Back

In praise of fossil fuel subsidies (for cooking)

Gould, C. F.; Bailis, R.; Balakrishnan, K.; Burke, M.; Espinoza, S.; Mehta, S.; Schlesinger, S.; Suarez-Lopez, J.; Pillarisetti, A.

2023-10-27 public and global health
10.1101/2023.10.26.23297550 medRxiv
Show abstract

Households that burn biomass in inefficient open fires - a practice that results in $1.6 trillion in global damages from health impacts and climate-altering emissions yearly - are often unable to access cleaner alternatives, like gas, which is widely available but unaffordable, or electricity, which is unattainable for many due to insufficient supply and reliability of electricity services. Governments are often reluctant to make gas affordable. We argue that condemnation of all fossil fuel subsidies is short-sighted and does not adequately consider subsidizing gas for cooking as a potential strategy to improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 8%
18.8%
Similar papers in this journal
2
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 6%
12.9%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Environmental Health Perspectives
● 17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.1%
Similar papers in this journal
4
JAMA Network Open
● 130 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.9%
Similar papers in this journal
5
PLOS Global Public Health
● 344 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.1%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Global Health
● 113 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
7
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 16%
3.2%
8
Environmental Research Letters
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
9
International Journal of Epidemiology
◐ 88 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
10
The Lancet Public Health
○ 20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
11
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.7%
12
The Lancet Global Health
○ 27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
Environmental Science & Technology
● 64 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
14
Environmental Science & Technology Letters
● 21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
15
Environment International
○ 43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
16
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.4%
17
Science of The Total Environment
○ 186 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
18
PLOS Medicine
● 110 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
19
eClinicalMedicine
○ 77 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
20
BMC Public Health
○ 158 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
21
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.1%
22
The Innovation
○ 13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
23
Nature Human Behaviour
○ 95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
24
The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
25
Environmental Research
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
26
BMC Medicine
○ 176 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
27
BMJ Open
● 601 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.6%
28
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.