Rosenthal Joshua, Quinn Ashlinn, Grieshop Andrew P, Pillarisetti Ajay, Glass Roger I
Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, USA.
Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, USA.
Energy Sustain Dev. 2018 Feb;42:152-159. doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2017.11.003. Epub 2017 Dec 8.
Development and implementation of clean cooking technology for households in low and middle income countries (LMICs) offer enormous promise to advance at least five Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): 3. Good health and well-being; 5. Gender equality; 7. Affordable and clean energy; 13. Climate action; 15. Life on land. Programs are being implemented around the world to introduce alternative cooking technologies, and we are well on the way to achieving the goal set by the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves to reach 100 million homes with cleaner and more efficient cooking methods by 2020. Despite evidence that household air pollution (HAP) from solid fuel combustion is responsible for 3-4 million early deaths per year, many cookstove programs are motivated and/or financed by climate change mitigation schemes and deploy alternative stoves that use solid fuels such as wood and charcoal. However, recent studies have demonstrated that improved biomass-burning stoves typically only incrementally improve air quality and yield modest or minimal health benefits. Likewise, their contributions to climate change mitigation and other SDGs may be limited. Evidence indicates that cleaner fuels, such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas, offer greater potential benefits not only to health, but also greater progress towards climate goals and other relevant SDGs. We present a modeled estimate of these potential gains for a diverse group of 40 LMICs. Our model suggests that cookstove programs using LPG stoves and fuel will yield greater reductions in both Disability Adjusted Life Years and Global Warming Commitment in these countries than those using improved biomass stoves. Cost and infrastructure requirements for clean fuels such as LPG are widely recognized constraints. In view of these constraints we present an analytical method to simultaneously consider health and climate needs at the national level for the same 40 countries in the context of estimated LPG expansion potentials. Comparative analyses integrating priorities across SDGs at the national and regional levels may guide more practical and effective household energy development choices going forward.
为低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)的家庭开发和推广清洁烹饪技术,有望极大地推动至少五个可持续发展目标(SDGs)的实现:目标3. 良好健康与福祉;目标5. 性别平等;目标7. affordable and clean energy;目标13. 气候行动;目标15. 陆地生物。全球正在实施各种项目来引入替代烹饪技术,并且我们正在朝着全球清洁炉灶联盟设定的到2020年让1亿家庭采用更清洁、更高效烹饪方法的目标稳步迈进。尽管有证据表明固体燃料燃烧产生的家庭空气污染(HAP)每年导致300万至400万人过早死亡,但许多炉灶项目是由减缓气候变化计划推动和/或资助的,并且推广使用木材和木炭等固体燃料的替代炉灶。然而,最近的研究表明,改良的生物质燃烧炉灶通常只会在一定程度上改善空气质量,带来的健康益处适度或极小。同样,它们对减缓气候变化和其他可持续发展目标的贡献可能也很有限。有证据表明,更清洁的燃料,如液化石油气(LPG)、乙醇和沼气,不仅对健康有更大的潜在益处,而且在实现气候目标和其他相关可持续发展目标方面也能取得更大进展。我们针对40个不同的低收入和中等收入国家给出了这些潜在收益的模型估算。我们的模型表明,在这些国家,使用液化石油气炉灶和燃料的炉灶项目在残疾调整生命年和全球变暖承诺方面的减少幅度将大于使用改良生物质炉灶的项目。液化石油气等清洁燃料的成本和基础设施要求是公认的制约因素。鉴于这些制约因素,我们提出一种分析方法,在估算液化石油气扩张潜力的背景下,同时考虑这40个国家在国家层面的健康和气候需求。在国家和区域层面整合可持续发展目标优先事项的比较分析,可能会为未来更实际、有效的家庭能源发展选择提供指导。