4.7 Review

Can carbon finance transform household energy markets? A review of cookstove projects and programs in Kenya

期刊

ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 55-66

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.12.012

关键词

Kenya; Cookstoves; Carbon finance; Market transformation; Africa; Renewable energya

资金

  1. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
  2. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) through the Stockholm Environment Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Billions of people use traditional renewable energy (wood, charcoal and dung) to cook in and heat their homes. These traditional methods create serious health and environmental hazards, leading to renewed efforts to bring cleaner, more efficient stoves to people around the world but particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia where poverty is highest. Through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and voluntary markets, carbon finance is emerging as an attractive option to help scale-up cookstove projects. However, there is little understanding of how carbon-financed projects can help transform markets. This article begins to fill that gap by examining the role of carbon finance in cookstove projects in Kenya. Data was gathered through a review of project design documents for carbon-financed cookstove projects in Kenya and 26 interviews with stakeholders in the cookstove sector. Our analysis shows that carbon finance can help build a vibrant market for improved cookstoves by attracting international actors and technologies, helping establish standards for monitoring stoves and facilitating better follow-up and after-sales support. However, we highlight risks, such as potential mismatch between cheap and efficient technology and meeting user expectations and preferences. The study shows the need for further research on impact of carbon finance on improved cookstove project implementation across a broader range of contexts. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据