COOKINGUPCONTROVERSY
By
: Kevin
Deshun
Rodgers College of Global Futures, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 777 E University Dr., Tempe, AZ 85281, USA; E Mail kdrodge1@asu edu
On-location Research Assistant and Photographer : Liaquat Hussain Freelance Advising Agronomist, Mityana & Kampala, Uganda: E Mail talashakrsp@gmail com
Faculty Supervisor: Dr Itty Abraham College of Global Futures, School for the Future of Innovation in Society, 800 S Cady Mall – Suite 401, Tempe AZ 85287 6002, USA; E Mail Itty Abraham@asu edu Principles of presentation
ABSTRACT:
Improved cooking stoves, touted for their energy efficiency and reduced emissions, are often promoted as a sustainable solution for cooking in the Global South, yet they have struggled to achieve widespread adoption. This report delves into the dynamics of cooking fuel choices in Uganda, pivoting from a focus on stove technologies to the socio-economic factors that encourage reliance on traditional biomass fuels such as wood and charcoal. Interviews with Ugandan families reveal that cost, accessibility, and entrenched cultural practices are the primary drivers of these decisions, with health and environmental concerns generally taking a secondary role. These findings underscore the resilience of communities that adapt to economic and social constraints, suggesting that solutions to encourage cleaner cooking should align more closely with existing economic realities and cultural preferences.
COOKING UP CONTROVERSY: RETHINKING CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITIONS THROUGH THE LENS OF FUEL CHOICES
Cooking fuel choices in the Global South tell a complex story, one that's deeply rooted in economics, practicality, and what's available. For many families, using biomass fuels like wood and charcoal isn't just a tradition, it's a necessity woven into the fabric of everyday life. Despite the push for cleaner alternatives like LPG and electric stoves, the reality is that high costs and limited infrastructure keep these options out of reach for many
The consequences of sticking with traditional fuels are serious: deforestation, more carbon emissions, and health issues like respiratory illnesses. Sure, modern stoves might offer health and environmental benefits, but they miss the mark on aligning with the day-to-day economic and practical realities these families face. This begs the question: Should we really be pushing improved stoves, or is the real solution about making sustainable fuel options more affordable and accessible? Amid these challenges, there's a remarkable resilience in these communities Relying on wood and charcoal, they adapt to their circumstances, putting survival today ahead of potential long-term environmental or health consequences tomorrow. This isn't about ignorance but necessity and the need to navigate through systemic barriers that are all too real. This research digs into the dynamics of cooking fuel choices, challenging the idea that just upgrading stove technology will solve the problem. By really understanding the economic, social, and practical factors that drive these decisions, we can start to think about clean energy transitions in a way that respects local realities and pushes for genuinely sustainable solutions.
MOVING BEYOND STOVES:
Understanding Fuel Choices and Everyday
Resilience
Studies on improved cooking stoves often zero in on technological upgrades like better heat transfer, lower emissions, and increased efficiency. While these advancements tackle important environmental and health issues, they tend to skip a critical question: why do families stick with traditional biomass fuels like wood and charcoal?
Through qualitative interviews in Uganda, this research pivoted from pushing a narrative of universal clean fuels to diving into the real-life choices about fuel. For many, decisions are driven more by cost, accessibility, and what's familiar than by concerns over health or the environment. Take Sarah, a housemaid in Mubanda, who puts it simply: "Charcoal is something I can manage everywhere. It's affordable
and easy to cook with." This sentiment captures a common theme of practicality over the perceived benefits of cleaner options. This study doesn't just label these choices as backward or harmful; instead, it recognizes them as smart adaptations. Families work with what they can afford and what's available, even though this comes with big trade-offs like deforestation, respiratory diseases, and carbon emissions. But it's crucial to grasp the socio-economic landscape behind these choices. This research challenges the usual emphasis on better stoves as the beall and end-all solution, advocating instead for a focus on making fuel choices more accessible, affordable, and aligned with local preferences to forge truly sustainable solutions.
FROM STOVES TO STORIES: SHIFTING THE FOCUS
Brianʼs story reflects a tension between survival and the push for change. Firewood remains accessible and free in his area, where alternatives like charcoal and modern stoves are too expensive. This highlights the challenges many families face in transitioning to cleaner fuels, not because theyʼre unaware of the benefits but because their immediate needs outweigh long-term solutions.
For 22-year-old Muhando Brian from Kasese, Western Uganda, cooking is more than a daily necessity, it's shaped by practicality and access. Growing up, Brian has always relied on firewood as the primary source of cooking fuel. While this method is deeply ingrained in his daily life, it comes with hidden costs on health, safety, and the environment.
Brian perceives the firewood as free, saying, 'I use firewood because itʼs easy to get. In our area, we have a lot of forests, so I get it free from there.' However, research shows this perceived affordability comes at a high price. The hidden costs of using firewood and its impact on health, safety, and continued deforestation are significant. Brian adds, 'I donʼt have enough money to buy charcoal and a stove, so I use forest firewood in an artificial stove.' His remarks underscore how economic and accessibility barriers often supersede the direct costs, making the transition to cleaner fuels a complex issue for many.
THE RISKS HIDDEN IN THE SMOKE
While firewood is essential for Brianʼs daily needs, he's well aware of its negative aspects He points out a particular type of wood called 'Multusee' in the local language, which emits harmful smoke that causes breathing problems.
'The tree which gives us firewood with a very bad smell we call “Multusee” in our language, but I donʼt know its English name,' he explains, highlighting a significant local issue that hasn't garnered much global attention.
The health impacts are just the start. Brian also notes how the smoke from the firewood blackens and eventually corrodes their iron roofing sheets, causing leaks when it rains. More concerning is
the fire risk it poses: 'It can cause fire accidents at home My younger sister burned her hand once entering the fire, so itʼs dangerous for babies,' he recounts. Brianʼs dependence on firewood is driven by economic necessity, not ignorance. His experience underscores the importance of developing solutions that are mindful of local contexts while addressing health and safety risks. Strategies could include subsidizing cleaner fuels, fostering biofuel innovations, or enhancing community education to ensure safer, more sustainable fuel practices without disregarding the practical realities families face.
“THE CHARCOAL CHOICE: ”
“Stories of Survival and Resilience”Charcoal in Context: A Comparison of Uganda and the USA
In Uganda, charcoal is not a luxury but a necessity for daily cooking, sold in bulk sacks of 25 28 kilograms for around 80,000 UGX (approximately $21 USD). This translates to a cost of roughly $0.75 per pound, making it accessible to households that depend on it for survival. By comparison, in the USA, charcoal is marketed primarily for recreational use, such as barbecues, and is sold in smaller packages at significantly higher prices around $1.20 to $1.50 per pound for a 15-pound bag.
This stark difference in price and packaging underscores the contrasting societal roles of charcoal in these regions. In Uganda, itʼs a lifeline, central to food preparation and household energy needs. Its affordability reflects the economic realities of families for whom alternatives like LPG or electricity are out of reach. In the USA, charcoal is treated as a convenience or luxury, priced for occasional use rather than as a daily necessity.
Insight: This disparity highlights the global challenge of energy transitions. In countries like Uganda, where charcoal is a vital and affordable fuel source, addressing environmental concerns must consider the socioeconomic realities of dependence on traditional fuels. Conversely, the USAʼs pricing structure reflects the privilege of treating charcoal as a non-essential good, providing opportunities for innovation in sustainable alternatives without threatening livelihoods. This comparison underscores the need for tailored, equitable solutions that balance affordability, accessibility, and sustainability across diverse contexts.
CHARCOAL:
For Robert and Sarah, charcoal is a necessity shaped by economic realities. Their reliance on this fuel underscores the challenges families face in adopting alternatives like gas or electric stoves due to cost and infrastructure limitations. These narratives reveal the complex trade-o s between a ordability, accessibility, and environmental sustainability.
ROBERT:
A ordability and Necessity
As a store manager in Kampala, Robertʼs reliance on charcoal stems from necessity. 'I use charcoal for cooking because itʼs cheap compared to electricity and gas cylinders,' he explains. While he dreams of owning an electric cooker, financial constraints keep it out of reach.
While he dreams of owning an electric cooker, financial constraints make this out of reach. “Iprefer an electric cooker, but I canʼt afford it, ” he admits, echoing the sentiment of many in his community. Though he acknowledges the environmental toll of charcoal use, Robert feels trapped by necessity: “I know thiscooking method causes environmentalpollution, but I donʼt have enoughmoney togo for otherways ofcooking. ”
SARAH: Tradition and Adaptability
Sarah, a housemaid in Mubanda, highlights safety concerns about gas cylinders: 'I know my relatives in Kampala have died because of gas cylinder leakage.' These fears, combined with financial constraints, lead her to rely on charcoal and, when necessary, make her own from firewood.
When money is tight, Sarah takes matters into her own hands collecting firewood from the forest and making her own charcoal. “When Idonʼt havemoney, Iget firewoodfromthe forestandmakecharcoalbymyself, ” she says, reflecting her resourcefulness and determination
Unlike Robert, Sarah is resistant to alternatives like gas cylinders, citing safety concerns “I knowmy relativesinKampalahavediedbecauseofgascylinderleakage, ” she says, highlighting the fear and mistrust surrounding modern fuels in her community.
COMPLEX CHOICES, SHARED CHALLENGES
Both Robert and Sarah are aware of the health risks associated with using charcoal, especially indoors. 'Itʼs not healthy when you cook with charcoal inside the home,' Sarah points out. However, financial constraints and practical issues prevent them from switching to cleaner alternatives like gas Their situations highlight the urgent need for solutions that not only promote safety but are also affordable, tackling the systemic barriers that families encounter. Their stories emphasize the importance of developing interventions that are cost-effective and resonate with local perceptions and concerns. Whether it's through subsidized electric cookers or educational initiatives about clean fuel options, these measures must be deeply rooted in the real-life experiences of people like Robert and Sarah
The adaptability of communities in the Global South, as shown by Robert and Sarah, is shaped by necessity. Their reliance on charcoal is driven by affordability, availability, and practicality, not a lack of knowledge. These narratives uncover the complex web of fuel choices, where families are forced to balance economic challenges and the perceived risks of alternatives like gas and electric stoves. Centering on the lived experiences of individuals like Robert and Sarah provides essential insights
into the systemic obstacles to adopting cleaner fuels This research challenges the effectiveness of universal solutions, advocating for sustainable transitions that consider affordability, accessibility, and local conditions. Understanding these complexities is crucial for crafting interventions that align immediate survival needs with long-term health and environmental objectives.
WHAT THE RESEARCH REVEALED:
The Realities of Fuel
Choices in Uganda
The conversations were eye-opening. In rural Uganda, firewood and charcoal aren't just fuels they're vital their way of life dictated by cost, accessibility, and the stark necessities of daily survival. Firewood, being free and abundant, is the go-to resource in rural areas, while charcoal is favored in urban settings for its affordability and ease of use, despite the significant environmental impact it carries.
The stark economic realities make it clear: cleaner alternatives like LPG are often too expensive for most families, and electric stoves aren't practical due to the unreliable infrastructure. For most, using wood or charcoal isnʼt about preference; itʼs about survival.
These insights underline the gap between the potential of modern fuels and the actual circumstances of people living in the Global South. Tackling these challenges effectively demands solutions that focus on making energy both affordable and accessible, and improving infrastructure, rather than pushing a uniform switch to cleaner energy that may not fit local realities.
KEROSENE:
A Practical Solution with Hidden Costs
THE KEROSENE QUESTION:
In Mpigi, Mityana District, Joseph Vanok, a 28-year-old agricultural extension worker, relies on kerosene for its efficiency and convenience. Unlike firewood and charcoal, kerosene offers a quicker, less labor-intensive cooking option, making it a practical choice for individuals juggling time and resources. His reliance on kerosene underscores its growing popularity in urban areas, yet it also raises concerns about the environmental and health trade-offs of this choice.
A KNOWLEDGE GAP ON IMPACTS
Joseph's story accentuates the necessity of bridging this educational gap through targeted interventions, ensuring households are wellinformed about their fuel choices as they consider transitioning to more modern alternatives.
Joseph perceives kerosene as a safe and effective cooking method but remains unaware of its potential health and environmental risks. “Using kerosene is a good and safe cooking method. I donʼt know any health and environmental impacts of using kerosene; if itʼs there, you tell me, ” he says. This lack of awareness highlights a critical issue: the absence of education about the hidden dangers of kerosene, such as indoor air pollution and its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
IS KEROSENE A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE?
Joseph values kerosene for its efficiency and quick cooking times “I use kerosene because its efficiency is good, itʼs faster to use, and food gets ready quickly, ” he explains. At 4,500 UGX per liter, kerosene is a comparatively affordable option and is readily available at his local fuel station in Mpigi. While kerosene offers convenience, its widespread use provokes important questions regarding sustainability and health. The economic and infrastructure realities in Uganda, where cleaner options like LPG or electricity remain out of reach for many, underscore the practical challenges faced. Nonetheless, the potential risks of kerosene, including air pollution and environmental damage, underscore the urgent need for comprehensive education and support to help facilitate safer transitions to modern fuels.
“GAS CYLINDERS: A CLEANER PATH OR AN EXPENSIVE BURDEN?”
As Uganda transitions toward cleaner cooking solutions, gas cylinders represent both promise and challenge. Joel Lukwago, a young software engineer, and Muzinga Jamil, a farmer, find that gas offers cleaner cooking options that align with their health and environmental priorities. However, the financial burden and unreliable infrastructure pose significant barriers to widespread adoption. Their experiences underscore the dual role of gas cylinders as transitional fuels—delivering immediate benefits but also revealing inequities and dependencies within modern energy systems.
JAMIL: CONVENIENCE OVER COST
For 30-year-old farmer Muzinga Jamil, gas is a cleaner, more reliable choice, albeit financially burdensome. “I use a gas cylinder mostly and sometimes an electricity cooker. Gas is more convenient, so I use it, even though I feel itʼs expensive, ” he explains. Refilling his 12 kg cylinder costs 120,000 UGX, a substantial expense for his household. Despite the cost, Jamil values the health and environmental advantages gas offers over traditional fuels like charcoal. “I prefer to use gas even in the future, ” he says, affirming his commitment to cleaner fuels. His awareness of the environmental damage from traditional fuels is clear: “I donʼt see any negative impact of using gas on my health and environment. I know charcoal usage is not good for the environment, ” he adds, highlighting his prioritization of sustainable choices despite economic constraints.
COMPLEX CHOICES, SHARED CHALLENGES
At 22, Joel Lukwago values gas for its efficiency and health benefits, which suit his busy lifestyle in Kampalaʼs industrial area. “I use a gas cylinder because itʼs very easy to use and I can cook my food without taking more time, ” he shares. As a software engineer, Joel sees gas as a modern solution that minimizes cooking time. Yet, the high cost—60,000 UGX for a 3 kg cylinder makes gas a luxury rather than a daily staple. “If thereʼs no power shortage, I would like to cook my food on an electric heater, and I think it will be cheap for me compared to a gas cylinder, ” he notes, emphasizing the limitations posed by unreliable power infrastructure. His preference for gas also stems from its perceived environmental benefits: “The gas cylinder is environment-friendly because there are no fumes released in the atmosphere, no smoke, and no trees cut down, ” he asserts, demonstrating his growing awareness of sustainability despite financial hurdles.
JOEL: EFFICIENCY OVER TRADITION
Joel and Jamil's narratives illustrate the potential of gas cylinders as a transitional fuel in Ugandaʼs journey toward clean cooking. While gas offers significant advantages, such as reduced smoke exposure and deforestation, its dependency on costly fossil fuels and the high expense make it a stepping stone rather than a sustainable endpoint Their stories highlight the critical need for solutions that not only provide immediate health and environmental benefits but also consider affordability, equity, and the transition to renewable energy sources. This necessitates addressing both financial and infrastructural barriers to ensure an inclusive energy transition in Uganda
Gas as a Bridge, Not a Destination
CHALLENGING THE NARRATIVE:
In 2020, about 36% of folks around the world still used stuff like biomass, charcoal, and coal for cooking indoors. Thatʼs a pretty big drop from 53% back in 1990, according to Stoner et al. 2021 . But in places like Sub-Saharan Africa, it's a different story—80% are still using biomass, and they're dealing with some serious health problems because of it Matavel et al., 2022 . One thing we often miss when we talk about this? A lot of people aren't cooking inside their main houses but outside, like when we grill on patios. Itʼs an important part of the whole picture.
Now, when it comes to cleaning up cooking fuels, the big push is often for stuff like natural gas, which mostly comes from the Global North. But this might just keep us hooked on energy that pumps out a lot of greenhouse gases. What if, instead of just ditching traditional methods, we figured out how to make them part of a sustainable future?
Research is showing that weʼve been too quick to write off traditional practices as old-fashioned. Things like managing woodlots or getting smarter about how we cook—they're not just about keeping traditions alive; they're savvy ways to support communities and build resilience. As someone studying sustainability, diving into this research really made me rethink my views. At first, I thought using “unclean” fuels was just a problem to be solved. But after really getting into the lives of people in Uganda, I see itʼs way more complicated. These practices are woven into the fabric of their lives, shaped by economic, social, cultural, and environmental factors that actually teach us a lot about resilience and adapting. Instead of pushing our ideas on them, we should be listening more. That way, we can work together to tackle the real-world challenges of switching to cleaner fuels, in a way that respects everyone's needs.
COOKING FUEL CHOICES TRANSCEND ENERGY ACCESS
In the Global South cooking fuel choice centers around identity, autonomy, and survival.
Even with improved stoves available, getting people to use them is still a struggle. A study in Eastern Rwanda found that while only 23.1% of households stick solely to traditional three-stone stoves, a signi cant 56.4% still use both improved and traditional methods (Uwizeyimana et al., 2024). This really shows the disconnect between the solutions we think are best and what people actually nd useful or feasible. For families scraping by below the poverty line, shelling out cash for a new stove just isn't in the cards, especially if it doesn't make cooking any easier.
In communities where rewood and charcoal are the norm, these aren't just convenient choices. They carry with them generations of knowledge about how to manage resources sustainably and are a big part of local resilience.
Through my research, I've seen how these decisions aren't just about resisting modernity. They're deeply rooted in what's practical, economical, and ecological. Take managing woodlots, for example it's a smart way to keep a sustainable supply of firewood going. And traditional cooking methods? They fit right into local tastes and daily routines.
What we need is a blend of new and old that really works. Think about it: introducing cooking technologies that are not only efficient and affordable but also respect traditional practices could really be the way forward. We've got to come up with solutions that empower communities, respect their independence, and tackle the serious health and environmental issues they face.
A PATH FORWARD:
In Sub-Saharan Africa, nearly 1 billion people still rely on highly polluting fuels, which account for 20% of the regionʼs greenhouse gas emissions from cooking Yumkella et al., 2024 . In Latin America and the Caribbean, 90 million people continue to use solid fuels, a major contributor to air pollution Ravillard et al., 2023 .
Efforts to address these challenges have yielded mixed outcomes. Some regions have benefited from government subsidies, while others have turned to the private sector and faith-based initiatives for support. At a 2024 International Energy Agency summit, $2.2 billion was pledged toward achieving universal clean cooking access by 2030, but this amount still falls short of the estimated $4 billion required annually Dunne, 2024 .
To make a real difference, subsidizing cleaner alternatives like LPG, investing in biofuel technologies, and crafting solutions that align with local economic realities are essential. For instance, hybrid models that combine cost-effective LPG use with sustainable firewood management could reduce both environmental and health impacts while respecting cultural traditions.
What does the future hold for cooking fuels in the Global South? It begins with listening to the communities that use these resources daily. Future solutions need to blend modern innovation with local practices, promoting inclusivity and equity.
Faith communities have emerged as crucial supporters where political and economic systems lag Elsanousi et al., 2024 Despite such efforts, a significant gap persists between stove design and user adoption. While many “improved” stoves provide better heat transfer and fuel efficiency, they often still depend on unsustainable wood fuels. Without a significant shift in both stove technology and the types of fuels used, the environmental and health issues associated with traditional cooking methods will persist Johnson et al., 2015; Barnes et al., 1993 .
By stepping away from the simple dichotomy of modern versus traditional, we open the door to solutions that leverage the strengths of both worlds. The future lies in integrating local knowledge with cutting-edge technology to provide cleaner, more sustainable options that truly resonate with the lived experiences of communities in the Global South.
Rethinking Progress: A Holistic Approach
So, how did other countries in the Global South manage to reduce their reliance on harmful fuels from 53% to 36% between 1990 and 2020? Nations like China, India, and Indonesia made significant strides by expanding energy infrastructure and distributing improved cooking stoves ICS) to over a billion people. However, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the situation has deteriorated as population growth has outstripped the distribution of resources Adesina & Birol, 2023 .
The transition from stove technology to fuel choice underscores the complexity of achieving sustainability in the Global South. True progress lies not just in technical solutions but in engaging the cultural, economic, and environmental dimensions of cooking practices.
Scenario planning offers a valuable tool for exploring the potential benefits and challenges of different energy transition strategies. By considering scenarios that integrate renewable energy with improved cooking technologies, we can assess the environmental, social, and economic impacts, providing a comprehensive view of possible futures.
By rethinking the relationship between stoves and fuels, we can craft solutions that respect tradition while promoting innovation. This approach helps create pathways for sustainable transitions that not only meet community needs but also strengthen local resilience and move us toward a more equitable future.
REFERENCES
