[Stoves] more on ocean acidification

Sat Aug 10 02:13:42 CDT 2013

See comments below.

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

> Paul,****
>
> ** **
>
> Perhaps you missed the discussion late last year when a major study
> including BC was issued. Tami Bond, one of our number and a co-author, made
> a presentation for us at ETHOS in January. There is no question that BC is
> a major concern for “climate disruption” and health. It is not either
> biomass or fossil fuels. Improvement is needed for both.
>

I did not frame the issue in either-or terms. But should we be burning coal
to cook a meal in areas where biomass is abundant? Should we be trying to
improve and promote coal stoves in areas where biomass stoves make a lot
more sense in terms of global warming?

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Tami’s notes for her Saturday evening Keynote address including the Dec
> 2012 study reference are at:
> http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/proceedings2013.html****
>
> ** **
>
> The study was, “A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and
> injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21
> regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
> Study 2010.” Lim et. al December 2012. ****
>
>
> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961766-8/abstract
> ****
>
>   ****
>
> Household air pollution from solid fuels is listed in the comparative risk
> assessment as #4 globally. Tami  described the BC impacts of kerosene and
> biomass and the impact of stove design on the evolution of BC and its
> persistence in the atmosphere. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I will ignore your disparaging remarks about GACC. The reality is that we
> are all GACC.
>

I asked a question about the policy focus of the GACC with no intention of
being disparaging. I asked this question because I am left with the
impression that the main focus of the GACC is the health of a cook as she
cooks a meal. Hopefully I am wrong. If all poor people in the world could
afford bottled gas through a series of national or international subsidies,
would the mission of the GACC be fulfilled? Does the GACC put the use of
fossil fuels such as coal on the same footing as the use of biomass fuels
such as rice hulls? Would a clean-burning coal stove in the eyes of the
GACC be just as acceptable as a clean-burning biomass stove in areas where
both coal and rice hulls are available? Also what is the policy of the GACC
with regard to biochar? If biochar is not combusted in a stove but
incorporated into the soil, would this be understood by the GACC as a huge
inefficiency in the transfer of heat to a pot?

> We should be mutually supporting individual and collective efforts to
>  solve the myriad of issues to the extent that we can.
>

I am happy to support whatever makes sense in terms of both human health
and the health of the environment. What is the position of the GACC with
regard to global warming, climate change, and ocean acidification, and how
does their position with regard to these important issues impact their
choice of the stoves they seek to promote?

Many thanks.
Paul

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Tom****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 7:59 PM
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
>
> ** **
>
> Tom,****
>
> Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black carbon? Do
> you do so mainly from the point of view of human health? Or do you have
> other environmental considerations in mind? As you know, many scientists
> maintain that black carbon warms the earth. Are you not going in the
> direction of another contentious issue that some might consider to be
> unrelated to stove design?
>
> Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas should we
> try to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we try to put a lot
> more emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not make sense to develop stoves
> that are low in black carbon and at the same time do not create CO2 from
> non-renewable sources such as coal? Does the GACC ask such broad questions?
> Or does it operate out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like
> black carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to stove
> design?****
>
> Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all: no rice
> hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue of any kind. And
> let us suppose that in this barren landscape there is nothing but coal.
> Here I concede that it makes sense to focus attention on developing more
> efficient coal stoves.
>
> Many thanks.****
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:****
>
> Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related reason for
> developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A study published
> yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black carbon from China is from
> fossil fuels. A significant portion of that is from coal burning stoves.
> They recommend developing more efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all
> relevant and identified as part of the strategic work plan of the Global
> Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC).****
>
>  ****
>
> Tom****
>
>  ****
>
> Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen, August
> Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao, Martin Kruså,
> Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke Du and Örjan Gustafsson
> Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP****
>
> DOI: 10.1021/es401599r****
>
> Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013****
>
> Copyright © 2013, American Chemical Society
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM****
>
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
>
>  ****
>
> Dean,****
>
> Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean acidification
> and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we go about designing
> stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil fuel stoves? Do we place
> all on a equal footing as long as they are clean-burning? If we build
> biomass stoves, should these stove be burning or producing biochar? How can
> we design a stoves in a theoretical vacuum?****
>
> Thanks.****
>
> Paul Olivier****
>
>  ****
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Dear All,****
>
>  ****
>
> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> return to the topic of stoves. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Best,****
>
>  ****
>
> Dean****
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:****
>
> Dear Ron****
>
>  ****
>
> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message. ****
>
>  ****
>
> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> ‘Skeptical Science’ playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of AGW.
> It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
> the compliant as a way to communicate – a style, if you will – of how to
> handle people who were ‘off message’. ****
>
>  ****
>
> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> instructions for example to always mention ‘climate disruption’ as it is
> harder to dispute and refute than ‘global warming’ now that there isn’t
> any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who
> are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of
> AGW (can’t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human
> role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
> undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
> ‘denying’ *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
> pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
> the skeptic or those listening to them.****
>
>  ****
>
> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing the
> credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> correspondent as ‘alone’ in their understanding, always insert some mention
> of how settled things are with the ‘majority’ of ‘reputable’ scientists and
> so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> address the fact that there is no such thing as ‘acidifying the ocean’ when
> the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation so
> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ‘wears army boots’.
> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have noticed
> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
>
>  ****
>
> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> bailing out. ****
>
>  ****
>
> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
>
>  ****
>
> “…hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed down
> the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe was
> highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class ticket
> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> about human influences on the climate.****
>
>  ****
>
> “A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well
> by future historians.****
>
> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> purchased. ****
>
>  ****
>
> “Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that currently
> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous scientists
> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
> research.”****
>
>  ****
>
> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past 6
> years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove test
> protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> without consequence. ****
>
>  ****
>
> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors in
> it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The April
> 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
>
>  ****
>
> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> conceptual relevance.****
>
>  ****
>
> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> climate science information has been brought forward in articles that ‘were
> not peer reviewed’ even if they were true. How about giving up on trying to
> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere – who knows) and
> put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
> Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit
> their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?  Actually
> the WB has its project protocols reviewed…well, they should continue to do
> so.****
>
>  ****
>
> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and money
> trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things overnight,
> but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major
> contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
>
>  ****
>
> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the Arctic<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>or photos of stack emissions are
> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>or SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
> parody<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures continue to
> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>. *
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> I don’t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ‘it causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>’.
> I don’t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
>
>  ****
>
> Let’s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> planet of stoves. I know you’ll want to help. We all do.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks
> Crispin****
>
>  ****
>
> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ‘letters
> after your name’ signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
>
>  ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/ ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/ ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>

-- 
Paul A. Olivier PhD
26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
Dalat
Vietnam

Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130810/b1246e6e/attachment.html>