Based on GDLive, literature, and understanding of extreme poverty livelihoods in some areas of GiveDirectly operations, it can be estimated that the majority of GiveDirectly beneficiaries uses charcoal and unclean burning practices. In addition, some burn wood to make charcoal to generate income. This can be unsustainable and significantly contribute to disease burden. There is no indication that beneficiaries buy a clean-burning stove or change their charcoal business.
Thus, would it be beneficial to label one of the smaller ($27) cash transfers as ‘to invest into a clean burning stove to prevent health problems and to gain information on environmentally sustainable businesses?’
[Question] Labeling cash transfers to solve charcoal-related problems?
Based on GDLive, literature, and understanding of extreme poverty livelihoods in some areas of GiveDirectly operations, it can be estimated that the majority of GiveDirectly beneficiaries uses charcoal and unclean burning practices. In addition, some burn wood to make charcoal to generate income. This can be unsustainable and significantly contribute to disease burden. There is no indication that beneficiaries buy a clean-burning stove or change their charcoal business.
Thus, would it be beneficial to label one of the smaller ($27) cash transfers as ‘to invest into a clean burning stove to prevent health problems and to gain information on environmentally sustainable businesses?’