[Stoves] interesting link

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Andrew P

 

I appreciate all three sites you mentioned precisely because of the math!

 

To my surprise there was on the CBC (a relentlessly Warmist channel) an
interview today with a lady who was very well informed on the miseries to
which the dispossessed poor are victims of the new green-grab, they called
it, where the carbon cowboys roll into town to 'save the forests' and make
megabucks in the process.

 

There was a discussion on WUWT of the stoves programmes, mostly GACC,
attacking the EPA for touting ridiculous plans. I engaged some of the
bloggers pointing out the pretty serious errors in logic (that fuel contains
'inherent emissions' of PM and all that nonsense) pointing out the
remarkable success achieved in only 1 year in Ulaanbaatar using an open
mind, knowledge of good combustion and a real time test protocol (HTP). With
emissions down more than 99% (which I assume LBLN's Henrick Wallman will
talk about in his upcoming webinar) there was a pretty solid rebuttal of the
knee-jerk comments that stoves are all smoky and messy and need to be
replaced by good, clean propane.

 

More to the correct topic: the pillaging of the standing forests is a new
type of colonialism where 'green activists' appropriate all local rights of
use so they can make money selling offsets to the West. What makes it so
galling is the defectiveness of the foundational argument - that human cause
CO2 emissions are dramatically (or even detectably) warming the planet - and
the bull-headed resistance to the mounting evidence that the educated guess
taken 25 years ago by Hansen et al was wrong.

 

My advice remains the same: do not put money into a stove programme that
depends on carbon trading for survival. Just make good products that people
want to buy. 

 

Regards

Crispin

 

+++++

 

My interest in efficient stoves was spurred by deforestation and health
concerns.  Now the forests I was trying to protect are slated to be cleared
to make way for palm oil plantations to feed the carbon credits farce.  The
people whose lives I hoped to improve are also being cleared and forced into
refugee camps.  An environment that supported upwards of

100,000 will support only a few hundred.  For what?  For whom?

 

Invoking the Precautionary Principle, we force the very people we seek to
protect with our policies into immediate devastation, misery and death,
rather than position ourselves to assist in the event that something bad
might, maybe, perhaps happen to them sometime in the next 100 to 100,000
years as a result of man caused CO2 release.  This is Climate Justice?

 

Its anthropogenic, but the suffering isn't because of climate change.

 

 

Andrew Parker (not AJH)

 

 

P.S.  If you don't like Climate Depot, try wattsupwiththat.com, or for math
heads, climateaudit.org (I try, but it gives me a migraine).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120623/833d433f/attachment.html>