[Stoves] Doing science policy as a combat (Re: Andrew)

[Traveller]

Andrew:

I appreciate that you "want to see combative replies and negativity about
efforts to reduce indoor air pollution."

My apologies. You had made a similar complaint a couple of months ago.
Since I am often the one to be combative - negativity is my character flaw
- I hope you are positive enough to keep forgiving me.

I am an ass. A Washington ass. I have observed and learned adversarial
legalism - litigation and legislation, and budget planning.  I can kick ass
and am prepared to be kicked.

Here, I try to assess claims and interests, weigh evidence I find, and
separate wheat from chaff. I am always prepared to be proven wrong.

I hope the person(s) who "suggested" to Tom that this List be shut down
didn't intend to suggest that I be kicked off this List. If such person(s)
think that I spread "misinformation", I hope they state their claims on
this List. (Ron has done that, and I am yet to respond; I beg his pardon
for the delay and others' indulgence, or reminding me. I don't think Ron
would ask to shut down this List or kick me off; he has asked that my posts
be "reviewed", which is perfectly fine.)

Cooking is a hobby, and I have been a side observer of the fuel/stove
competitions for all my life. Scientists, economists, Foundations, can also
be treated as fuel/stove combinations -- how does their fuel come and how
is it burned, for light or heat, and how much smoke does the stove
generate?

*************
Now, in a combative and negative spirit, permit me to disagree with  your
view that "cost and machinations of government and NGOs but it's not
pertinent to this discussion."

I beg to differ. If the "suggestion" to Tom that this list be shut down has
any meaning, it is that cost and machinations of government and NGOs are
very much pertinent to discussing how and when what changes can be made in
fuel/stove combinations to please the user, who I assume has certain
habits, aspirations, and compulsions.

I am afraid the whole university mania of saving trees, using "renewable
biomass", computing precise effects of emissions on not just specific
diseases but overall longevity and health for future generations, needs to
be subjected to scrutiny. This is where millions of dollars have been spent
in the last 40 years. (I pick 1968-1974 period for some countries when
official attention to fuel/stove issues began, and then 1974-84 as when
international official attention began.)

Put bluntly, "machinations of government and NGOs" have created Divisions
of Disinformation. Or Darlings of Disinformation.

****

All that is pertinent - lest we let newcomers adopt the ga ga of GACC, the
loudest, shrillest voice on "clean cookstoves" in recent years.

When I started writing on this List this time a few months ago, I
anticipated that GACC will have an extended lease of life by now and it
should reconsider its strategy.

I was correct but for the opposite reason. If Messrs. Tillerson, Pruitt and
Perry (say, TPP for short) choose to not request funds for the "clean
cooking" programs of Clinton/Kerry at State, Jackson/McCarthy at EPA, and
to a limited extent Chu/Moniz at USDOE, - or if the next US Congress
chooses to deny such requests - things won't be the same.

But the next Congress could choose to maintain the State/EPA/DOE support.
That is the Congress' prerogative.

There may be a Bill to apply the SLCP (Short-Lived Climate Pollutants) law
of California at the Federal level. (Whether or not stove GHGs are proven
quantitatively; I don't care beans about bean-counters.)

And of course, the Trump family has an interest in cooking. All their
hotels serve phenomenal foods. Even Jose Andres and the Trump Organization
may settle out of court and there will be a repeat of South Lawn
dine-and-shine GACC CEO is experienced with.

In short, GACC can learn from its errors - that is the humility of science;
at least admit the qualifiers for results - and the time is now. Forget the
Evidence Base blather, for one. WHO and EPA can pursue better things for
life.

For your concern about Lancet studies, I humbly submit that Lancet
publishes quite a bit of speculative blather. Richard Horton has a
difficult job - he has to publish research that is endorsed by peers, and
cannot afford to challenge groupthink financed by mighty monies.

I could pick out Lancet papers and show how honest science admits limits
and uncertainties. Why, I did just that with honest admissions of GBD
professionals in Lancet December 2012 (and also referenced WHO DG's essay
urging "better data").

For effective science policy, there needs to be some "supra-science"
discussion. Otherwise you get IPCC WG2 and WG3 reports reviewing published
literature on impacts of climatic vulnerabilities and projected shifts, and
similarly on options to reduce GHG emissions. The published literature has
no uniform correspondence with reality. The WG3 report is shameless display
of ignorance, and the WG2 report is a basis for recognizing adaptation and
resilience options, going to urban and regional planners, medical and
education professionals, etc. (Outside of the academic bubbles of "climate
policy".)

There is an opportunity to pay more attention to air pollution, indoor and
outdoor. To bring in folks from organizations like AWMA and local planning
authorities, maybe even some professors with a sense of how to advance
air/water pollution control efforts in real life.

USEPA and the British, Dutch, Swedish, French histories of environmental
planning over the last 50 years may be greatly instructive. The challenge
is to shift attention from non-contextual micro studies of the Malawi/Nepal
type (there are many others; CDC are an example of such poverty tourism)
and look at holistic planning.

I am grateful to Cecil to bring back such terminology- "holistic" again.
For years I have been cynical of "holistic planning". But if the
alternative is to employ PhDs to generate blather, ignore the agriculture
and food processing/marketing industries, demographic and physical
(buildings, roads) changes, I think one needs to bring in physical
planners, forest products industries.

On all that, some other time. For now, I hope other List members provide
some clues on the costs and machinations of governments and NGOs. In the US
legal system, there are ample avenues for transparency and accountability.

Nikhil

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:30:26 +0000
> From: Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] report with dissapointing results from cleaner
>         cookstoves (Andrew) - Malawi
> Message-ID:
>         <CAPSaZea5bQx-TDJ=AhCtB9GeP1v2Q+rdN93VXK+uh7JJZyDvHQ at mail.gm
> ail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I think we should all stand back and take a breath.
>
> My original post was to elicit reasons  why this study published in the
> Lancet found no correlation between cleaner stoves and pneumonia in
> children.
>
> Whilst Crispin and Roger provided some pointers  I'm still puzzled
> but don't want to see combative replies and negativity about efforts
> to reduce indoor air pollution.
>
> I too am amazed at the cost and machinations of government and NGOs but
> it's not pertinent to this discussion.
>
> Andrew
>
>


>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161214/e97cf012/attachment.html>