[Stoves] Future of GACC (Anil, Crispin, R. Stanley)

Traveller miata98 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 22 13:40:41 CST 2016


Let me first clear up some mild misconceptions:

a) Mrs Clinton has lost the election but that only means that if she
chooses to, she can become a more active agent in GACC's goals and
activities. The Leadership Council of GACC lost Antonio Gueterres to the
UN, and had Mrs Clinton been in the White House, she would herself not have
been able to channel funds to GACC - I don't think much if any money has
moved from US government to UN Foundation for GACC Secretariat so far. What
Mrs Clinton was able to accomplish is start EPA and HHS (Health and Human
Services, directly or via NIH/CDC) funding for research and promotion, or
get Kerry and Obama to promise more funding and cajole more "Cooking
Ambassadors" like Chef Jose Andres. Now the Republican Congress may
terminate these programs - currently the government is running on
"Continuing Resolution" basis, but as early as two weeks, the Congress can
choose to eliminate EPA, HHS funds on what might have been seen as Mrs
Clinton's agenda. I am sure the remaining Democrats will fight to continue,
but Sens. Barbara Boxer and Mikulski are gone while Dick Durbin and Susan
Collins, cosponsors of a black carbon bill, are still around.

That is, Crispin is correct that GACC Secretariat, which to my knowledge
has so far got money from non-US governments and private sector. (UN
Foundation as a whole has its own funds; not sure how much it gets from
foreign governments. GACC does not publish financial reports and is an
opaque activity with no public accounting, just evaluation reports to the
donors).

Mrs Clinton may not have the clout of "pay and play" of the Clinton
Foundation, but she, if she wishes to, can now freely raise funds for GACC
Secretariat if it can demonstrate competence to do the real policy and
project work, not just fine-wine-dine-and-shine events at Delhi Imperial
Hotel and White House South Lawn, the CEO collecting hefty bonuses for
fund-raising. (Oh, Mrs. Clinton can also do the same, or take over UN
Foundation and make a tripartite alliance of Turner (UN), Gates, and
Clinton Foundations to pool some $2-3 billion a year for health and climate
resilience of the


---------
(US +1) 202-568-5831


>
>
>
> http://www.nariphaltan.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.
> bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161122/27f88c61/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 06:17:36 +0000
> From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Future of GACC
> Message-ID:
>         <YTOPR01MB023555FA10376C7FC154901FB1B40 at YTOPR01MB0235.
> CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Anil
>
> The GACC is a project of the United National Foundation. The UNF is an
> organisation that cooperates in achieving the foreign policy goals of the
> US State Department. The general goals of bringing healthier and more
> convenient living to women around the world is a policy of the US State
> Department. That is very unlikely to change, ever.
>
> Whether the effectiveness of expenditure on the ?vehicle? of stoves is
> higher or lower than alternatives is something for the policy makers to
> assess. As most of the money accessible by the UNF is from foreign
> agencies, it is likely that the general goals will remain as will the
> funding remain in the international pool. If the goal is not taken up by
> one organisation, it will be take up by another, in the sense that the
> firehose will remain open, but the nozzle may point in different directions.
>
> Good question
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:29:51 -0800
> From: "Rstanley at mind.net" <rstanley at mind.net>
> To: Stoves and Biofuels Network <Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: [Stoves] Future of the GACC
> Message-ID: <4ED41AEA-C91C-4187-B4E4-E55A821CE553 at mind.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=us-ascii
>
> Crispin,
> As a bona fide citisen of the US part of the Americas, and as recovering
> from the recent election and the early indicators of appointees I have to
> suggest Crispin,  that I do not share your same confidence as our fortunate
> northern neighbor.
> We are experiencing a severe change in policy towards race, gender
> equality, environment and a host of other issues here, and funding sources
> aside,  the GACC,  no matter how well intended, remains a policy mechanism
> of the US government. That policy can change rather quickly on the whims of
> the administration in control.
> Richard Stanley
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161122/98bccea0/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list