Author name: 胡思

For a long time, developing countries have been synonymous with pollution: coal smoke, diesel fumes, frequent power outages, and the incessant noise of generators. However, this reality is changing. It is the developed nations that are truly shackled by the old systems. Refineries, gas pipelines, and coal-fired power plants are all remnants of 20th-century designs, burdened by expensive and rigid sunk costs that make transitions slow and costly. In contrast, many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America lack comprehensive fossil fuel infrastructure and do not carry the burden of recouping investments. They can leapfrog outdated technologies and move directly to a clean energy system centered on solar, wind, batteries, and smart grids. Here, energy transition is not idealism but the most cost-effective and rapid choice available.

Pakistan serves as a striking example. With soaring electricity prices and frequent blackouts, the market has found its own solution. In the past two years, the import of solar panels has surged, with capacity measured in tens of gigawatts, and the pace of new installations has at times exceeded that of the entire African continent. This is not driven by government subsidies but by businesses and households calculating the costs: self-generated power is cheaper and more reliable than purchasing from the grid. As a result, solar energy’s share in the electricity mix has skyrocketed, driving down the marginal price during the day to extremely low levels. More importantly, this path is naturally compatible with electric vehicles and heat pumps. When rooftops can generate electricity, electric vehicles become mobile batteries, and heat pumps can amplify every kilowatt of electricity into three to four kilowatts of heating or cooling. In such a system, laying expensive gas pipelines merely locks capital into a less efficient and riskier dead end.

Argentina’s transition illustrates that even resource-rich countries need not be held captive by their resources. Through straightforward renewable energy auctions and long-term contracts, wind and solar power have rapidly become key sources of electricity, supporting nearly half of the demand during midday and peak periods. This not only reduces price volatility but also enhances energy security and minimizes foreign exchange outflows. As electricity becomes progressively cleaner, the electrification of transportation and heating becomes a natural progression: electric vehicles are no longer constrained by imported oil prices, and heat pumps prove to be significantly more cost-effective than gas water heaters over their entire lifecycle. The energy system is shifting from ‘continuously burning fuel’ to ‘installing equipment once and using electricity long-term.’

Kenya showcases an even more radical path. With geothermal, hydropower, and wind energy as its backbone, clean energy now constitutes an absolute majority of its electricity generation. This means that new electricity demand need not be accompanied by new emissions, allowing for the simultaneous expansion of the grid and carbon reduction. This is crucial for a country still working to improve electricity access. When the foundational power supply is already clean, promoting electric vehicles and heat pumps is easier than in developed countries, as there are no old systems to maintain, no gas pipelines to depreciate, and no vested interests to appease.

The common thread among these countries is clear: transition is driven not by sentiment but by cost curves. Solar, wind, and battery technologies continue to decline in price, while the grid serves as the most universal and scalable infrastructure. Electric vehicles and heat pumps extend the value of electricity to transportation and climate control. Under these conditions, any rational actor would not choose to build a new gas system to accomplish tasks that could be performed more efficiently by electricity. This is not just high-carbon; it is also economically unwise.

If this trend continues, the scene a decade from now may be quite ironic. You might enter a country still labeled as ‘developing’ today, only to be greeted by clean air, rooftops adorned with solar panels, quiet electric vehicles gliding through the streets without emissions, and buildings heated and cooled by the grid. In contrast, those countries still shackled by oil and gas assets and politics, desperately prolonging the life of old pipelines, may resemble today’s underdeveloped regions. Energy transition has never been about who shouts the loudest first; it is about who is willing to let go of the past the earliest. As the world has already turned the corner, the slowest will ultimately find themselves trapped in their own history.

Gas stoves remain prevalent in households not because they are particularly safe, but simply because they have always been used that way. Flames are seen as symbols of efficiency and tradition, and over time, few have questioned whether this practice remains reasonable. However, recent scientific research has clearly indicated that cooking with open flames fueled by natural gas, propane, or butane is a long-underestimated source of indoor pollution.

Studies conducted by Stanford University and various public health research institutions have shown that gas cooking releases nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and benzene. Nitrogen dioxide can irritate the respiratory tract and exacerbate asthma and lung inflammation; benzene, classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the World Health Organization, is associated with an increased risk of blood cancers such as leukemia. These are not incidental impurities but rather byproducts that are inevitably produced during combustion.

More importantly, the risks do not only exist during the act of cooking. Research has found that in poorly ventilated homes, these pollutants can linger for hours even after the flame has been extinguished, gradually spreading throughout the living space. In other words, even if you are not standing by the stove, you may continue to inhale these substances throughout the night. This is precisely where indoor pollution is most easily overlooked: it is silent, colorless, and odorless, yet it persists for extended periods.

A risk assessment study published this year in an international journal indicates that in households that frequently use gas stoves without effective ventilation, the long-term exposure to benzene has exceeded the acceptable levels recommended by public health guidelines, with children bearing particularly significant risks. Additionally, multiple studies have shown that the concentration of benzene produced during gas stove operation can, in certain situations, be comparable to or even exceed that of secondhand smoke. The only difference is the source of the pollution, but the harmful substances entering the lungs are the same. If secondhand smoke is unacceptable, there is theoretically no reason to ignore the combustion of gas.

The problem lies in the fact that we have never truly regarded gas cooking as a risk that needs to be examined. It has been packaged as a lifestyle choice, a cultural tradition, and even seen as a symbol of professionalism and taste. However, when scientific evidence consistently points in the same direction, the habit itself can no longer serve as a reasonable defense.

The solution is not complicated. Switching to induction cooktops can eliminate combustion pollution at the source; until a replacement can be made, at the very least, exhaust equipment that vents air directly outdoors should be used, and ventilation should continue after cooking. These are not matters of lifestyle preference but rather fundamental risk management.

Is gas cooking really a given? If we were to redesign a household today, rather than relying on old habits, would anyone actively choose to keep a flame burning indoors for extended periods?

Washing machines are becoming increasingly complex, with a bewildering array of programs, but in reality, laundry does not require excessive thought. In nine out of ten cases, the Eco 40-60 setting is sufficient to clean clothes effectively while conserving energy and being gentle on fabrics. This program is a standard feature in all European washing machines because it serves as the international benchmark for assessing a machine’s ability to clean everyday cotton garments at the lowest possible energy consumption. In other words, Eco 40-60 is the ‘baseline mode’ for the entire machine, designed under the assumption that this will be the primary setting used by consumers.

A common misconception is that selecting the ‘shortest cycle’ will save the most energy. In fact, the primary energy consumption of a washing machine comes from heating water, not from the drum’s rotation. Quick wash programs often require higher water temperatures or increased agitation to achieve cleanliness within a limited timeframe, resulting in greater energy use. Some models offer time management features that allow users to shorten wash cycles, but in most cases, the preset Eco duration strikes the best balance between energy consumption and cleaning effectiveness.

There is no need to overthink water temperature settings. A temperature of 40°C is adequate for most fabrics, while 60°C should be reserved for items like post-illness clothing, kitchen cloths, or situations requiring special treatment, such as bedbug infestations. Generally, there is no need to resort to high temperatures for regular laundry.

Another easily overlooked setting is the spin cycle. The higher the spin speed, the lower the moisture content in the clothes, which in turn reduces drying time. While high-speed spinning consumes slightly more electricity, it ultimately helps save energy by decreasing the workload of the dryer.

As for whether to separate whites, darks, and underwear, there are no strict rules. As long as garments do not bleed color and lack metal components that could cause scratches, mixing loads is entirely feasible. In fact, excessive sorting can lead to smaller loads, wasting both water and electricity, and increasing wear on clothes due to more frequent tumbling in the drum.

One practice worth promoting is washing your own clothes. This is not merely a matter of cleanliness, but also a balance of hygiene and responsibility. Mixing the family’s laundry can facilitate the transfer of sweat, skin flakes, and fungi; washing separately can reduce skin issues and help teenagers develop self-sufficiency through daily chores.

Laundry is inherently simple and should not be daunting due to complicated controls, nor should one assume that faster cycles save more energy. Choosing Eco, setting the highest spin speed, and pressing start is the most energy-efficient, hassle-free, and straightforward approach to laundry.