Posted on

Efficient And Clean Cooking For Households In Somalia

In Somalia, where climate challenges intersect with economic hardship, a cookstove climate project is creating lasting change. BURN Manufacturing’s initiative demonstrates how strategic climate financing can transform communities while combating environmental degradation.

The Challenge: Why Somalia Needs Climate Project Investment

Somalia presents a compelling case for climate financing. Nearly 11 million people lack access to electricity. Traditional biomass accounts for 80 to 90 percent of energy needs. This dependency drives alarming deforestation rates in an already fragile ecosystem. Only 10.5 percent of the country remains covered in forests, with 35,000 hectares being lost each year. More than half of the population lives below the poverty line.

A Revolutionary Climate Project Solution: The JIKOKOA Stove

At the heart of this climate project is the JIKOKOA, a fuel-efficient biomass stove. All the stoves are manufactured by BURN in Kenya. The innovative technology of the stove delivers remarkable results:

  • 64% reduction in charcoal consumption
  • 65% decrease in indoor air pollution
  • Significant reduction in smoke-related health issues

Measurable Climate Project Impacts Since 2019

The success of this climate financing initiative is evident in its impressive metrics:

  • 118,954 stoves distributed
  • 2 million lives positively impacted
  • 1.6 million tons of wood preserved
  • 1 million ton of CO2 emissions prevented

Sustainable Development Goals and Climate Financing Success

This climate project aligns with multiple SDGs, demonstrating the comprehensive impact of well-structured climate financing:

Climate Action

The JIKOKOA’s reduction in fuel consumption directly contributes to limiting CO2 emissions. Since 2019, this climate project has prevented 1 million tons of CO2 emissions while actively combating deforestation.

Poverty Reduction

Independent research by the University of Chicago and UC Berkeley validates the JIKOKOA as an outstanding investment for families. The cookstove contributes to 45 percent of monetary savings related to the purchase of charcoal.

Affordability is reportedly one of Somalia’s most significant barriers to adopting and using clean cooking. According to Somali Integrated Household Budget Survey in 2022, 54.4% of Somalis live below the poverty line and according to UN that number is almost 70%. Carbon financing has been used to subsidize the project stove costs by up to 35.48% (a reduction in the stove price from $31 to $20).

Health Improvements

According to the Clean Cooking Alliance, traditional cooking methods cause 3 million premature deaths annually. This climate project addresses this crisis by reducing indoor air pollution by 65%, with documented health improvements among users.

Economic Development

BURN Manufacturing operates from solar-powered facilities in Kenya. This climate financing success story has created 125 local jobs while expanding distribution networks across Africa.

Project Verification

This climate project is verified by the Gold Standard Impact Registry, ensuring accountability and transparency in climate financing. Available carbon credits come from the 2023 vintage period.

Posted on

Harnessing Ocean Winds: The Thanh Hai Wind Power Project

picture of the climate project thanh hai in vietnam

We are super happy that members and customers of GoClimate has supported yet another Gold Standard certified climate project, this time a wind project in Vietnam.

The renewable energy revolution is ongoing, but we need more speed and scale to be able to stop climate change in time. Finance to projects like this makes it more financially attractive to build renewable energy instead of increasing fossil fuel use. This is exactly the type of initiative that takes us to the path of stopping climate change.

Thank you everyone that contriubuted!

The project

Vietnam’s reliance on fossil fuels for electricity is being challenged by renewable projects like the Wind Power Plant Thanh Hai. Located in Thanh Hai commune, Thanh Phu district, Ben Tre province, this offshore wind farm has a total capacity of 110 MW and an annual electricity output of 356.95 GWh.

Project Overview: Thanh Hai Wind Power Plant

Location: Viet Nam
Type: Wind Power
Certification: Gold Standard

Certified Sustainable Development Goals

7. Affordable and Clean Energy
The project generates clean energy, reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

8. Decent Work and Economic Growth
Creation of jobs and boosting the local economy.

13. Climate Action
Significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The Solution

The Thanh Hai Wind Power Plant involves constructing an offshore wind farm with turbines of 4.25-4.5 MW capacity each, installed in four phases. The generated electricity is exported to the national grid, enhancing Vietnam’s renewable energy infrastructure.

The Impact

  • Environmental Benefits: With a gross annual electricity output of 356.95 GWh, the project substantially cuts down greenhouse gas emissions by reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
  • Economic Growth: The project supports local economies through job creation and infrastructure development.
  • Sustainable Development: By generating affordable and clean energy, the project aligns with global sustainability goals and sets a precedent for future renewable projects in the region.

Supported by Gold Standard certification, the Thanh Hai Wind Power Project is a step towards a sustainable energy future for Vietnam.

Posted on

Clean burning stoves in Zambia

This project, supported by the GoClimate community, improves health conditions and quality of life on top of fighting climate change in Zambian households. Consumption of local wood fuel is reduced by up to 70% with these improved cookstoves. This leads to a range of positive effects, both for the environment and for people’s health.

The stoves save 4.67 tonnes of wood per household per year. This equates to a considerable reduction in deforestation, which in turn helps preserve biodiversity and protect ecosystems.

Thanks to using less wood fuel this project contributes to that 549,123 less tonnes of CO2e have been released into the atmosphere during six months (its last monitored period June-December 2023).

This project is an excellent example of how climate action can be combined with improved health, increased gender equality, and sustainable development. The project started in 2021 and so far 99% of project households reported a reduction in smoke (or particulate matter) after the introduction of the stoves. 99.5 % reported time savings; female beneficiaries may use time saved collecting fuel or cooking to pursue other education or economic activities. By addressing multiple challenges simultaneously, the project creates a positive change that benefits both people and the environment in Zambia.

Background

Over 700 million Africans cook on three-stone fires. It’s an inefficient type of cooking when it comes to both the amount of wood fuel needed and the time it takes to collect and cook on these fires. 

On top of that the smoke from open fires causes 600,000 premature deaths each year in Africa. It’s the second-highest health risk on the continent. 

JJM_5606

Comments from the participants in the project

Almost 100,000 stoves have been distributed across Zambia within this project. The improved cookstoves are replacing inefficient, traditional 3-stone fires. Most participants collect wood for free while a few of them buy it. They cook both inside and outside the home which is made easy with these portable cookstoves. Positive comments from participants include that the cookstoves use less wood, cook faster, are stable and safer, produce less smoke and are user friendly. A few of the participants still use an alternative stove, mostly the 3-stones fires as a complement, something that has been taken into account when calculating the emission reductions of this project. The only change requested from participants was to produce a stove which can accommodate two pots.

JJM_4817

How do the improved cooking stoves (ICS) work?

The cookstoves have an improved heat transfer from the combustion chamber to the cooking pot. It saves both cooking and fuel collection time. 

The design of the stoves optimizes the combustion chamber shape, amount of fuel and air flow through the stove. Thermal energy is maximized by reducing the thermal mass of the stove minimizing heat loss through the sides and bottom of the stove. The cooking surface is positioned at the optimal distance from the fire providing optimal gas flow needed for efficient heat transfer. 

The global sustainability goals

This project contributes to the following Global Sustainability Goals;

Good Health and Wellbeing (3) – 99% of households participating in the project reported a reduced smoke and thus improved indoor air quality. According to WHO, women and children disproportionately bear the greatest health burden from polluting fuels in homes as they typically take care of household chores such as cooking and spend more time exposed to harmful smoke from polluting stoves.

Gender Equality (5) –  time savings for women who do not have to collect as much fuel and get access to a faster cooking method. Firewood collectors among the participants in this project are mainly female. The average time saved for fuel wood collection was calculated to 3.2 hours a week and time saved for cooking was around 2.5 hours a day on average. 

Affordable and clean energy (7)

Decent work and Economic Growth (8) – in 2023 16 people (11 male and 5 female) were employed in VPA (Voluntary Project Activity) 1 and 3 in Zambia. They are working in the permanent office and as monitoring staff. Since all distribution of cooking stoves is done now, the number of employees is lower than during the first year.

Responsible Consumption and Production (12) –  wood fuel savings due to the higher thermal efficiency of the burning stoves. In total each distributed stove saves 4.67 tonnes of wood per year. 

Climate action (13) –  during the last monitored period June-December 2023 there has been an emission reduction of 549,123 tonnes of CO2e. 

Project facts

Project name: TASC Clean Cooking POA – VPA 3 (Zambia) 
Certification: Gold Standard
Project start: 2021
Area: The project is implemented across Zambia and not limited to any specific provinces.  
Number of distributed stoves: 99,785
Wood savings per stove and year: 4.67 tonnes
Last monitoring period: June-December 2023
Crediting period: 15 years (5 years, twice renewable)
Funding: There is no public funding. This project is funded only by the private sector. 

JJM_4818
JJM_4898-Pano1
JJM_5575
JJM_5613
Posted on

How We Choose Climate Projects

At GoClimate, we prioritize quality and efficiency in our support for climate projects. Our rigorous selection process is based on the following criteria to ensure that every project we support truly contributes to climate improvements.

Certification: We require that an independent third party certifies the projects, guaranteeing that they meet continuously updated and increasingly higher standards.

Additionality: It’s crucial that the projects would not have been realized without funding from climate initiatives. This principle ensures that our investment leads to a real change.

Verification: The climate benefit of each project is verified by an independent third party, ensuring its efficiency and credibility.

Traceability: We ensure that funding is traceable through transparent and open databases. This prevents double counting and ensures the project’s uniqueness.

Durability: The projects must offer lasting effect, meaning the benefits do not disappear over time.

Contribution to Sustainable Development: Beyond the direct climate benefits, the projects should also contribute to sustainable development, such as creating job opportunities or contributing to cleaner air. It’s important that the projects do not contribute to negative social development where they are implemented.

At GoClimate, we focus on supporting the best climate projects. We have chosen to work only with projects certified by Gold Standard. This is because we believe that Gold Standard has the strictest and best requirements for climate projects.

What Makes Gold Standard So Special?

Stringent Requirements: Gold Standard has stricter rules compared to other standards. They ensure that the projects really need the money to be implemented and continue to make a difference.

Focus on the 1.5-Degree Target: Projects supported by Gold Standard are those that help us reach our global climate goals. This means that they do not support projects linked to fossil fuels or nuclear energy.

Updated Requirements: Gold Standard regularly updates its requirements to ensure that the money is used where it is most beneficial for the climate.

Our conclusion is that supporting Gold Standard-certified projects is the best way to make a difference right now. However, we are open to changing our approach if we find other ways to achieve even greater climate benefits in the future.

Please feel free to contact us if you think there’s something we’ve missed, as we are always open to learning more!

Posted on

Climate projects reducing greenhouse gases

Projects focusing on reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be divided into two main types: nature projects and technical projects.

3.1 Nature Projects

These projects include tree planting and conservation of existing forests. They are strongly encouraged by leading climate initiatives such as Science Based Targets and Exponential Roadmap, and are critical in addressing the climate crisis and the perhaps even greater crisis in biodiversity. Trees are a proven method for capturing carbon dioxide and require no new technology or cost-reducing innovations to be effective.

3.1.1 The Reason We Do Not Support This Type of Project (Yet)

Despite the importance of these projects, there are complexities surrounding land use and the durability of biology that must be addressed. Issues such as the alternative use of land, suitability of tree species, and tree growth under changing climate conditions are important. There is also uncertainty about how long the carbon dioxide actually stays stored in the trees. In addition, many previous tree projects have not lived up to their quality expectations. Higher costs per ton of greenhouse gas compared to emission reduction projects is another challenge.

3.2 Technical Projects

According to the IPCC, it is necessary to remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the coming years. Technical projects, or ‘removals,’ are a rapidly growing and exciting area where many companies compete to develop the most effective and cost-efficient methods. For example, ClimeWorks uses giant fans similar to technical trees, and other companies are creating biochar for storage in the soil. This type of project is continuously monitored and evaluated by several initiatives.

3.2.1 The Reason We Do Not Support This Type of Project (Yet)

Currently, the cost of removing one ton of CO2e from the atmosphere using these methods is extremely high, for example, ClimeWorks costs about $1,200 per ton CO2e. Cheaper alternatives include biochar, but they are still costly. Critics argue that these technologies have difficulties scaling up to necessary levels and can distract from the main task of reducing emissions. In addition, paying private companies involves a lack of transparency and third-party certification of climate benefits.

However, we are convinced that the development of this type of project is necessary and are excited to see how the market grows!

Please get in touch at [email protected] if you think we have missed something, we are always open to learning more!

Posted on

Projects Contributing to Reduced Emissions

This is part three of our article series about how we consider the climate projects we support. This part is about the projects that contribute to reduced emissions and covers the projects that GoClimate primarily supports today. 

This category includes, for example, energy-efficient stoves that reduce the need for wood and thus deforestation. There are also projects in renewable energy that reduce the need for coal power plants and those that handle harmful methane gas by converting it into electricity, replacing fossil energy sources. More examples of these climate projects are available here.

2.1 Why We Support This Type of Project

There is scientific consensus that it is urgent to reduce the world’s emissions. Therefore, it is reasonable that at the present time, when there is so much left to do, the focus should simply be on supporting projects that reduce the world’s emissions.

2.1.1 The Technology is Already Here

To reduce emissions, both capital and technology dissemination are required. The necessary technology to cope with climate change already exists to a large extent, but it needs to be spread, financed, and implemented. The type of climate financing that we, our members, and customers contribute to plays a big role here; this is exactly what is needed to speed up the transition. But it’s not just a question of investing money, the projects must be effective and well thought out too.

2.2 Challenges with These Types of Projects

The climate benefit of the projects is often calculated based on hypothetical scenarios, which can be problematic. Changed subsidies, norms, and knowledge levels can affect the projects over time. Some projects may no longer need support due to technical development and price reductions in renewable energy. However, the role of climate financing is crucial. It has historically contributed to economies of scale and price reductions, meaning that some projects no longer need the same support. To manage these dynamic factors, one can choose to support newer projects or specific years.

Despite the complexity of these projects, we are convinced that they can be supported effectively, especially if the right type of project is chosen.

2.3 Projects We Do Not Support in This Category

In this category are projects that we consider to be less efficient or problematic. For example, we do not support the construction of large-scale hydroelectric power plants, as they require large land areas and can have a negative impact on both the environment and local communities.

New renewable energy projects in countries not on the UN’s list of least developed countries are also not certified according to the standard – Gold Standard – that we go by. These projects are often considered to not need financial support to the same extent as they did in the past.

However, it is important to understand the climate credit market and how it affects the lifespan and financing of projects. We still support certain energy projects that would not be certified today, because if we stop supporting certain projects that were certified because climate financing was deemed necessary earlier, it could undermine the confidence in the climate credit market and make it more difficult for future projects to get financing.

We also do not support local projects in Sweden, as the country already has access to financing and relatively low climate emissions compared to other regions. Our strategy is to support projects where they can have the greatest positive climate impact. Even though projects like solar cell support in Sweden can be beneficial, financing does more good when used in other countries, for example, those with a higher mix of fossil fuel sources in their electricity mix.

Please get in touch ([email protected]) if you think there’s anything we’ve missed; we are always open to learning more!

Posted on

Climate Organizations Influencing Society

This is part two in our article series about how we consider the climate projects that we support. This part focuses on climate organizations that influence society.

There are many organizations trying to stop climate change by influencing society in various ways, such as by developing political proposals, organizing demonstrations, or through lobbying. We at GoClimate work for systemic changes just like other climate organizations in this category, but we also support certain other organizations such as Klimatriksdagen (Sweden) and Shado (UK). We choose to support organizations where even small contributions can make a big difference, which ensures that our contributions provide what is called additional climate benefit. This means that we want our money to contribute to a climate benefit that would not have occurred if we had not contributed the money.

In addition, we support projects and individuals where our contribution, in addition to providing direct climate benefit, also indirectly contributes to us getting more funds for further climate work. An example could be sponsoring a climate conference with 10,000 SEK, which not only creates direct climate benefit but also attracts corporate customers who contribute an additional 20,000 SEK to climate projects, effectively more than doubling the climate benefit for the invested money.

Supporting society-influencing organizations is complex. We do not want to support any concrete party politics and do not support specific political parties. But we believe it is crucial to show, among other things through debate articles, to politicians that the climate crisis is urgent and that political solutions are an essential part of the answer

When we support different climate organizations, we believe it is important to carefully evaluate them and try to calculate the benefit they provide, something we think the organization Giving Green does well. The challenge in evaluating these organizations lies in how to calculate the climate benefit they achieve in terms of tons of carbon dioxide. Giving Green uses a method where they calculate backwards from previously achieved results and make a series of assumptions about what proportion of the result for a specific action is thanks to the organization.

A simplified example: An organization drives a political proposal that leads to the U.S. reducing its emissions by 1%. When the proposal is implemented, 1% of the U.S.’s annual emissions equals an incredible 63 million tons of CO2e. To calculate the organization’s share of this, one can assume that the organization expedited the proposal by six months. This means that the organization may have contributed to 31.5 million tons of CO2e climate benefit in half a year. If the organization achieved this with a budget of 10 million dollars, it means that each dollar contributed to eliminating 3.2 tons of CO2e, which corresponds to a cost of 0.3 dollars per ton CO2e. This is a cost-effective result, but the calculation also contains some uncertainties.

1.1 The reason we do not exclusively support such projects

We believe that it is possible to achieve significant climate benefit through these types of organizations. In fact, it can be one of the most cost-effective ways to make a climate impact. As an example, the article’s author gives 50% of their donations to GeEffektivt’s recommended climate organizations and 50% to GoClimate’s measurable and certified climate projects.

1.1.1 Uncertainty in the assumptions

Despite this, there are uncertainties in these calculations. It is not always certain that the organization actually contributed or that they could do more good with additional funding. However, we are strong advocates of trying to evaluate the benefit, even if it poses challenges. The efficiency of charitable organizations can vary greatly, so we recommend supporting organizations that GeEffektivt and Giving Green highlight.

1.1.2 By definition political

Moreover, support for certain proposals driven by these organizations often involves a political stance. This can be problematic for some of our corporate clients. Therefore, it is important to be aware of these aspects when supporting politically influencing organizations.

1.1.3 Measurability

At GoClimate, we value being able to specify the exact climate benefit that each contribution provides. We have seen that both individuals and companies appreciate traceability and are willing to contribute more when they know exactly what their money accomplishes. Therefore, we focus on climate projects where the benefit is measurable, clear, third-party audited, and transparently reported.

We also believe that there is strength in each individual and company taking responsibility for their own emissions. This means that those who emit more carbon dioxide should contribute more to climate work. If someone has caused 10 tons of CO2e in emissions during a year, they should pay proportionally more than someone who has only caused 1 ton of CO2e. This principle places high demands on the measurability of the climate projects we support and it is not at all certain that a specific sum of money will prevent or neutralize an exact amount of CO2e moving forward through these organizations.

However, it is important to emphasize that uncertainty exists in all types of climate projects. In the case of the projects we are discussing here, the uncertainty and traceability can be particularly high, even though the potential benefit can also be very significant.

Please feel free to contact us at [email protected] if you think there is anything we have missed on this topic, we are always open to learning more!

Keep an eye out for the next part in this article series which will be about climate projects that contribute to reduced emissions.

Posted on

GoClimate’s thoughts on financing climate projects

For us at GoClimate, it is incredibly important that we maximize the climate benefit of the funds for climate projects contributed by our members and corporate customers.

We have therefore started writing a series of articles diving into how to do as much climate impact as possible with money.

First, a short disclaimer: We are aware that climate financing is part of a larger whole, which includes behavioral changes and systemic changes. Our work spans three main areas: driving systemic change, enabling behavioral change reducing emissions and support for financing climate projects. This article series will focus on financing climate projects.

In this series of articles, we will look at different types of initiatives to support if you want to make a climate impact with your money:

  • Projects that influence society: There are many initiatives working for greater change in society. We try to support projects where our contributions are ‘additional’, meaning they contribute to climate benefits that would not otherwise occur. This area is complex and requires careful evaluation of the climate projects’ effectiveness. Despite the challenges especially in quantifying future impact that additional financing could bring, we strongly believe in supporting these types of organizations and initiatives to achieve changes at the societal level.
  • Projects that reduce emissions: This is the main type of project we support and what members or corporate customers contribute to when they buy tons of CO2e or carbon credits as they are also called. It includes support for projects that contribute to reduced carbon dioxide emissions, such as through energy-efficient stoves or projects in renewable energy. We see these projects as critical because they contribute to reducing emissions – which is the most important thing for us as a society to do right now. However, we are aware that these projects are not perfect and that their climate benefit can sometimes be difficult to quantify, especially in terms of calculating different future scenarios when the projects are started.
  • Projects that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere: These projects include both nature-based and technical solutions. Nature-based solutions such as tree planting and conservation of forests are important, but also complex in terms of issues about their permanence, land use, and what would have happened without climate financing. Regarding technical solutions such as carbon capture, these are promising but still in an very early stage and small scale and often very expensive – which means that you don’t achieve much impact per dollar spent. We actively follow developments in this area, however, and are open to including them in the future.

At GoClimate, we use strict criteria for selecting climate projects, which include certification, additionality, verifiability, traceability, permanence, and contribution to sustainable development. Our main focus has so far been on projects certified by Gold Standard, which we consider to have the highest requirements for climate projects right now.

We are always ready to adapt and reconsider our strategies to ensure that our efforts provide the greatest possible climate benefit.

We will go through the different types of projects and the ins and outs of them in the next articles in this series. Stay tuned!

Posted on

Kutch Wind Power Project in India

The GoClimate community is now supporting the Kutch Wind Power Project in India. The project is Gold Standard-certified and GoClimates contribution amounts to 20 000 tonnes of avoided CO2e-emissions.

Introduction

India has been experiencing a rapid growth in energy demand, resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. In order to diversify the energy mix and promote sustainable development, heavy investments in renewable energy sources, such as wind power, is needed. One example of this is the Kutch Wind Power Project, which has been making significant contributions to the nation’s clean energy goals and local communities.

Kutch Wind Power Project: An Overview

Located in the Kutch region of Gujarat, the Kutch Wind Power Project consists of 150 wind turbines, each with a capacity of 2 MW. With a total installed capacity of 300 MW, the project generates approximately 700,000 MWh of clean energy annually.

Climate Benefits

The Kutch Wind Power Project’s positive impact on the environment is big. By generating clean, renewable energy, the project helps in reducing India’s reliance on fossil fuels and curbing greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that the project prevents the release of over 550,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year, which is equivalent to taking more than 117,000 cars off the road annually.

Socioeconomic Benefits

Beyond its environmental benefits, the Kutch Wind Power Project also provides various socioeconomic advantages to the local communities. 73 employment opportunities have been created for local workers, both during the construction and operational phases of the wind farm. Moreover, it has helped enhance the skill sets of the local workforce through technical training and capacity building programs.

The project has also made significant contributions to the development of local infrastructure. It has helped improve the accessibility of remote areas by constructing and maintaining roads. Additionally, the project has facilitated the installation of street lighting, improving safety and security in nearby villages.

Furthermore, the project supports several community development initiatives, such as providing clean drinking water, promoting education, and improving healthcare facilities. By investing in these essential services, the Kutch Wind Power Project contributes to the overall well-being and quality of life for the local population.

Conclusion

The Kutch Wind Power Project stands as a testament to the transition to a sustainable energy future. By harnessing the power of wind, the project not only contributes to climate change mitigation efforts but also fosters socioeconomic development in the region. As India continues to invest in renewable energy, projects like the Kutch Wind Power Project serve as an inspiration for other countries to follow suit in the global pursuit of a greener, more sustainable future.