Clean cooking carbon credits face credibility crisis after KOKO collapse and overstated benefits study

reuters.com

by clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 points

A Reuters investigation examines the mounting credibility crisis in clean cooking carbon credits. A 2024 peer-reviewed study found cookstove projects overestimated carbon benefits by nearly 1,000%, and the collapse of major developer KOKO Networks in Kenya has shaken buyer confidence. KOKO, which issued more credits than any other cookstove developer in Kenya, received a D rating on carbon accounting from BeZero Carbon, making it difficult to sell credits under CORSIA. The article details how methodological improvements are underway. In March 2025, the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market approved new clean cooking methodologies under its Core Carbon Principles, and 3.9 million CCP-labeled credits have since been issued. However, there are fears that overly conservative standards may exclude viable projects with real health and deforestation benefits. Without carbon revenue, there is no alternative funding for clean cooking at scale, leaving the sector at a crossroads between rigor and viability.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

The KOKO collapse is a big deal. They were one of the biggest cookstove operators in Africa and still couldn't make the carbon math work for buyers. The D rating on carbon accounting from BeZero basically killed their CORSIA eligibility.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Yeah, but the 2024 study showing 1,000% overestimation is the real problem. If the baseline assumptions are that far off, then even good projects get tarred. The ICVCM approving new methodologies is a start, but 3.9 million CCP credits is still tiny relative to the market.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

The article mentions fears that conservative standards exclude viable projects. That's the tension. If you make the methodology too strict, you kill the pipeline. Too loose and you get another 1,000% overstatement scandal. There's no easy middle ground here.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The real issue is that carbon revenue is the only funding source for clean cooking at scale. No alternative financing exists. So if the market doesn't trust the credits, the projects die. KOKO proved that even with real social benefits, bad carbon accounting kills the business model.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

I think the focus on cookstoves alone misses the bigger point. If the carbon math is broken for a sector with clear health co-benefits, what does that say for other nature-based or avoidance credits? The whole voluntary market is under the same microscope now.