Efforts to introduce more efficient stoves increasingly leverage carbon-finance to scale up dissemination of interventions. We conducted a randomized intervention study to evaluate a Clean Development Mechanism approved stove replacement impact on fuelwood usage, and climate and health-relevant air pollutants. We randomly assigned 187 households to either receive the intervention or to continue using traditional stoves. Measurements of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and absorbance were conducted in cooking areas, village center and at upwind background site. There were minor and overlapping seasonal differences (post- minus preintervention change) between control and intervention groups for median (95% CI) fuel use (-0.60 (-1.02, -0.22) vs -0.52 (-1.07, 0.00) kg day(-1)), and 24 h absorbance (35 (18, 60) vs 36 (22, 50) × 10(-6) m(-1)); for 24 h PM2.5, there was a higher (139 (61,229) vs 73(-6, 156) μg m(-3))) increase in control compared to intervention homes between the two seasons. Forty percent of the intervention homes continued using traditional stoves. For intervention homes, absorbance-to-mass ratios suggest a higher proportion of black carbon in PM2.5 emitted from intervention compared with traditional stoves. Absent of field-based evaluation, stove interventions may be pursued that fail to realize expected carbon reductions or anticipated health and climate cobenefits.