[Stoves] re stove cost

[Xavier Brandao]

Dear Paal,

"Charity and subsidising has not solved any long term poverty problems in
the world rather opposite. Mass production and marked economy has not ether
solved any problem of poverty."
That is very right, in my opinion, we have :
- Charity and subsidising : a bad tool for a good purpose
- Mass production and marked economy : a good tool for a bad purpose (making
money)

Now we have the good purpose, we know people need good stoves, we are sure
about that. But we still need to find the tool to achieve that. Market
economy might well be that tool. One thing is sure, it is a powertool.

"Coca Cola with it?s coloured water and sugar is mentioned, what long term
poverty problem has that solved?"
None, but it excels at one thing : customer assent. No or very few stoves
can say that, to my knowledge.
Have you ever bothered to look at the top 20 companies in terms of turnover?
None of them are sustainable, in fact they are just the opposite : oil and
gas (mostly), finance companies ... I do not say they are evil (or are they?
:) ), because they are useful. But they promote an unsustainable way of
living. How come life-saving products like stoves are not on top of the
list? Because of what we said, TVs, cell phones, motorbikes and products for
a quick pleasure are always the priority. We need to look at the success of
these companies to understand what to trigger in the customers mind.

Cheers,

Xavier





-----Message d'origine-----

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

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:40:36 +0100
From: "Paal wendelbo" <paaw at online.no>
To: <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: [Stoves] re stove cost
Message-ID: <7B03389EB1EB4F2FBB5B04F41C223EEB at firmanav10a4e1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Dear stovers

            Charity and subsidising has not solved any long term poverty
problems in the world rather opposite. Mass production and marked economy
has not ether solved any problem of poverty. Coca Cola with it?s coloured
water and sugar is mentioned, what long term poverty problem has that
solved?

            GACC with it?s 100M  FES and clean burning stove program has an
unique possibility to do something for the poor  in developing countries but
not with charity and subsidizing . Following this discussion on the list I
feel there is a need of rethinking of the whole task.

            Household energy is felt different by people trying to survive
on 2 $ day and those with 200 $ a day. And I feel the documentation of Cecil
Cook about charcoal consumption in Lusaka could be a good foundation for
further discussion.

            Dr.TLUD Anderson and Dean Still know exactly how simple the
technique of clean combustion is. With one or two empty tin cans, a 4? nail
and a   hammer it?s possible to make an excellent clean burning device at no
cost to be put under the pot for cooking and which can utilise a lot of
different types of fuel. The only obstacles to this is there will be no need
of charity and no need of subsidizing and no money to make for the rich
world and the Chinese mass producers

            So why not start in the other end. Start to train schoolchildren
on all levels in clean combustion and how to obtain it. Train different
types of biomass fuel to be used in the tins and how to collect it and hove
to make briquettes etc. All this children will after some few years will be
users of household energy. Some will be tinsmiths; some will be fuel
producers and some selling more advanced stoves for biomass fuel. What are
the obstacles to carry out such a program to almost no cost? 

With regards Paal W

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
ttachments/20111122/8ba67111/attachment-0001.html>