1/4th of global population producing 2% of emissions for cooking seems entirely reasonable use of our global emission budget. Absolutely zero wrong there.
Now other emissions such as particulate could be helpful for their well being. Which is also reasonable goal...
Now involving carbon markets for reducing these emissions, that is just green washing and should not happen.
> 1/4th of global population producing 2% of emissions for cooking seems entirely reasonable use of our global emission budget. Absolutely zero wrong there.
Exactly my point. And while it may be good to strive to even reduce that, currently there are far lower-hanging-fruit that give a much larger win for far less investment.
That is, if this -at most- 2% reduction comes for "free" because changing is something we need to do for other reasons (health, budget, etc) then fine, any win is a win. But from the article I get that a rather large system is set up to measure, offset and calculate the greenhouse emission of this -IMO- negligible contribution. It begs the question "why is air travel largely excempted from the same system of certification"? Or "why is meat and farming in general not put under the same scrutiny"?
Now other emissions such as particulate could be helpful for their well being. Which is also reasonable goal...
Now involving carbon markets for reducing these emissions, that is just green washing and should not happen.