Clean Cooking Means Moving Beyond Fossil Fuels—G20 countries must lead the way

Over successive presidencies, G20 leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to providing universal access to clean cooking as a core Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 7). LPG subsidies often fail to reach the poorest, have high and volatile budgetary impacts, exacerbate import dependency, and are not aligned with net-zero goals. Redirecting LPG subsidies to electric cooking and clean energy alternatives can accelerate the shift to clean cooking in ways that are more inclusive and sustainable. 

Closing the Clean Cooking Gap: The G20’s role 

In 2022, approximately 2.1 billion people worldwide lacked access to clean cooking fuels. At the current rate of progress, by 2030, 1.8 billion people in the world are projected to remain without access to clean energy for cooking, missing the SDG deadline for universal access to clean cooking. The consequences are borne by the world’s poorest, particularly women, who are exposed to harmful indoor air pollution and the burden of fuel collection.  

The G20's attention to clean cooking has grown dramatically in the last decade. Over successive presidencies, leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to providing universal clean cooking access under SDG7. The 2024 G20 Brazilian presidency put ministerial attention on clean cooking with a roadmap for clean cooking. Building on this, the South African G20 presidency elevated clean cooking to this year's G20’s Energy Transition Working Group. But exactly what have the G20 emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) been doing to address clean cooking? To answer this question, we surveyed clean cooking programs across EMDE members of the G20. 

Mapping Clean Cooking Policies of G20 Governments

An extensive analysis of clean cooking policies in 43 G20 countries (including individual European Union member countries) revealed that there are five main categories: three kinds of subsidies, financing mechanisms, and infrastructure development (Table 1). The analysis drew on peer-reviewed literature, publicly available reports, policy documents, academic articles, and media publications to identify policies related to clean cooking. The findings suggest that governments collectively understand the need for multiple strategies to address clean cooking.

Estimates suggest that 50%–70% of public spending on clean cooking transitions in G20 countries is directed toward direct fiscal support, particularly consumption-side subsidies, which are often poorly targeted. The remainder is distributed between regulatory and price-based policies and infrastructure or market investment. 
 

We could not quantify the support provided by individual programs included in our inventory of policies due to inadequate data on the allocations or the timeframe over which the funding was provided. However, we know that in 2022, global LPG subsidies were USD 42 billion—and of this G20 countries provided USD 35 billion. This is likely to be a conservative estimate of clean cooking support. In addition, electricity subsidies (at least USD 282 billion) and natural gas subsidies (at least USD 293 billion) would also benefit clean cooking but the proportion is difficult to estimate given multiple end-uses for both forms of energy, especially in areas where area heating is needed.

Table 1. Summary of policies supporting clean cooking transitions in G20 Countries

LPG Subsidies—when too much is not enough

The survey shows that most G20 EMDE governments are pursuing an approach to clean cooking based on LPG subsidies. LPG consumption and subsidies have grown rapidly, partly due to government programs and partly due to escalating international prices that surged along with oil prices since 2021. Subsidized LPG has helped provide access to cleaner cooking options in G20-developing nations in Asia and Latin America, moving away from the harmful traditional fuels like firewood and charcoal. While LPG subsidies can be a legitimate last-mile push for universal clean cooking, even a well-designed LPG program can have major drawbacks.

First, LPG subsidies often do not benefit those most in need: namely, the poorest and those in remote rural areas where LPG is unaffordable or unavailable. A 2020 survey of LPG subsidies in the Indian state of Jharkhand found that the poorest 40% received less than one-third of the LPG subsidies. At the same time, LPG subsidies intended for the poor often benefit the well-off. In Indonesia, for example, around 10% of the country’s LPG subsidies go to the poorest decile, but the richest decile accesses a similar amount (~8%), despite those households not being eligible for the subsidy.

Second, LPG can result in a major fiscal burden that crowds out options that could more effectively reach the most vulnerable. Indonesia and India both implemented major initiatives to transition their populations from kerosene (which creates harmful indoor air pollution) to LPG. These programs relied heavily on direct subsidies (LPG fuel, stove distribution, cash transfers), which now form the core of their national clean cooking strategies. However, it was a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire—the LPG transition went well, but LPG subsidies became financially unsustainable. Subsidized LPG is popular, and politicians find it difficult to limit access to just the poor. 

Third, dependence on LPG can undermine energy security. When LPG is imported, volatile global prices and supply disruptions are a significant risk for energy affordability and availability. In some cases, price escalations have been so dramatic that governments cannot afford to maintain LPG subsidies, leading to sudden price surges that affect the poorest the most. 

Fourth, scaling up LPG is not consistent with countries’ transition to net-zero. A net-zero-aligned transition for clean cooking requires moving away from fossil fuels. To meet the 2030 clean cooking access milestones, G20 governments need to rapidly scale up a menu of options that should include bioLPG, solar, biogas, and investments in electricity networks—particularly infrastructure that supports electricity grids powered by renewable sources, in line with global targets for decarbonization.

According to the International Energy Agency, approximately USD 8 billion per year in equipment and infrastructure investment is required between now and 2030 to enable universal access, much lower than the USD 42 billion currently allocated to LPG subsidies globally. Within the G20, there is a wide difference in electricity-based cooking. Higher adoption of electricity cooking is seen in the G7 grouping—as countries within the EU and United States have adopted electric stoves as their most common type of stove used for cooking. Electricity has become the most common cooking fuel for EU households, meeting over half of the cooking needs in 15 EU countries. Around 68% of US households own electric cooking appliances. However, most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have full electricity access, which makes the transition to electric cooking easier.

Regulations on energy efficiency have encouraged more innovations and the adoption of electric stoves. The EU has issued an Eco-design Directive that sets stringent performance standards for household appliances, accelerating the development of more efficient electric cooking technologies. Similarly, California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards encourage developers to integrate electric cooking appliances into new housing developments. 

Tariff subsidies prove to be efficient in promoting electric cookstove adoption. In Russia, the use of electric stoves is concentrated in urban multi-apartment buildings, with high adoption rates reported in West Siberia (68%), East Siberia (89%), and the Far East (78%). Households using electric stoves or living in rural areas receive a preferential tariff—70% of the official regional rate. At the municipal level, in 2025, the city of St. Petersburg's government approved RUB 42 million (~USD 0.8 million) to subsidize LPG for 48 apartment buildings (~2,000 flats), effectively reducing household LPG costs to ~51% of the regulated retail price.

Pathway to Universal Clean Cooking

Clean cooking finally sits high on the G20 agenda, and leaders now need to implement effective strategies that deliver universal clean cooking in a way that is financially efficient and aligned with net-zero pathways. G20 support remains tilted toward direct consumption subsidies (we estimate this to be 50%–70% of all support on clean cooking), with a large share on LPG. Better targeting of LPG subsidies can support clean cooking while liberating funds for other solutions that are more effective in reaching the poorest, do not lock in fossil dependence, and incentivize building modern, resilient, non-fossil cooking systems. In urban areas, providing one-off subsidies for induction stoves and electricity upgrades can reduce fuel subsidies over the long term, while supporting broader electrification goals. In rural areas where electricity access might be limited, governments need to rapidly scale electric cooking powered by distributed renewable energy, modern biomass, biogas, or bioethanol, accompanied by one-off subsidies for efficient appliances. 
 

What the G20 can do now:

• commit and put it in the calendar: The G20 can set time-bound milestones to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, with explicit targets for reducing LPG consumption subsidies and reallocating savings to supporting energy access for low-income households.
• publish national clean cooking roadmaps: G20 statements about the importance of universal access to clean cooking need to be backed by firm timelines for relevant governments to publish national clean cooking roadmaps. These roadmaps should prioritize non-fossil options—grid upgrades, appliance affordability, and local manufacturing—and hardwire targets into SDG 7 plans and NDCs.

By following these steps, the G20 can move clean cooking from a flawed subsidized fossil detour to a just, resilient, net-zero-aligned destination.