Use of less-clean fuel like charcoal in such inefficient stoves is placing the health of many Ugandans in danger. Photo by Edgar R. Batte.
Imagine a world where smoky charcoal stoves and paraffin lamps are relics of the past—replaced by cleaner, cheaper energy that doesn’t choke the air or wallets. In Uganda, that future hinges on one key factor: affordability. Uganda, like many African nations, still relies heavily on biomass—firewood and charcoal—for household energy needs, according to the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development data. But this dominance has implications for the population. For instance, traditional biomass conversion methods, such as the three-stone stove, release dense smoke in poorly ventilated kitchens, exposing expectant mothers to harmful pollutants.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has linked this prolonged inhalation of fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide to complications such as low birth weight, stillbirth, and maternal respiratory issues.Beyond the health risks, the unchecked biomass harvesting for cooking accelerates deforestation, depletes vital ecosystems, and disrupts the natural carbon cycle. As forests shrink, soil erosion intensifies, biodiversity declines, and the resources communities depend on become scarcer, creating a cycle of environmental and economic vulnerability. Unfortunately, the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (Ubos) data shows that more than 94 percent of Ugandan households use biomass for cooking, including firewood, charcoal, and plant and animal wastes.
Costly alternatives
It’s this aforementioned issue that has prompted the push for cleaner energy, which has recently gained traction due to growing environmental concerns, technological advancements, and economic factors. Uganda itself has policies that are promoting renewable energy like the 2023 Energy Policy, but affordability to alternatives like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), biogas, and electricity (hydropower, solar) remains a key barrier.
As for cleaner energy, like solar and wind, the upfront costs—battery storage needs and a grid that’s not quite ready for the green revolution—can make it seem pricier than it actually is. Yet the worry is that if cleaner energy remains expensive, adoption will remain slow, and environmental degradation will worsen. Ubos figures show that only about six percent of the households are using clean cooking fuels in Uganda.Uganda, like many other countries, is trying to wean its households off old-school, smoky cooking methods—think firewood and charcoal—because they’re wrecking both human lungs and forests.
The government wants to push clean cooking fuel usage from a meagre 15 percent to 50 percent by 2030, according to the third National Development Plan (NDPIII) 2020/21-2024/2025. As of 2020, a staggering 94 percent of households were still chopping wood and burning charcoal. Policymakers have tossed in tax waivers, LPG cylinder giveaways and even wrapped clean cooking into the Parish Development Model (PDM) to rescue things.
Perception’s role
So, what’s the hold-up? Turns out, it’s not just about affordability or access. It’s also about perception. One research paper released last year, titled Perceived Satisfaction and Household Fuel Transition, disclosed that many Ugandan households are convinced that food tastes better when cooked over firewood or charcoal. Some believe LPG and electric stoves are for “soft” cooking, incapable of handling serious meals. The study notes that as income improves, people naturally climb the “energy ladder”—moving from dirty, cheap fuels to cleaner, modern options. The energy ladder theory assumes that once you have cash, you’ll automatically upgrade. But real life doesn’t work like that.
People don’t switch just because they can afford to; they switch when they feel satisfied with the alternative – that means reliability, performance, and, yes, the taste of food, all play a role.It should be noted that not all wallets are created equal. When it comes to energy choices, income matters—a lot. That’s where income thresholds come in. They’re basically financial checkpoints that divide people into economic classes: poor, middle-income, and high-income.
Why does this matter for cooking? Because your income largely dictates what fuel you can afford, and if it doesn’t fit your budget, it doesn’t make it to your kitchen.“Policymakers pushing for cleaner cooking solutions need to get this. Simply saying ‘Switch to LPG, it’s better!’ won’t cut it if the price tag scares people off. Instead, the smart move is to design policies that consider income groups—like subsidies that make LPG, electricity, and biogas cheaper. When clean fuels become affordable across all income levels, satisfaction follows, and that’s when real adoption happens,” reads the first aforementioned paper, which was compiled by six researchers from Makerere University.
Missing link
Globally, 2.7 billion people still rely on polluting fuels, not just because they’re cheap but because they’re familiar, reliable, and (in their view) better, according to the United Nations data. A couple of energy sustainability researchers have different takes on what counts as “affordable.” Mikul Bhatia and Nicolina Angelou, in a 2015 study, say fuel should cost less than five percent of a household’s income, and India’s CEEW framework raises that to six percent.
Samuel Fankhauser and Sladjana Tepic, in a 2007 paper, put the absolute limit at 25 percent of household income, noting that anything beyond that is considered a crushing financial strain. So, what does this mean? Governments and financial institutions don’t always agree on what’s affordable, which is why they often create ad hoc policies (random subsidies, temporary price cuts, etc.). But one thing is clear: for a fuel to be widely adopted, it has to fit within a household’s budget.
This means that if Uganda wants to shift its population to cleaner cooking fuels, it’s not just about making LPG and electricity available. It’s about making them financially painless to use.Understanding what drives households to switch to cleaner fuels can help policymakers create better strategies to combat climate change and global warming because when households move up the energy ladder, they don’t just improve their quality of life—they contribute to a greener, healthier planet.
