[Stoves] Model outputs versus facts (Re: Crispin on Indonesia)

[Traveller]

Moderator: I changed the subject line. This is in relation to Crispin's
comment re: Indonesia.
--------------

Crispin:

Thank you. I have intuited, but have not seen particular claim, that WHO
modeling - from modeled emission rates to exposures - is supposed to lead
to some miracle claim about health impacts on particular individuals. Some
folks seem to be getting high over this "Integrated Exposure Response" dope
a la Burnett et al (2014). There's a recent PhD thesis at UC-Berkeley on
this; while I am not competent to judge the merits of the methods, I happen
to know that heroic, super-human assumptions are required to cook up such
numbers.

Vested interests are to be respected (so long as they are transparent about
their intents, incentives, and legal/professional obligations; I have
none.)

It may be 10 years before we have sufficiently varied time-series
observations to reach conclusions for confident advice - and marketing.
Just a guess. And such studies will have some relevance only if in these
coming ten years some 200 million users have purchased and used
WHO/EPA-sanctified solid fuel stoves that promise measurable health
benefits without complicating the numbers by changes in other risk factors,
etc. etc. (Researching those who have switched to LPG, gas, electricity,
biogas or solar doesn't seem to be of much relevance. After all, the six
billion people to date who transitioned out of troublesome stoves weren't
subjected to HAPIT and all that jazz.)

Which will not happen. Academia and think tanks have long-term platforms -
like fighting for the rights of the mentally challenged, victims of
substance abuse or policy brutality, those in solitary confinement - that
ensure multi-decadal careers in research and advocacy.

The poor - ye shall always be with us.

You say "We are still waiting to be shown how this miracle is achieved
because it is specifically ruled out by other committees of the WHO."

Could you please provide more information? I happen to think WHO is exposed
to some reputational risk on this matter, considering the rather exuberant
claims in Burning Opportunity.

Nikhil

PS: You seem upset that "The models assume people are stupid." What would
you prefer - that experts are? :-)

--------------

Prior exchange (Crispin answers between **)

"**While it is general knowledge that the GBD numbers are hocus pocus and
intended only to guide national policy, it seems to be gaining credence as
a source of 'facts'. In don't think it is clear that there are facts
'behind' the GBD but the rest is the result of assumptions and estimations
and negotiations between interested parties (vested interests).

What is remarkable about the WHO's modeling, as presented, is the claim to
calculate individual impact from opinions emerging from GBD outputs that
are qualified in their self-descriptions (the GBD self-descriptions) as not
being applicable to individuals. We are still waiting to be shown how this
miracle is achieved because it is specifically ruled out by other
committees of the WHO.**

> "Would you say the WHO/EPA modeling would help improve on the methods and
effectiveness of subsidies so that this CSI project - 25 million is the
largest target I have known to date - can be scaled up or replicated ten
times over in the next five to ten years?"

** No.

It is modeling something ?that can't be relevant to the selection criteria.
There are two methods available: direct exposure measurement, with personal
monitors, and the modeling. We know the method used in the models fails
conceptually because it is trying to estimate the effect on an individual
using as inputs the outputs of national population statistics. Direct
measurements bypasses all the assumptions - completely - accommodating
cultural behaviours such as leaving the room during ignition when the smoke
is bad. The models assume people are stupid.

Today we are testing a stove that doesn't have different emissions based on
the fuel. This is a direct challenge to those who say a fuel is 'clean' or
'dirty'. All the fuels have the same emissions. Ha ha! Cat, meet pigeons.
**


--------------------

>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 11:39:16 +0800
> From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> To: Stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Indonesia Clean Cooking: ESMAP Supports
>    Innovative Approaches to Build the Local Cookstoves Market, Helps
>    Increase Access (Crispin)
> Message-ID: <COL402-EAS53CD4A880E081A009BA364B1CB0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Nikhil
>
> Indonesia is considered to be, as a whole, sustainable for biomass
production and use. After all it is where the EU-mandated bio-diesel
?addition is produced on oil palm plantations that are created by the
mass-burning of the jungle and the mass-destruction of all habitats in the
name of reducing CO2 emissions.
>
> It boils down to not being able to get CO2 offsets for biomass stove
projects. There are of course fuel short areas such as eastern Sumba Island
where I have been helping to reduce the requirement of wood to make salt.
That has been quite successful: 70% reduction and still made from locally
available materials.
>
> If we burned the forest in Western Sumba and planted oil palms, we can
get carbon credits in Europe for producing biodiesel, but ?not for reducing
wood consumption for indigenous small industries. Such is life.
>
> While it is general knowledge that the GBD numbers are hocus pocus and
intended only to guide national policy, it seems to be gaining credence as
a source of 'facts'. In don't think it is clear that there are facts
'behind' the GBD but the rest is the result of assumptions and estimations
and negotiations between interested parties (vested interests).
>
> What is remarkable about the WHO's modeling, as presented, is the claim
to calculate individual impact from opinions emerging from GBD outputs that
are qualified in their self-descriptions (the GBD self-descriptions) as not
being applicable to individuals. We are still waiting to be shown how this
miracle is achieved because it is specifically ruled out by other
committees of the WHO.
>
> "Would you say the WHO/EPA modeling would help improve on the methods and
effectiveness of subsidies so that this CSI project - 25 million is the
largest target I have known to date - can be scaled up or replicated ten
times over in the next five to ten years?"
>
> No.
>
> It is modeling something ?that can't be relevant to the selection
criteria. There are two methods available: direct exposure measurement,
with personal monitors, and the modeling. We know the method used in the
models fails conceptually because it is trying to estimate the effect on an
individual using as inputs the outputs of national population statistics.
Direct measurements bypasses all the assumptions - completely -
accommodating cultural behaviours such as leaving the room during ignition
when the smoke is bad. The models assume people are stupid.
>
> Today we are testing a stove that doesn't have different emissions based
on the fuel. This is a direct challenge to those who say a fuel is 'clean'
or 'dirty'. All the fuels have the same emissions. Ha ha! Cat, meet pigeons.
>
> Best wishes
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202-568-5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160927/f7864949/attachment.html>