Aligning science and practice in evaluations of cookstove carbon projects

Results-based climate finance mobilizes private capital to public goods by paying for verified climate outcomes,1 yet reports of large gaps between credited and independently estimated impacts have chilled confidence.2–9 We introduce a framework that separates discrepancies into two sources: (i) implementation, what projects do and how outcomes are measured, under developer control and (ii) the state of the science, the parameters that translate observations to emissions reductions and evolve with evidence. Applied to clean cooking, the framework shows that claims of sectorwide overcrediting are largely explained by downward revisions to science parameters after reporting, not pervasive malfeasance. Projects that directly measure household fuel use best align with independent estimates; default-based protocols report several-fold larger savings. We show how future protocols will narrow remaining gaps. The approach generalizes across sectors in the voluntary carbon market. Projects and protocols that align implementation with science better reflect atmospheric outcomes and sustain finance.