calculated.!This!value!attempts!to!prevent!carbon!leakage!by!only!crediting!CO2! emissions!reduced!from!the!reduction!of!nonPrenewable!biomass!fuel!sources.!Its! inclusion!requires!projects!to!be!in!areas!with!some!level!of!nonPrenewable!fuel! !  52!  extraction!to!qualify!for!carbon!credits.!As!the!fNRB!determines!the!amount!of! reduced!fuel!that!can!be!used!to!calculate!CO2!emission!reductions,!the!amount!of! carbon!credits!calculated!are!highly!sensitive!to!this!value.!The!large!difference! between!calculations!utilizing!fNRB!values!of!25%!and!95%!demonstrates!the! substantial!variability!included!in!calculations.!This!can!significantly!change!the! amount!of!carbon!credits!calculated!especially!when!applying!the!differences!per! individual!stove!to!an!entire!project!for!example!with!10,000!or!21,500!stoves.!In! the!range!of!values!most!commonly!reported!in!actual!projects,!75%P95%,!the! variability!is!reduced.!Still!the!scenario!with!the!largest!difference,!GS!LPGPU,!had! over!a!0.5!tCO2e!difference!in!credits!per!stove.!At!the!much!larger!project!scale,! even!small!differences!in!carbon!credits!calculated!based!upon!differences!in!the! value!of!the!fNRB!applied,!can!have!huge!impacts!potentially!greatly!changing!the! amount!of!income!earned.!In!general,!the!biomass!stoves!seem!to!perform!relatively! better!than!the!fossil!fuel!stoves!at!lower!values!of!fNRB.!Therefore!even!though!the! fossil!fuel!stoves!obtain!high!values!of!carbon!credits!when!employing!high!values!of! the!fNRB,!if!the!fNRB!was!low,!such!projects!may!not!make!financial!sense!in!the! context!of!carbon!credits.! The!current!high!levels!of!fNRB!in!actual!projects!may!reflect!the!fact!that:! a)cookstove!projects!at!lower!levels!of!fNRB!are!simply!not!financially!viable,!b)the! flexibility!in!methods!and!uncertainties!in!data!allow!project!developers!wide! latitude!in!determining!the!fNRB!and!therefore!maximize!their!carbon!credits,!or!c)a! combination!of!both!these!potential!influencing!factors.!If!uncertainty!in!the! calculations!of!the!fNRB!was!reduced!and!actual!values!of!the!fNRB!were!deemed!to! !  53!  be!lower!than!the!current!high!values,!this!could!significantly!change!the!amount!of! credits!calculated!in!all!scenarios.!As!the!uncertainty!and!lack!of!specific!guidance! for!calculating!this!number!may!be!resulting!in!inaccurately!reported!emission! reductions!(Johnson!et!al.,!2010),!this!is!an!area!where!more!research!is!needed!to! reduce!the!uncertainty!incorporated!in!these!values.! 5.2.3  Propagation#of#Uncertainty#  In!the!two!prior!sections,!uncertainty!linked!with!both!BC!and!fNRB!variables!was! discussed.!It!is!important!to!point!out!that!when!carbon!credits!are!calculated!the! uncertainties!in!all!variables!are!compounded.!The!specific!levels!of!uncertainty! associated!with!variables!which!disproportionately!impact!the!outcomes!in!the! number!of!credits!calculated!will!have!the!largest!impact!(e.g.!BC).!Again!there!are! tradeoffs!between!efforts!to!obtain!estimates!and!the!estimates’!accuracy.!The! inclusion!of!CDM’s!default!EF,!reduces!the!efforts!required,!but!is!misrepresentative! of!actual!emission!reduction!interactions.!Still!this!default!provides!a!conservative! estimate.!For!variables!such!as!the!fNRB!and!especially!BC,!which!both!can! considerably!determine!the!amount!of!credits!calculated,!such!tradeoffs!need!to!be! addressed!in!conversations!about!developing!expectable!methodologies!that!are! conservative!and!as!representative!as!possible.! 5.3 Reducing'Already'Low'Levels'of'Exposure?' The!application!of!Pope!et!al.!(2009)’s!dosePresponse!curve!to!represent!IAP! impacts!has!a!few!important!implications!worth!noting.!In!Smith!and!Peel!(2008)’s! work!using!the!dosePresponse!relationship!to!estimate!impacts!of!IAP!on!CVD,!the!  !  54!  greatest!relative!risk!reduction!occurs!when!switching!from!low!levels!of!exposure! (1!mg/day)!to!even!lower!levels!of!exposure!(0.1!mg/day).!This!implies!that!to!have! the!largest!impact!on!health,!efforts!should!be!focused!on!reducing!already!low! levels!of!exposure!to!become!even!lower.!As!this!relationship!is!extrapolated!for!IAP,! stronger,!empirical!support!is!needed!to!confirm!this.!Still!if!such!a!relationship! holds!true!it!could!have!significant!and!perhaps!unintuitive!consequences!for!policy! if!health!is!a!major!priority.!!Namely,!it!would!imply!that!the!switch!from!traditional! stoves!to!marginally!improved!biomass!stoves!would!not!result!in!significant!health! improvements.! 5.4 Maximizing'Climate'and'Health'Benefits' The!best!three!stoves!for!maximizing!climate!and!health!benefits!in!this!analysis! were!the!WPFanPU17,!KeroPU,!and!LPGPU!stoves,!with!WPFanPU!being!the!only! possible!certifiable!option!under!the!CDM.!For!estimated!health!benefits,!the! individual!exposure!from!all!three!stoves!was!below!1!mg/day,!with!KeroPU!having! the!lowest!exposure!at!0.32!mg/day.!As!kerosene!has!other!health!and!safety! concerns!associated!with!its!use,!such!as!poisoning,!carcinogenic!effects!and!higher! risk!of!explosion!(Mehta!and!Shahpar,!2004),!LPG!is!a!preferred!fuel!from!an!overall! health!perspective.!However,!there!is!a!higher!cost!associated!with!its!use!and!it! requires!a!functional!fuel!supply!chain!as!compared!to!the!solid!fuel!stoves.!WPFanPU! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17!This!study!used!a!different!PM2.5!EF!for!the!WPFanPU!stove!than!the!one!employed!for!the!  same!stove!in!Grieshop!et!al.!(2011)!and!therefore!it!has!a!higher!health!performance!in!this! analysis!in!comparison!with!Grieshop!et!al.’s!(2011)!results.!There!still!remains!uncertainty! in!these!values!as!these!EF!values!rely!on!a!limited!set!of!EF!studies.!Better!EFs!are!need!for! more!accurate!calculations.!  !  55!  is!the!cheapest!technology!among!the!top!three!stoves,!but!still!is!more!expensive! than!simpler!models!of!‘improved’!biomass!stoves.! The!measurements!of!EFs!used!in!this!analysis!were!from!WBTs!either!in!the!lab!or! in!the!field,!and!are!not!reflective!of!actual!inPhome!cooking.!Therefore!actual! emissions!will!likely!be!higher!than!represented!in!this!study.!There!is!a!greater! chance!this!effect!will!be!stronger!for!the!WPFanPU!stove!than!the!fossil!fuels!stoves! as!the!WPFanPU!burns!wood,!a!less!clean!burning!fuel!with!higher!variability! depending!on!type!of!wood!and!moisture!levels.!Still!WPFanPU!performs!better!than! other!forms!of!‘improved’!biomass!stoves,!which!would!probably!also!experience! increases!in!their!emissions!during!inPhome!cooking.! Another!consideration!not!integrated!into!this!study’s!estimates!is!differences!in! stove!tending!requirements.!If!for!example!the!biomass!stoves!require!more!time! tending!to!the!fuel!than!fossil!fuel!stoves,!this!may!increase!the!exposure!increasing! the!potential!for!negative!health!impacts.!As!there!are!many!variables!such!as!this! one!impacting!actual!exposure!and!resulting!health!impacts,!the!results!and!finding! in!this!study!only!provide!a!relative!comparison!between!the!technologies!included.! CharPU!is!a!much!cheaper!technology!and!burns!relatively!cleanly!with!a!decent! level!of!health!benefits,!but!has!very!high!emissions!associated!with!its!production.! Therefore!it!would!only!make!sense!as!a!carbon!credit!project!if!switching!from!a! less!improved!charcoal!stove!to!a!more!improved!charcoal!stove.!This!also!holds! true!for!the!coal!stoves,!which!had!low!or!negative!carbon!credits,!requiring!a!switch! from!less!improved!coal!technologies!to!more!improved!coal!technologies!if! !  56!  applying!for!carbon!credits.!For!health!benefits!vented!stoves!do!well!compared!to! similar!nonPvented!stoves!as!some!of!the!PM2.5!emissions!are!being!diverted!outside,! though!this!still!may!have!health!impacts!resulting!from!ambient!air!pollution,! especially!if!in!a!densely!populated!area!(Zhou!et!al.,!2011;!Wilkinson!et!al.,!2009).! As!switching!to!fossil!fuel!stoves!from!a!traditional!biomass!stove!is!not!possible! under!the!CDM!framework!it!would!not!be!possible!to!have!the!highest!levels!of! health!benefits!under!this!methodology.!Though!health!improves!in!all!scenarios! when!switching!from!the!traditional!stove,!with!the!exception!of!the!CoalPU!stove,! the!actual!resulting!health!impacts!can!only!currently!be!very!roughly!estimated.!! There!is!a!need!to!have!a!more!affordable!stove!technology!that!can!maximize! climate!and!health!benefits!to!similar!levels!as!the!top!three!performing!stoves! included!in!this!study’s!analyses!or!a!viable!means!to!either!reduce!costs!or! influence!user!prices!for!these!stoves.!This!will!be!dependent!upon!a!number!of! other!considerations!including!access!to!fuel,!appropriate!technology!design!and! effective!distribution!models!in!the!specific!project!locations.! 5.5 Fostering'Sustainable'Development' There!are!many!additional!dimensions!influencing!sustainable!development! outcomes!that!are!not!in!the!scope!of!this!research!which!also!need!to!be!taken!into! consideration!when!implementing!cookstove!projects!(See!Simon!et!al.,!2012;! Bumpus,!2011).!In!the!context!of!this!study!the!coPbenefits!of!improving!both! climate!and!health!conditions!are!shown!to!be!achieved!in!almost!all!scenarios! except!when!switching!to!the!coal!and!charcoal!stoves.!Yet!there!is!still!a!tradeoff! !  57!  between!the!maximization!of!these!coPbenefits.!Some!technologies!create!higher! levels!of!climate!benefits,!and!others!health.!Carbon!credit!projects!inherently!take! climate!benefits!into!consideration!as!their!measure!is!in!the!amount!of!CO2e! reduced,!but!development!benefits!including!health!are!not!integrated!into!this! mechanism.!Therefore!additional!efforts!need!to!be!made!to!ensure!that!projects’! priorities!are!transparent!and!evaluated!for!specific!outcomes!instead!of!claiming! ‘winPwin’!benefits,!while!failing!to!recognize!the!potential!tradeoffs!between! positive!coPbenefits.!Decisions!involved!in!choosing!project!technology!and! determining!project!design!must!be!consciously!made!to!ensure!that!there!are! limited!tradeoffs!of!benefits!in!order!to!cultivate!actual!winPwin!projects.!Additional! considerations!also!need!to!be!taken!into!account!to!ensure!sustainable! development!outcomes!such!as!local!environmental!impact,!local!users!needs!and! levels!of!participation,!and!how!benefits!of!carbon!credits!are!distributed!to!foster! equitable!outcomes.!The!GS!framework!is!intended!to!ensure!higher!levels!of! sustainable!development,!but!as!this!study!shows!it!does!not!always!account!for!all! the!various!tradeoffs!possible!for!a!given!priority!area.! ! ! ! ! !  !  58!  6  CONCLUSION'  In!this!study!it!was!found!that!tradeoffs!do!exist!between!the!maximization!of!coP benefits!for!the!number!of!carbon!credits!calculated!and!health!outcomes.!Therefore! if!GHG!reductions!or!improved!health!are!significant!priorities!these!need!to!be! explicitly!addressed!to!ensure!direct!results.!Three!technologies!were!identified!that! provide!both!high!climate!and!health!benefits,!the!KeroPU,!LPGPU!and!WPFanPU! stoves.!!However,!their!distribution!is!limited!due!to!their!high!costs.!Additionally,! the!fossil!fuels!stoves!if!switching!from!a!biomass!stove,!can!only!be!certified!under! the!GS!voluntary!emission!credits!methodology!and!require!established!fuel!supply! chains.!If!feasible,!there!is!a!need!for!more!affordable!biomass!stove!that! consistently!achieves!these!emission!levels!in!order!to!address!health!concerns!on!a! larger!scale.!Carbon!credits!provide!the!opportunity!to!potentially!subsidize!these! projects,!but!as!health!or!other!development!benefits!are!not!inherently!accounted! for!under!this!mechanism!these!issues!need!to!be!individually!and!directly! addressed!under!this!framework.! Within!the!carbon!credit!framework!further!tradeoffs!are!identified!as!the!GS! methodology!consistently!calculated!more!carbon!credits!than!the!CDM.!Still!the! actual!profitability!of!such!projects!will!be!greatly!dependent!on!the!price!the! credits!are!sold!for,!cost!of!certification,!size!of!the!project!and!demand!for!specific! types!of!credits.!Additionally,!the!CDM’s!equation!does!not!reflect!actual!emission! reduction!processes!as!accurately!as!GS!and!uses!a!misrepresentative!default! baseline!EF!in!its!calculations.!Other!considerations!regarding!carbon!credit! calculations!are!the!potential!inclusion!of!BC!and!the!accuracy!with!which!fNRB!is! !  59!  determined!as!both!greatly!influence!the!number!of!credits!calculated.!BC!has!the! potential!to!greatly!increase!profitability!of!such!projects!while!also!better! representing!climate!forcings!in!carbon!credit!calculations.!It!could!also!potentially! allow!for!cookstove!projects!to!apply!for!carbon!credits!even!in!areas!with!low!rates! of!nonPrenewable!fuel!sources.!For!the!fNRB,!as!it!is!a!highly!sensitive!variable,!more! robust!methods!are!needed!to!more!accurately!reflect!actual!emission!reductions.! As!implementation!of!cookstove!carbon!credit!projects!is!complex!and!multiP faceted,!this!research!is!meant!to!present!further!considerations!for!this!process.!It! is!imperative!that!specific!priority!criteria!are!clarified!before!project! implementation!for!projects!framed!as!‘winPwin’!to!ensure!that!such!priorities!are! actually!achieved.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  !  60!  REFERENCES' Andreae,!M.O.!&!Merlet,!P.,!2001.!Emission!of!trace!gases!and!aerosols!from!biomass! burning.!Global!Biogeochemical!Cycles,!15(4),!pp.955–966.! Bailis,!R.!et!al.,!2005.!Mortality!and!Greenhouse!Gas!Impacts!of!Biomass!and! Petroleum!Energy!Futures!in!Africa.!Science,!308(98),!pp.98–103.! Bailis,!R.!et!al.,!2009.!Arresting!the!Killer!in!the!Kitchen:!The!Promises!and!Pitfalls!of! Commercializing!Improved!Cookstoves.!World!Development,!37(10),! pp.1694–1705.! Bailis,!R.,!Ezzati,!M.!&!Kammen,!D.M.,!2003.!Greenhouse!Gas!Implications!of! Household!Energy!Technology!in!Kenya.!Environmental!Science!&! Technology,!37(10),!pp.2051–2059.! Barnes,!D.F.!et!al.,!1993.!The!design!and!diffusion!of!improved!cooking!stoves.!The! World!Bank!Research!Observer,!8(2),!pp.119–141.! Bennett,!D.!H.!et!al.,!2002.!Defining!Intake!Fraction.!Environmental!Science!&! Technology,!36(9),!pp.206A–211A.! Berrueta,!V.M.,!Edwards,!R.D.!&!Masera,!O.R.,!2008.!Energy!performance!of!woodP burning!cookstoves!in!Michoacan,!Mexico.!Renewable!Energy,!33(5),!pp.859– 870.! Biolite,!2012.!Introducing!The!BioLite!HomeStove.![online]!Available!at:! <http://biolitestove.com/homestove/overview/>![Accessed!!27!June!2012].! Blunck,!M.!et!al.,!2011.!Carbon!Markets!for!Improved!Cooking!Stoves,!A!GIZ!guide!for! project!operators.!GIZPHERA,!pp.1P61.! Bond,!T.C.,!2007.!Can!warming!particles!enter!global!climate!discussions?! Environmental!Research!Letters,!2(045030),!pp.1P9.! Bond,!T.C.!et!al.,!2004.!A!technologyPbased!global!inventory!of!black!and!organic! carbon!emissions!from!combustion.!Journal!of!Geophysical!Research,! 109(D14203),!pp.1P43.! Bond,!T.C.!&!Sun,!H.,!2005.!Can!Reducing!Black!Carbon!Emissions!Counteract!Global! Warming?!Environmental!Science!&!Technology,!39(16),!pp.5921–5926.! Boyd,!W.!&!Salzman,!J.,!2011.!The!Curious!Case!of!Greening!in!Carbon!Markets.! Environmental!Law,!41(73),!pp.73P94.!Available!at:! http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1783748.!  !  61!  Bruce,!N.,!et!al.,!2006.!Indoor!Air!Pollution.!In:!Disease!Control!Priorities!in! Developing!Countries!2nd!ed.!Oxford!University!Press,!New!York.!pp.!793– 816.! Bruce,!N.,!PerezPPadilla,!R.!&!Albalak,!R.,!2000.!Indoor!air!pollution!in!developing! countries:!a!major!environmental!and!public!health!challenge.!Bulletin!of!the! World!Health!Organization,!78(9),!pp.1078–1092.! Bumpus,!A.!G.,!2009.!The!geographies!of!carbon!offsets:!governance,!materialities! and!development.!University!of!Oxford,!Oxford,!U.K,!pp.1P365.! Bumpus,!A.G.,!2011.!The!Matter!of!Carbon:!Understanding!the!Materiality!of!tCO2e! in!Carbon!Offsets.!Antipode,!43(3),!pp.612–638.! Bumpus,!A.G.!&!Cole,!J.C.,!2010.!How!can!the!current!CDM!deliver!sustainable! development?!WIREs!Climate!Change,!1(4),!pp.541–547.! Chaurey,!A.!et!al.,!2012.!New!partnerships!and!business!models!for!facilitating! energy!access.!Energy!Policy![In!Press],!pp.1–8.! Cosbey,!A.!et!al.,!2005.!Realizing!the!Development!Dividend:!Making!the!CDM!Work! for!Developing!Countries!(Phase!I!Report).!International!Institute!for! Sustainable!Development,!pp.1–72.!Available!at:! <http://www.iisd.org/climate/global/dividend.asp>.! Department!for!Environment,!Food!and!Rural!Affairs!(Defra),!2012.!2012!Guidelines! to!Defra/DECC’s!GHG!Conversion!Factors!for!Company!Reporting,!Version! 1.0.!Defra.!Available!at:! <http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2012/05/30/pb13773P2012PghgP conversion/>.! Drupp,!M.A.,!2011.!Does!the!Gold!Standard!label!hold!its!promise!in!delivering! higher!Sustainable!Development!benefits?!A!multiPcriteria!comparison!of! CDM!projects.!Energy!Policy,!39(3),!pp.1213–1227.! EcoZoom,!2012.!EcoZoom.![online]!Available!at:!<!http://ecozoomstove.com/>! [Accessed!!27!June!2012].! Elias,!R.J.!&!Victor,!D.G.,!2005.!Energy!transitions!in!developing!countries:!a!review! of!concepts!and!literature.!The!Program!on!Energy!and!Sustainable! Development,!Standford!University!(Working!Paper#!40),!pp.1P33.! Envirofit,!2011.!Envirofit:!making!the!world!fit!for!humanity.![online]!Available!at:!<! http://www.envirofit.org/>![Accessed!08!August!2011].!  !  62!  Food!and!Agriculture!Organization!(FAO).!2002.!Chapter!2:!Wood!As!An!Energy! Source.!In!Economic!Analysis!of!Wood!Energy!Systems.!FAO.!Available!At:! <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,!pp.1–20.! First!Energy,!2012.!First!Energy.![online]!Available!at:!<! http://www.firstenergy.in/>![Accessed!!27!June!2012].! Global!Alliance!for!Clean!Cookstoves!(GACC),!2011.!Working!Group!Early!Action! Items.!pp.1–47.!Available!at:!<http://cleancookstoves.org/wpP content/uploads/2011/06/EarlyPActionPItemPCompilationPFINAL.pdf>.! Grieshop,!A.P.!et!al.,!2009.!A!blackPcarbon!mitigation!wedge.!Nature!Publishing! Group,!2(8),!pp.533–534.! Grieshop,!A.P.,!Marshall,!J.D.!&!Kandlikar,!M.,!2011.!Health!and!climate!benefits!of! cookstove!replacement!options.!Energy!Policy,!39(12),!pp.7530–7542.! Hanbar,!R.D.!&!Karve,!P.,!2002.!National!Programme!on!Improved!Chulha!(NPIC)!of! the!Government!of!India:!an!overview.!Energy!for!Sustainable!Development,! 6(2),!pp.49–55.! Hedon!Household!Energy!Network!(HHEN),!2010.!Philips!Wood!Stove.![online]! Available!at:!<!http://www.hedon.info/Philipswoodstove?bl=y>![Accessed! 08!August!2011].! Holdren,!J.P.!&!Smith,!K.!R.,!!2000.!Chapter!3:!Energy,!the!Environment,!and!Health.! In!Energy!and!the!challenge!of!sustainability.!United!Nations!Development! Programme,!New!York,!pp.61P104.! Hutton,!G.,!et!al.,!2006.!Evaluation!of!the!costs!and!benefits!of!household!energy!and! health!interventions!at!global!and!regional!levels,!Summary.!World!Health! Organization,!pp.1–19.!Available!at:! <http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/summary/en/index.html>.! IPCC,!1996.!Find!EF!–!Results.![online]!Available!at:!<http://www.ipccP nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/find_ef.php>![Accessed!27!June!2012].! IPCC,!2007.!Fourth!Assessment!Report:!Working!Group!1:!The!Physical!Basis!for! Climate!Change.!Geneva,!Switzerland.! Jacobson,!M.Z.,!2002.!Control!of!fossilPfuel!particulate!black!carbon!and!organic! matter,!possibly!the!most!effective!method!of!slowing!global!warming.! Journal!of!Geophysical!Research,!107(D19).!pp.1P22.! !  63!  Jetter,!J.J.!&!Kariher,!P.,!2009.!SolidPfuel!household!cook!stoves:!Characterization!of! performance!and!emissions.!Biomass!and!Bioenergy,!33(2),!pp.294–305.! Johnson,!M.!et!al.,!2008.!InPfield!greenhouse!gas!emissions!from!cookstoves!in!rural! Mexican!households.!Atmospheric!Environment,!42(6),!pp.1206–1222.! Johnson,!M.,!Edwards,!R.!&!Masera,!O.,!2010.!Improved!stove!programs!need!robust! methods!to!estimate!carbon!offsets.!Climatic!Change,!102(3P4),!pp.641–649.! Kandlikar,!M.,!Reynolds,!C.C.O.!&!Grieshop,!A.P.,!2009.!A!Perspective!Paper!on!Black! Carbon!Mitigation!as!a!Response!to!Climate!Change.!Copehagen!Consensus! on!Climate,!pp.1–20.!Available!at:! <http://fixtheclimate.com/uploads/tx_templavoila/PP_Black_Carbon_Kandli kar_Reynolds_Grieshop_v.1.0.pdf>.! Legros,!G.!et!al.,!2009.!The!energy!access!situation!in!developing!countries:!a!review! focusing!on!the!least!developed!countries!and!SubPSaharan!Africa.!UNDP!&! WHO,!New!York.! MacCarty,!N.!et!al.,!2008.!A!laboratory!comparison!of!the!global!warming!impact!of! five!major!types!of!biomass!cooking!stoves.!Energy!for!Sustainable! Development,!12(2),!pp.5P14.! Mathers,!C.,!Stevens,!G.!&!Mascarenhas,!M.,!2009.!Global!Health!Risks,!Mortality!and! burden!of!disease!attributable!to!selected!major!risks.!World!Health! Organization,!pp.1P62.! 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,!pp.279–295.! McShane,!T.!O.!et!al.,!2011.!Hard!choices:!Making!tradePoffs!between!biodiversity! conservation!and!human!wellPbeing.!Biological!Conservation,!144,!pp.966– 972.! Mehta,!S.!&!Shahpar,!C.,!2004.!The!health!benefits!of!interventions!to!reduce!indoor! air!pollution!from!solid!fuel!use:!a!costPeffectiveness!analysis.!Energy!for! Sustainable!Development,!8(3),!pp.53P59.! Naeher,!L.P.!et!al.,!2007.!Woodsmoke!Health!Effects:!A!Review.!Inhalation! Toxicology,!19(1),!pp.67–106.! Nussbaumer,!P.,!2009.!On!the!contribution!of!labelled!Certified!Emission!Reductions! to!sustainable!development:!A!multiPcriteria!evaluation!of!CDM!projects.! Energy!Policy,!37(1),!pp.91–101.!  !  64!  Olsen,!K.H.,!2007.!The!clean!development!mechanism’s!contribution!to!sustainable! development:!a!review!of!the!literature.!Climatic!Change,!84(1),!pp.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(12),! pp.7587–7594.! Patrick,!E.,!2007.!Sexual!violence!and!firewood!collection!in!Darfur.!Forced! Migration!Review,!27,!pp.40–41.! The!Partnership!for!Clean!Indoor!Air!(PCIA),!2011a.!First!Energy!Private!Limited.! [online]!Available!at:!<!http://www.pciaonline.org/firstPenergyPprivateP limited>![Accessed!08!August!2011].! !PCIA,!2011b.!Perspectives:!Allocating!Carbon!Revenue.!Webinar,!15!Dec!2011.!PCIA.! Available!at:! <http://www.pciaonline.org/Webinar_Perspectives_Allocating_Carbon_Reve nue>.! Pearson,!B.!2006.!Market!failure:!why!the!Clean!Development!Mechanism!won't! promote!clean!development.!Journal!of!Cleaner!Production,!15,!pp.247–252.! Pennise,!D.M.!et!al.,!2001.!Emissions!of!greenhouse!gases!and!other!airborne! pollutants!from!charcoal!making!in!Kenya!and!Brazil.!Journal!of!Geophysical! Research,!106(D20),!pp.24143–24156.! PetersPStanley,!M.!&!Hamilton,!K.,!2012.!Developing!Dimension:!State!of!the! Voluntary!Carbon!Markets!2012.!Ecosystem!Marketplace!&!Bloomberg!New! Energy!Finance,!pp.1P90.! Philips,!2011.!Woodstove.![online]!Available!at:! <http://www.research.philips.com/technologies/woodstove.html>! [Accessed!08!August!2011].! Pine,!K.,!R.!et!al.,!2011.!Adoption!and!use!of!improved!biomass!stoves!in!Rural! Mexico.!Energy!for!Sustainable!Development,!15,!pp.176–183.! Pope,!C.A.!et!al.,!2009.!Cardiovascular!Mortality!and!Exposure!to!Airborne!Fine! Particulate!Matter!and!Cigarette!Smoke:!Shape!of!the!ExposurePResponse! Relationship.!Circulation,!120(11),!pp.941–948.! Pope,!D.P.!et!al.,!2010.!Risk!of!Low!Birth!Weight!and!Stillbirth!Associated!With! Indoor!Air!Pollution!From!Solid!Fuel!Use!in!Developing!Countries.! Epidemiologic!Reviews,!32(1),!pp.70–81.! Rai,!K.!&!McDonald,!J.!2009.!Cookstoves!and!Markets:!Experiences,!Successes!and! Opportunities,!GVEP!International,!pp.1P41.! !  65!  Ramanathan,!V.!&!Carmichael,!G.,!2008.!Global!and!regional!climate!changes!due!to! black!carbon.!nature!geoscience,!1,!pp.221P227.! Rehfuess,!E.,!2006.!Fuel!for!life:!household!energy!and!health.!World!Health! Organization,!pp.1P42.!Available!at:! <http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/fuelforlife/en/index.html>.! Rehman,!I.!&!Malhotra,!P.,!2004.!Fire!Without!Smoke:!Learning!from!the!National! Program!on!Improved!Chulhas.!The!World!Bank/The!Energy!Resources! Institute.!pp.1P156.! Reynolds,!C.C.O.!&!Kandlikar,!M.,!2008.!Climate!Impacts!of!Air!Quality!Policy:! Switching!to!a!Natural!GasPFueled!Public!Transportation!System!in!New! Delhi.!Environmental!Science!&!Technology,!42(16),!pp.5860–5865.! Roden,!C.A.!et!al.,!2006.!Emission!Factors!and!RealPTime!Optical!Properties!of! Particles!Emitted!from!Traditional!Wood!Burning!Cookstoves.! Environmental!Science!&!Technology,!40(21),!pp.6750–6757.! RuizPMercado,!I.!et!al.,!2011.!Adoption!and!sustained!use!of!improved!cookstoves.! Energy!Policy,!39!pp.7557–7566.! Shindell,!D.T.!et!al.,!2009.!Improved!Attribution!of!Climate!Forcing!to!Emissions.! Science,!326(5953),!pp.716–718.! Shrimali,!G.!et!al.,!2011.!Improved!stoves!in!India:!A!study!of!sustainable!business! models.!Energy!Policy,!39(12),!pp.7543–7556.! Simon,!G.L.,!Bumpus,!A.G.!&!Mann,!P.,!2012.!WinPwin!scenarios!at!the!climate– development!interface:!Challenges!and!opportunities!for!stove!replacement! programs!through!carbon!finance.!Global!Environmental!Change,!22(1),! pp.275–287.! Sinton,!J.E.!et!al.,!2004.!An!assessment!of!programs!to!promote!improved!household! stoves!in!China.!Energy!for!Sustainable!Development,!8(3),!pp.33–52.! Smith,!K.R.!et!al.,!1993.!One!hundred!million!improved!cookstoves!in!China:!how! was!it!done?!World!Development,!21,!pp.941–961.' Smith,!K.!R.!et!al.,!2000a.!Greenhouse!Gases!from!SmallPScale!Combustion!Devices!in! Developing!Countries,!Phase!IIA:!Household!Stoves!in!India,!US!EPA,! Washington,!DC!(Report!no.!EPA/600/RP00/052).!pp.1P97.!!Available!from:! www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/!600r00052/600R00052.pdf.' Smith,!K.R.!et!al.,!2000b.!Greenhouse!implications!of!household!stoves:!an!analysis! for!India.!Annual!Review!of!Energy!and!the!Environment,!25(1),!pp.741–763.!  !  66!  Smith,!K.R.!et!al.,!2000c.!Indoor!air!pollution!in!developing!countries!and!acute! lower!respiratory!infections!in!children.!Thorax,!55,!pp.518–532.! Smith,!K.R.!et!al.,!2009a.!Public!health!benefits!of!strategies!to!reduce!greenhouseP gas!emissions:!health!implications!of!shortPlived!greenhouse!pollutants.!The! Lancet,!374(9707),!pp.2091–2103.! Smith,!K.R.!et!al.,!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,!pp.1–11.! Smith,!K.R.!&!Haigler,!E.,!2008.!CoPBenefits!of!Climate!Mitigation!and!Health! Protection!in!Energy!Systems:!Scoping!Methods.!Annual!Review!of!Public! Health,!29(1),!pp.11–25.! Smith,!K.R.!&!Mehta,!S.,!2003.!The!burden!of!disease!from!indoor!air!pollution!in! developing!countries:!comparison!of!estimates.!International!journal!of! hygiene!and!environmental!health,!206(4P5),!pp.279–289.! Smith,!K.,!Mehta,!S.!&!MaeusezahlPFeuz,!M.,!2004.!Indoor!air!pollution!from! household!use!of!solid!fuels.!In:!Ezzati,!M.,!Rodgers,!A.,!Lopez,!A.,!Murray,!C.! (Eds.),!Comparative!Quantification!of!Health!Risks:!Global!and!Regional! Burden!of!Disease!Due!to!Selected!Major!Risk!Factors,!vol.!2.!World!Health! Organization,!Geneva.!pp.1435P1493.! Smith,!K.R.!&!Peel,!J.L.,!2010.!Mind!the!Gap.!Environmental!Health!Perspectives,! 118(12),!pp.1643–1645.! Smith,!K.R.!&!Dutta,!K.,!2011.!“Cooking!with!Gas.”!Energy!for!Sustainable! Development,!15(2),!pp.115–116.! Sterk,!W.!&!Wittneben,!B.,!2006.!Enhancing!the!clean!development!mechanism! through!sectoral!approaches:!definitions,!applications!and!ways!forward.! International!Environmental!Agreements:!Politics,!Law!and!Economics,!6(3),! pp.271–287.! Tallis,!H.!et!al.,!2008.!An!ecosystem!services!framework!to!support!both!practical! conservation!and!economic!development.!Proceedings!of!the!National! Academy!of!Sciences!of!the!United!States!of!America,!105(28),!pp.9457– 9464.! The!Gold!Standard,!2011a.!Gold!Standard!FAQs.![online]!Available!at:!<! http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/GoldPStandardPFAQs.194.0.html>! [Accessed!08!August!2011].!  !  67!  The!Gold!Standard,!2011b.!Technologies!and!Practices!to!Displace!Decentralized! Thermal!Energy!Consumption,!V.01.!The!Gold!Standard,!pp.1P66.!Available!at:! http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/wpP content/uploads/2011/10/GS_110411_TPDDTEC_Methodology.pdf.! The!Gold!Standard,!2011c.!What!we!do.![online]!Available!at:!<! http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/WhatPwePdo.64.0.html>![Accessed!08! August!2011].! Top,!N.!et!al.,!2004.!Spatial!analysis!of!woodfuel!supply!and!demand!in!Kampong! Thom!Province,!Cambodia.!Forest!Ecology!and!Management,!194(1P3),! pp.369–378.! Troncoso,!K.!et!al.,!2011.!Understanding!an!improved!cookstove!program!in!rural! Mexico!An!analysis!from!the!implementers'!perspective.!Energy!Policy,! 39(12),!pp.7600–7608.! UNFCCC,!2011a.!About!CDM.![online]!Available!at:!<! http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/index.html>![Accessed!08!August!2011].! UNFCCC,!2011b.!Kyoto!Protocol.![online]!Available!at:!<! http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/3145.php>![Accessed!08!August! 2011].! UNFCCC,!2011c.!II.G!Energy!efficiency!measures!in!thermal!applications!of!nonP renewable!biomss,!Version!02.!UNFCCC,!pp.1P7.!Available!at:! http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/AUBHMWJVKFSY9D13 80NOI5ET26ZQLG.! UNFCCC,!2011d.!II.G!Energy!efficiency!measures!in!thermal!applications!of!nonP renewable!biomass,!Version!03.!UNFCCC,!pp.1P7.!Available!at:! http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/MLDN960OH41VWJPC Z23ERFUQT5BAGX.! United!Nations!(UN).,!1998.!Kyoto!Protocol!to!the!United!Nationals!framework! convention!on!climate!change!UNFCCC,!ed.!pp.1–21.! Venkataraman,!C.!et!al.,!2010.!The!Indian!National!Initiative!for!Advanced!Biomass! Cookstoves:!The!benefits!of!clean!combustion.!Energy!for!Sustainable! Development,!14(2),!pp.63–72.! Wickramasinghe,!A.,!2003.!Gender!and!health!issues!in!the!biomass!energy!cycle:! impediments!to!sustainable!development.!Energy!for!Sustainable! Development,!7(3),!pp.51–61.!  !  68!  Wickramasinghe,!A.,!2011.!Energy!access!and!transition!to!cleaner!cooking!fuels!and! technologies!in!Sri!Lanka!Issues!and!policy!limitations.!Energy!Policy,!39,! pp.7567–7574.! Wilkinson,!P.!et!al.,!2009.!Public!health!benefits!of!strategies!to!reduce!greenhouseP gas!emissions:!household!energy.!The!Lancet,!374,!pp.1917–1929.! Zerriffi,!H.,!2011.!Innovative!business!models!for!the!scalePup!of!energy!access! efforts!for!the!poorest.!Current!Opinion!in!Environmental!Sustainability,!3(4),! pp.272–278.! Zhang,!J.!et!al.,!2000.!Greenhouse!gases!and!other!airborne!pollutants!from! household!stoves!in!China:!a!database!for!emission!factors.!Atmospheric! Environment,!34(26),!pp.4537–4549.! Zhou,!Z.!et!al.!2011.!Household!and!community!poverty,!biomass!use,!and!air! pollution!in!Accra,!Ghana.!PNAs,!108(27),!pp.11028P11033.! !  !  69!  

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.24.1-0073206/manifest

Comment

Related Items