Ease the ruining burden of fuel-based lighting

One of the lesser-known (in industrialised countries) burdens for ordinary people in developing countries is fuel-based lighting. Lack of access to electricity forces the use of kerosene lighting that burdens both poor people's economy and the climate. It also has an impact on women's labour and the local environment. A change would give multiple dividends.

The total global potential for efficiency improvements in lighting is enormous, and has been studied by Evan Mills. Out of a total spending of 230 Billion USD per year for lighting, the savings could be in the area of 75-115 Billion. The real challenge is lighting in developing countries, where the savings would also count in social impact. Kerosene for lighting is more than 300 times more expensive for the energy service (lumen-hours) than incandescent lamps, and more than 1600 times more than using a CFL! Poor people are simply made poorer by bad lighting. Kerosene lamps provide bad lighting, bad indoor environment and, to add further to the problems, it is typically women who are charged to find the fuel, walking long distances. In some cultures it is also from the women's household budgets that the kerosene is paid for, whereas electricity comes out of the husband's pocket! The reason women can afford it at all is that they exchange services (barter trading) between them. There are therefore many good reasons to change to electricity, but that would not necessarily reduce the total emissions of carbon dioxide. People would certainly want to improve their lighting standard, so the choice of technology is crucial. Use of (developed) LED would be the best choice. Industrialised countries could serve their own needs in aiding electrification of the developing world as a niche market to develop both LED (for our own use as well) and PV, riding down the learning curve, while at the same time reducing GHG-emissions. Is this a win-win situation, or not?