[Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest imprecise reporting of facts. (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)

Thu Jul 21 07:09:06 CDT 2011

I am not gonna adventure into the climate discussion now, I think I did
express my opinions on the list. I am part of the team of "anthropogenic
climate change believers" :) Patient and carefully explained views are very
beneficial to everyone in my opinion, the debate should live, in an
open-minded way.

I just wanted to come back on a point underlined by Nat and Crispin, i.e.
the BFW "hidden agenda".
"When you are dealing with a funded organisation responsible one way or
another to donors, you have to tout and shout the current (funded) memes."
I think Crispin is right on that point, that is the reason. I worked in such
a heavily funded organization. Heavily funded so heavily dependent. Their
mission, objectives and technology (Solar Home Systems) were their Bible.

The problems are in my opinion, first the length of the funding programmes
these organizations benefit, they have to keep going with their goals and
communication over the years. Campaining for or against specific practices
or technologies, even if, meanwhile, the practices and technologies prove
they are useful, or on the contrary they fail their mission. Hard for them
to admit to funders, but also publicly, that they were wrong and they
misjudged, even a little, a technology. Charity or development projects need
funders and so communication to run. They tend to simplify complex problems
to reach a large audience. Black or white, no grey for them.
People at the head of these organizations often have limited scientific
knowledge, and are not regularly reviewing the literature of their field.
They don't put themselves into question since they follow a holy mission.

I sent 15 pages of quotations and references from and to various scientific
literature to the board of the foundation I was working in. Most of it from
renown and established international organizations working in the field of
energy and rural electrification. The board didn't even make the effort to
reply or comment, it was quickly tossed away and considered as heretic.
Sometimes scientific arguments simply desert the space of debate.

I think we are touching a major problem in the world of cooperation and aid.
It is in my opinion responsible for a big part of the inefficiency of many
projects over the world, and it should be addressed.

Xavier

P.S : it is not imprecise criticism, it is incorrect criticism

-----Message d'origine-----
De : stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] De la part de
stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
Envoyé : lundi 18 juillet 2011 20:00
À : stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Objet : Stoves Digest, Vol 11, Issue 15

Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
	stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
.org

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Fire Stump (Jeff Davis)
   2. WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest imprecise
      reporting of facts. (Nat of WorldStove)
   3. Re: WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest imprecise
      reporting of facts. (Steve Taylor)
   4. Re: WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest	imprecise
      reporting of facts. (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:21:36 -0400
From: Jeff Davis <jeff0124 at velocity.net>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fire Stump
Message-ID: <1310937696.1471.1.camel at jeff-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

For hybrid populars, at my location, 15 years would work. That's for a
saw log.

Jeff

On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 11:51 -0400, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> >I cannot believe that lumber was grown in 27 years.
> 
> In northern Swaziland they cut wood after 7 years! Pines.  I have seen
> trees
> with an increase in diameter of 40 mm in a single year.  Right climate
> and
> rainfall... 

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:10:07 -0400
From: Nat of WorldStove <nataniele at aim.com>
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org, biochar at yahoogroups.com,
	gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: [Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest
	imprecise	reporting of facts.
Message-ID: <8CE12FE9145282D-1680-9A6B at webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

For three years now BioFuelWatch has been attacking WorldStove for our
efforts to help improve the lives of others through the use of LuciaStoves
and Biochar. In our latest reply to them, we document three years of
information we have provided for them and that they have chosen to ignore. 

With three new large programs it's taken me a bit to get the time to reply
out but you can read the full reply here

http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/download/critical_review.pdf

I've had a lot of help double checking the facts so that we reply to
misinformation with hard math and peer reviewed research.

Will try to engage BioFuelWatch in a public debate in Durban this December.

Hope those of you who choose to read the reply will find it informative,
factual and helpful for your work as well.

Nat of WorldStove

p.s. a very nice write up,  by Trevor Mark Surridge , of how we do our work
can be found here.
http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/download/research_paper.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
ttachments/20110717/47ba84b1/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:21:29 +0100
From: Steve Taylor <steve at thetaylorfamily.org.uk>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest
	imprecise reporting of facts.
Message-ID:
	<CAGW2POjAadNsgOqDC36Tk3LaCo_+g_qGd-KKjG30MWszPTD__Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On 18 July 2011 02:10, Nat of WorldStove <nataniele at aim.com> wrote:

>
> For three years now BioFuelWatch has been attacking WorldStove for our
> efforts to help improve the lives of others through the use of LuciaStoves
> and Biochar. In our latest reply to them, we document three years of
> information we have provided for them and that they have chosen to ignore.
>
>
>  With three new large programs it's taken me a bit to get the time to
> reply out but you can read the full reply here
>
>  http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/download/critical_review.pdf
>
>  I've had a lot of help double checking the facts so that we reply to
> misinformation with hard math and peer reviewed research.
>

A masterful putdown. Nat, well written and to the point.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
ttachments/20110718/7d89318b/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:30:43 -0400
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest
	imprecise reporting of facts.
Message-ID: <039e01cc4568$0b5c85b0$22159110$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Nat

I read the article at
http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/download/critical_review.pdf and
repeat here your question near the end: 

"Why does BioFuelWatch refute fact and science, which we continue to cite."

When you are dealing with a funded organisation responsible one way or
another to donors, you have to tout and shout the current (funded) memes.
This is apparently an organisation that believes that the Earth's climate,
which changes massively and continuously all by itself, can be brought to
stasis by the All-Powerful Hand of Man fiddling the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere. That alone is so unscientific that it beggars belief they follow
any scientific path at all, let along one that includes your observations
and supporting documents.

I, frankly, have never heard of them and their anti-biochar position and
doubt they can do much to prevent the likes of you and me demonstrating all
sorts of technologies and their benefits.

The first three links in your letter did not work. The 4th did:
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/agrofuels_and_biochar_article.pdf which
outlines the massive subsidies to the beneficiaries of a lobby that seeks
money in order to survive. If there were no CO2 argument, there would be no
subsidy, so guess what, they flog it and the money rolls in. Agrofuels. Not
even 'biofuels' any more.

One of the 'difficult sells' with biochar is not going to go away: having
collected the fuel, why not burn it all. If someone wants to get more carbon
in the ground, plant trees. If someone wants biochar for agriculture, set up
an industry to do that. It is fundamental that having procured, processed,
dried and prepared a fuel for the fire, it is unwise to throw any of it
away. There must be cases where it makes sense,. But a heck of a lot where
it does not.

Everything proposed by the char producing stove seems, in my limited view,
to involve work for the stove user. If that work can be very limited and the
application of the small amount of char generated is concentrated on a small
portion of land, or as you point, dosed onto individual plants, it is
excusable. But not if there is no additional fuel readily available (because
the high energy portion is being tossed). But not if there is a net increase
in fuel taken from the source.  It looks strange to see the ordinary need
for cooking being turned into a complex battle between agriculturalists and
rent-seekers trying to bring an ever-changing climate to a halt. 

They are attacking your products because they have no idea what they are
doing. That is my conclusion, on several levels. Wow.

Your stoves work fine. If they could burn more of the carbon, so much the
better. Sitting in my urban shack having found a piece of a truck pallet to
cook for the night, I would rather have the heat than some black char to
toss outside in the roadside where it will be crushed and blown around my
already dirty, dusty township.

While there is no one, perfect answer, there is also no perfect
understanding and far more than one path. One far too common element is so
many people grasping at money, and failing that, straws. In their view, you,
Nat, are collateral damage.

Your fan,

Crispin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
ttachments/20110718/0f9dd10c/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/

End of Stoves Digest, Vol 11, Issue 15
**************************************