[Stoves] Off-topic: Who is the Enemy of the People? (Re: Ron)

[Traveller]

Dear Ron:

How could you choose sleep over a full on-topic comment? Isn't eternal
vigilance the price to pay for a CO2-free life? How, just how, can you
afford to

My approving your doing? You embarrass me. How could I, an unauthorized
tresspasser in the world of stovers, approve anything?

Anyway, I had just taken a short cut, assuming you will indeed call me a
"Climate Denier" as you just did it seems.

You ask, " Nikhil accuses me of calling him a “denier”.  I carefully and
intentionally did not do so.  But observe his response near the end:
“*The only connection I see between stoves and CO2 is that technologies
that increase kg CO2 output per kg input of carbonaceous fuel are a boon to
people as well as climate.”*
Anybody else think that sounds like a denier talking?"

About ten years ago, I concluded "All emissions and all impacts considered,
modern energy access is good for the poor and the climate." I just didn't
see the need to spell that out and would readily write a PhD thesis if I
got $500k grant.

By "modern energy access", I meant "including modern coal power."

Quite recently, Prof. Smith published some research findings to the same
effect. I suggest you go read him. He didn't put it in the way I do, of
course. I can explain my take if you find his research results persuasive.
(I happen to think that if small coal applications for direct heating come
close to achieving the efficiencies of a large power plant, even a bit
less, they could be cheaper than coal power, but that is a minor quibble.)

But there are some extremists --- Dan Kammen on the Left Coast, David
Wheeler over here -- who opposed World Bank Group finance for new
coal-fired power plants in India, South Africa and Kosovo.

To me, these are the Enemies of the People. (Think Ibsen.)

I would not only choose modern coal power over uncontrolled combustion of
biomass - "renewable" or not; it's not as if land, water, labor, finance
are as unlimited as the enthusiasm of the "No-Carbo Cult" - but choose
low-sulfur coal for a coastal location and a tall chimney (so that SO2
cools the atmosphere a little).

****
Now let me explain your logic:

You asked - "*Can I assume this emphasis on chemistry means that you agree
with a global goal of getting back quickly to a CO2 atmospheric level of
300 ppm or so? " *

** It's not for me to agree, unless you define "quickly". Also depends on
how. Indiscriminate attack on fossil fuels is "Simply Stupid." It seems to
me "Simply Stupid" markets well to people who believe in doanythingism.
Including generating rents for the middlemen - shall I say pimps? There is
no such thing as "a global goal" that binds anybody, so all this is
academic. Were you an academic by any chance? **


"*Your recent support of coal seems to deny a problem with 2 degree C
rise."  *

** Nothing "recent" about it. Indiscriminate support of coal is also
"Simply Stupid". Works for people who believe in donothingism. I happen to
think it is easier to work with coal than with "biomass". Prove otherwise
to me. (I also worked on biomass co-firing at TVA and elsewhere, so spare
me the song-and-dance about biomass power.) **


*"**As a chemist, where are you on the urgency of doing something with
global warming?"*

** Dunno. An economist has three hands; besides, "What do you want the
answer to be, and are you willing to pay for it?" You can't afford me. **

* "And do you see any connection with global warming and this stoves list?"*


** Oh, maybe. But not with CO2. I thought this List was about stoves. **

*"Climate deniers can’t see the connection, it appears, but excess
atmospheric CO2 seems to me to be the absolute worst pollutant - with huge
health implications. "*

** You see, my friend, this is where I took a short cut, to spare you the
discomfort of calling me a Climate Denier. About ten years ago, I decided,
"What the hell; I am going to be called a Climate Denier. Why not just live
with it? After all, they  could come after me for other reasons." As the
saying goes, "First they came for the Gypsies, and I didn't care because I
was not a Gypsy. .. " I saw fanatics coming after me. For all I know, I
share my genes with Gypsies. **

*"I see the household cookstove market as being able to eventually supply
about 10% of the CDR needed. "*

** Yeah. That's what I thought too, even though I didn't see any DR. I
think GHG redctions of comparable magnitude (CO2e, 20-year GWP) can come
from the stove and furnace, boiler market can come. Using fossil fuels more
efficiently in the next 30 years. **



*"But it can be the first - because this form of CDR is so cost effective.
And it can take place where (tropical regions) we can expect responses like
terra preta to occur again (practiced for thousands of years with zero
thoughts of CDR).  *

** Oh, you and I may agree again! The devil is in the details. It is no
problem dressing up something as "cost effective". Ajay here probably has
experienced this with other people. I am excited by the potential, but I
have seen potential energy turn into kinetic energy and explosion energy,
so I keep my fingers crossed. **

*"This atmospheric side also in my mind falls under the category
of “clean”.  Unfortunately, this is opaque to climate deniers as they don’t
agree that we have any serious excess CO2 problem."*

** Yada, yada, yada. "Clean" is contextual, but you will need to read
chemistry first. But tell me, since I don't think anybody has a "serious
excess CO2 problem" - except those paid to say so or raising funds to say
so - does that make me an enemy of the people? Or only of the No-Carbo
Cult? ** (Ajay: I wrote a piece called "Carbo Cult" that Ron found a global
emergency. Like WHO finds HAP to be one.)



Nikhil, the Climate Denier, waiting for the  Green Gestapo.



---------


On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:

> List, Nikhil, and ccs:
>
> It is way past my usual bedtime, so just two comments.
>
> a)  I believe this to definitely be “on topic”, so think it deserves to go
> to the whole list - as Nikhil seems to approve of my doing.
>
> b)   Nikhil accuses me of calling him a “denier”.  I carefully and
> intentionally did not do so.  But observe his response near the end:
> “*The only connection I see between stoves and CO2 is that technologies
> that increase kg CO2 output per kg input of carbonaceous fuel are a boon to
> people as well as climate.”*
> Anybody else think that sounds like a denier talking?
>
> Ron
>
> On Dec 17, 2016, at 12:05 AM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Ron: (Hi, Ajay. Please don't take anything personally. Ron seems to
> like red herrings and fears heresy.)
>
> I owe you a reply on my past 28 sins but let's keep that cooking on the
> back burner or the fire goes out. I will respond to your 9 comments here.
>
> You know I can't stop reporting 'offtopic' items relevant to fuel, smoke.
> CDC, EPA will keep on producing material worth .
>
> There is really no point putting all this on the list. You seem to have no
> answers and to be interested only in questioning my "authority" (which I
> don't care to possess in the first place) and calling me a "climate
> denier".
>
> Sad. Sad.
>
> I will still respond to your comments on my 28 sins, on list, and you may
> put all this below on to the List; I don't think it deserves that place.
>
>
>
> -----------
> ND on RWL 1: GACC is a brand. I don't know who believed in it and why. I
> will expand when I get a contract. Maybe a Global Alliance on Livable Human
> Environments (GALHE), maybe a Global Alliance Against House Chores (GAAHC).
>
> ND on RWL 2: I will be happy to have you on board, so long as I am the
> chairman of the board. I am going to request a trip to the White House
> Kitchen as well as the kitchens at the Pentagon, Walter Reed, Army Navy
> Country Club, Camp David. Soldiers, health professionals, restaurateurs,
> and monks/nuns have a good idea of what cooking is; many of them have a
> better knowledge of the world than the poverty tourists in academia and
> media. I will contract the Congressional Research Service to produce
> Country/Regional Handbooks on Cooking and Heating.
>
> ND on RWL 3: Permit me to ask:
>
> a) What is the definition of biomass and why is it appropriate to the
> specific context?
> b) I can understand why technical characteristics of stoves using other
> solids or gases or electricity be excluded from the discussion - e.g., the
> effect of power outages on laundry deliveries in five-star hotels - but
> what is the rationale for not discussing the markets for cooking with such
> different fuels?
> c) In other words, do you have a definition of a "service standard" and
> "market" for cooking? Why not?
> d) Generally, what is biomass worth other than the price it fetches or the
> cost of producing it?
>
> e) Has anybody measured biomass balances at local, regional, national
> levels or by agro-climatic zones to understand variations over time?
>
> ND on RWL 4: I conclude that your sole interest is to discuss what you
> feel like. I just sent you my 14 October 2016 draft reply to you on coal.
> By my count, Colorado alone produced nearly 1.5 billion tons of coal in
> 150+ years. (Colorado Coal: energy security for the future
> <http://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/rtv8n21.pdf>,
> 2005 plus EIA data since.) Please first expiate your dark coal sins before
> preaching chastity to others.
>
> ND on RWL 5: I remember there was a Bioenergy list - not this one on
> Stoves - that discussed fuel chemistry and combustion chemistry. I see that
> the ISO IWA says nothing about fuel chemistry. If you and others on this
> list are interested in fuel chemistry, I am interested in an inventory of
> fuels and emissions organized along fuel chemistry lines. I can go to coal
> industry and find a good history of coal analysis around the world. I have
> yet to see a single biomass fuel chemistry record for any country. Please
> get on with the work instead of ranting against coal. What do biomass
> stovers know about biomass stocks and flows, value chains and opportunity
> costs?
>
> ND on RWL 6: It is because the "results" and credibility mania have wasted
> time and money that I want to raise GACC and other funds to do something
> useful. Peanuts attract peanut eaters.
>
> ND on RWL 7: I am done with your cite-o-logy. Please provide propositions
> with which one can agree or disagree. What is your theory about ANYTHING
> relevant to cooking in the developing countries? Or do you want to just
> refer to the pronouncements of GACC CEO? As far as I am concerned, Kirk
> Smith said it all (with Karabi Dutta) in "In Praise of Petroleum" (Science
> 2007?) "Cooking Like Gas" (ESD 2012?), and Power to the People (Science
> 2014?). Why do you just keep dropping his name?
>
> As for Figure 5.6 from Ajay's PhD thesis, I don't think it's
> cost-effective for me to dissect the data and methods for Guatemala HAPIt.
> Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. My post on "super-human"
> GoBbleDygook explained my reasons for unhappiness. I might get around to
> posting unhappiness with DALYs and all that ritzy dance; it's just not
> worth it. The underlying data quality of global DALYs is pathetic. And
> averted DALYs for different cohorts is intellectual smoke. Products of
> Incomplete Combustion. Gold is tested at high temperature, not by smoke.
>
> Oh, by the way, "Gold Standard" peer review typifies virtually everything
> that is wrong with the Academic-Activist-Deceit complex. Sell it to Al
> Gore.
>
> $1,500 per averted DALY? Why don't we shut down all hospitals and let
> people buy averted DALYs?
>
> The whole paradigm of monetizing DALYs is a sickness. (Ajay: When you are
> in Washington next, let's get together for a beer.  Your and Kirk's work is
> being abused to n-th degree.)
>
> ND on RWL 8:  Nothing is clean to me about "clean". Above all, the ISO IWA
> exercise on Tiering - from what I can judge from GACC and ISO websites -
> and the WHO/EPA/BAMG is "context free", "fact free". Boiling Water for some
> standardized cooks with standardized bodies -- yeah, right. I don't find a
> "service standard" or "objectives and goals" for "clean" on GACC website.
>
> All I see is YOUR goals
>
> - "protect forests?? How many, where, and when?
>
> - "reducing the cost of cooking"? Which cost? By how much? Where and when?
>
> - "required CDR"? By whom? Why?
>
>
> All I see is another round of tinkering. Not worth more than a few million
> dollars to buy peace. No finance minister is willing to put down his
> $1,500,000,000,000 to buy a billion averted DALYs.
>
> A "clean" cookstoves has no meaning whatsoever. it's a propaganda term to
> snow people and shake down money. The Clintons did it one way, the Trumps
> another. Either give me the definition and means of measurement, and
> explain why it is relevance to human health.
>
> Please explain to me why you feel "*excess atmospheric CO2 seems to me to
> be the absolute worst pollutant - with huge health implications.*" The
> poor suffer the climate whether or not it is changing, whether or not the
> change is anthropogenic, and whether or not the Colorado no-Carbo Cult
> reduces a few nanograms of coal CO2 emissions per breath.
>
> I have absolutely no patience with being labelled a "climate denier". The
> term is coined by enviro-Nazis, people who would spend their time modeling
> and babbling, saving mama earth while her children die.
>
> Oh, well. Go ahead. Call me names. Unless you can do better.
>
> ND on RWL 9: Please educate yourself on chemistry. Beginning with coal
> chemistry. Or acid rain chemistry. Or the air chemistry of your town, city
> or air basin. Then the biochemistry of human body. We'll talk about
> atmospheric chemistry later.
>
> I for one am hoping that US government comes up with keeping the Black
> Lung Fund afloat. Putting a carbon tax in Colorado to fund it will make you
> happy and bring coal consumption in Colorado to zero.
>
> Coal use worldwide has been increasing - according to EIA, from around 150
> quads in 2010 to around 160 quads now, going up to some 180 quads in 2040.
>
> The news of coal's demise is premature.
>
> The only connection I see between stoves and CO2 is that technologies that
> increase kg CO2 output per kg input of carbonaceous fuel are a boon to
> people as well as climate.
>
> Please go back and read Kirk Smith. For God's sake if not mine.
>
> Nikhil
>
> ---------
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Ronal W. Larson <
> rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Nikhil and ccs   (adding Ajay as a courtesy)
>>
>> Glad to see “on-topic”   Can we assume no more “off-topic” from you?
>>
>> See below.
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ron:
>>
>> I am serious about raising a billion dollars for GACC. Including for
>> biomass stoves.
>>
>> *[RWL1:  I find this a little hard to believe.  Please expand;  some
>> examples from your past writings to show you believe in GACC?*
>>
>>
>> Sad to see that you are not. The Alliance needs new partners like Ivanka.
>> GACC needs to continue with Leo DeCaprio and Jose Andres if that is what it
>> takes to raise money. There’s no hope for engineers without more money, I
>> am sure you will agree (because that is what I have seen argue a lot for -
>> more money.)
>>
>> *[RWL2:   I am for the $1 billion number;  can you explain why you think
>> I am not?*
>>
>> So far I thought the purpose of this List was to discuss ways of
>> producing - and successfully marketing (I imagine) BETTER BIOMASS STOVES.
>> You now want to restrict only to WOOD-FIRED COOKSTOVES?
>>
>> *[RWL3:  Apologies.  I erred.  I should have said biomass-fired stoves -
>> as in the existing rules for this list.*
>>
>> I submit to you that you cannot move an inch toward better biomass stoves
>> without also looking at the competition (coal included) and defining your
>> terms - biomass and cookstoves.
>>
>> *[RWL4:  I disagree that we need to discuss coal-fired stoves at all.  My
>> hope is to phase them out.  We have limited bandwidth -and folks wanting to
>> discuss improving coal stoves have plenty of opportunity to start a list
>> for that.  I probably would join that list.  I hope you are not suggesting
>> that coal is a form of biomass.*
>>
>> With enough data characterizing fuel chemistry around the world, moisture
>> variability throughout seasons, foods that are being cooked with the
>> cookstoves.
>>
>> *[RWL5:  Not sure of the point here.  Are you suggesting this list is not
>> interested in these topics?  *
>>
>> Far too much money and time has been wasted on measuring and debating the
>> impacts of “improved stoves" projects.
>>
>> *[RWL6:  It is clear that this is your long-held belief (and conflicts
>> with your support in #1 for GACC funding increases).  One example of your
>> view of waste seems to have been (all?) of the work of Kirk Smith?   A few
>> days ago you referenced a PhD thesis by Ajay Pillarisetti.  I found it very
>> informative and with to recommend it to this list.  See *
>> http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7hw5z2w2 .
>>
>
>
>> *I would be interested in what part of this thesis you include in the
>> term “too much money and time”?*
>>
>> I submit there is not an iota of gain from IHME/WHO GoBbleDygook.
>>
>> *[RWL7:  It is my strong opinion that you are in a very small minority on
>> this view.  It would help your case a lot if you gave a few cites who agree
>> with you.   I find many dozens of cites in Ajay’s thesis* *in support of
>> what he has done - and which you have otherwise deplored.  Here is a key
>> figure (#5.6) from that thesis that I find very well argued and find
>> convincing. *
>>
>> <PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
>>
>> *(It opens larger for me, hope so for others).  It is his Fig 5.6a, with
>> of course much more detail available there.    This figure says that about
>> $1500 (for added chimneys) will avert one DALY - and that this action would
>> be highly cost effective.  How would you or anyone argue to not use this
>> information?  I am hoping for specifics - not generalities.*
>>
>
>
>> * I have included Ajay mostly to congratulate him (and his thesis team)
>> for a very fine thesis - but also, as a courtesy, to give him background as
>> we await Nikhil’s further comments on Ajay’s modeling effort.  For those
>> not aware of Nikhil’s style - GoBbleDygook is his disparaging term for the
>> huge amount of work behind the study called GBD - Global Burden of
>> Disease.  I look forward to learning (from Nikhil) of others who agree with
>> him.*
>>
>
>
>> * It appears to me that Nikhil has simply not understood Ajay’s modeling
>> - as Nikhil has given no details on his unhappiness.  This would be a good
>> time to provide details - since it seems likely that GACC and many others
>> (still awaiting $1 billion) are quite apt to be using this.*
>>
>
>
>> * I am told that the “Gold Standard” certification group will soon be
>> approving use of this methodology.  That takes considerable peer review.*
>>
>> Please define the service standard and the environmental objectives and
>> goals of "clean cookstoves" movement.
>>
>> *[RWL8:  I refer you to the GACC website.  I don’t see much difference
>> there with what we wrote 20 years ago for this list.  What is there about
>> the word “clean” that is unclear?*
>>
>> * To help Nikhil as he asks for my own definition, I should perhaps
>> repeat my history with this stoves topic.  After retiring, I developed a
>> rudimentary version of what is now called a TLUD over several years -
>> working in Sweden, Ethiopia, and showed once to friends in Sudan (which
>> country started my search because it has been so badly harmed by a huge
>> dependence on charcoal).  In 1995,  I described this charcoal-making
>> stove on a predecessor list also run by Tom Miles and after a few months,
>> Tom asked me to be one of the first two coordinators of an early version of
>> this list (those records have been lost).  In this first phase of my
>> experience with stoves (well after Kirk Smith and many others), I was
>> motivated only by saving forests - because charcoal production is usually
>> so badly handled (as we have been hearing over the last few days).  In my
>> mind this fits the word “clean”.  This proposed new type of stove was a
>> vehicle for making charcoal in a superior manner,*
>>
>
>
>> * As I became more aware of stove work by others,  I learned that a TLUD
>> is (by chance?) the cleanest form of stove.  To further protect forests, it
>> is natural to talk about stoves and health/disease (GBD).  I emphasize they
>> are additive reasons, not alternative.*
>>
>
>
>> * As I talked about this with others, and watched the way a stove is
>> tested (esters never leaving the open door), I added time savings for the
>> cook as a reason to support TLUDs.   I consider this part also of the
>> word “clean” because real world cooks don’t operate like (the very
>> talented) stove testers.*
>>
>
>
>> * Then came a time when it became apparent that TLUDs had a great shot at
>> greatly reducing the cost of cooking, as there is a huge global market for
>> charcoal.  Not because of cleanliness and health - but those desirable
>> goals are promoted when someone sees better economics in TLUDs than rockets
>> (despite the TLUD’s drawback of batch operation).*
>>
>
>
>> * But in about 2005 (ten years from the beginning), with most of my time
>> then being on RE and EE topics (and not on stoves), I learned about terra
>> preta.  A charcoal-making stove fit very nicely with the fabulous news of
>> both greatly improved soils and the possibility of biochar (so named two
>> years later) helping with carbon dioxide removal (CDR).  Climate deniers
>> can’t see the connection, it appears, but excess atmospheric CO2 seems to
>> me to be the absolute worst pollutant - with huge health implications.  I
>> see the household cookstove market as being able to eventually supply about
>> 10% of the CDR needed.  But it can be the first - because this form of CDR
>> is so cost effective.  And it can take place where (tropical regions) we
>> can expect responses like terra preta to occur again (practiced for
>> thousands of years with zero thoughts of CDR).  This atmospheric side also
>> in my mind falls under the category of “clean”.  Unfortunately, this is
>> opaque to climate deniers as they don’t agree that we have any serious
>> excess CO2 problem.*
>>
>
>
>> * So I go again through this litany to explain why I am supportive of
>> anyone looking at stoves as in Ajay’s thesis.  None of these are either/or
>> arguments.  It just happens that I am responding at this length because I
>> want work like Ajay’s to continue - as cost numbers such as in his Figure
>> 5.6 are certainly going to be able to add to the other economic values I
>> am claiming for forest preservation, time savings, added income, and global
>> warming.*
>>
>
>
>> *Apologies for a too long-winded answer on my “goals” for “clean
>> cookstoves”.  I add this to explain why I am so opposed to this list
>> promoting coal stoves in any fashion (added to the fact that WHO recommends
>> against the use of untreated (the usual) coal for stoves.*
>>
>> It’s all in fuel chemistry, air chemistry and atmospheric chemistry.
>>
>> *[RWL9:  Can I assume this emphasis on chemistry means that you agree
>> with a global goal of getting back quickly to a CO2 atmospheric level of
>> 300 ppm or so?  Your recent support of coal seems to deny a problem with 2
>> degree C rise.   As a chemist, where are you on the urgency of doing
>> something with global warming?  And do you see any connection with global
>> warming and this stoves list?*
>> *  If it is not yet clear where I stand on coal - its demise is decades
>> overdue.*
>>
>>
>> *Ron (with a EE degree - that I am not using in any of the above)*
>>
>>
>> Nikhil (with a chemistry degree)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Ronal W. Larson <
>> rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Nikhil: cc list
>>>
>>> Can I suggest that you place additional  “off-topic” messages on some
>>> other list?  (I feel I just wasted a half-hour.)
>>>
>>> The answer to your last question would seem to be one of those you seem
>>> to most admire - the Trumps.
>>>
>>> Or what did I miss of importance to improving wood-fired cookstoves -
>>> the goal of this list?
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Around town, there are rumors that Ivanka Trump, Donald's daughter,
>>> could be more significant than Hillary Clinton. (The election is on World
>>> Toilet Day according to Crispin.)
>>>
>>> Ivanka Trump could be the most powerful first lady ever
>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/16/ivanka-trump-could-be-the-most-powerful-first-lady-ever>
>>> , Washington Post 16Dec16.
>>>
>>> Ivanka loves cooking
>>> <http://celebritybabies.people.com/2016/07/21/ivanka-trump-raising-three-children-jared-kushner-exhausted/>,
>>> has put recipes
>>> <http://www.ivankatrump.com/recipes-broccoli-kugel-steamed-artichokes-chicken-salad-veal-marsala/>
>>> on her website, and says about her book Women Who Work
>>> <http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/women-who-work-ivanka-trump/1123884764?ean=9780735211322&st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Core+Shopping+Books_00000000&2>,
>>> "We learn how to cook and how to code. We inspire our employees and our
>>> children. We innovate at our current jobs and start new businesses."
>>>
>>> She and Chelsea are friends
>>> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-3834181/First-daughters-fast-friends-unlikely-bond-Chelsea-Clinton-Ivanka-Trump.html>,
>>> so I am sure Hillary would just adopt Ivanka as the second daughter she
>>> didn't have.
>>>
>>> Above all, she arranged a meeting between The Donald and Al Gore, who
>>> could decide which way the Earth in the Balance
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_in_the_Balance> tips.
>>>
>>> South Lawn dinners with the Clintons and the Trumps is the way to go for
>>> UN Foundation, Inc. and Bill Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, Inc.
>>> I can devise a  $1 billion fund raising strategy just for high class
>>> marketing - Narendra Modi, Vladimir Putin, Dr. Kim and all, PLUS a $10
>>> billion investment fund for "clean cookstoves".
>>>
>>> Yup. The time has come. To elevate GACC to the next level.
>>>
>>> The White House kitchen
>>> <http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1877168,00.html> wasn't
>>> always clean
>>> <https://www.thrillist.com/eat/nation/white-house-food-presidential-eating>.
>>> Maybe the next brand for GACC will be Global Alliance for Clean Kitchens
>>> and Homes.
>>>
>>> Now, where's my "finder's fee" for an even more glamorous Cooking
>>> Ambassador?
>>>
>>> Nikhil
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161217/b744a809/attachment.html>