In praise of fossil fuel subsidies (for cooking) ()

We use three quantitative case studies to argue that ubiquitous and universal condemnation of fossil fuel subsidies is myopic and does not adequately consider subsidizing gas for cooking as a potential strategy to improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ecuador offers a view into the long-run impacts of gas subsidies, having made historical investments in subsidizing gas for cooking that led to widespread use that outpaces peer nations. We calculate that the subsidy likely averted 100,000 premature deaths with benefits that outweigh costs four to one. India successfully implemented the largest gas cooking access program in the world, but the level of subsidies provided by the government has varied. We estimate that mortality and climate benefits from maintaining varying levels of the gas subsidy between 2023–2030 will be roughly double costs. In Kenya, removing a value added tax on LPG will yield health and climate benefits that will dwarf the lost revenue by ~30x. Waiting for existing policies and momentum to move households toward near-exclusive clean fuel use forces marginalized populations to directly face the health, environmental, and socio-economic harms of traditional cooking. Rather than wait decades for development to provide clean cooking to these households, which will deepen health and energy inequities, we suggest that targeted LPG subsidies offer a solution available today and provide immediate health and climate benefits.