[Stoves] CO2 drawdown (Re:Jock)

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Andrew

Jock calls for united action. That requires consultation and consideration of other points of view from practitioners, users and policy managers‎. 

>Clearly neither of you get the point which is that you will never see each others point of view and you waste this lists time in repeatedly having the same argument, take it to another place to discuss.

I think we are making good progress on some points and not on others. Both Jock and Ron avoid answering key questions which strongly affect the ‎implementation in the field. The key question of fuel consumption claims is a huge issue. 

Jock is more concerned with making char production and burying financially attractive or to have enough merit it will be adopted more broadly. From my experience promoting community agriculture, tending to the permaculture approach, people adopt what works, not what works in theory.

>The thing that concerns me is that you Crispin seek to undermine the very principle of top lit updraught burning because of your narrow views on the consequences of burning fossil fuels.

Let me address that. I fully support TLUD's and have brought two to market in the past year. I also designed the $1 Haiti stove you might recall Roger Samson and I discussing the patented Vesto works well in TLUD mode. 

Your 'narrow view' comment is I suppose intended to make the burning of fossil fuels seem like a marginalised activity and that improving devices that burn coal, propane, natural gas, kerosene, lignite and so on is not a legitimate topic for investigation. 

Let me assure you that billions of people disagree with your comment. 

>I find the attributes of TLUD stoves worth discussing whatever happens to the char residue because:

I fully agree with the attributes and intent of the conversation. What I oppose is misinforming the buying public about how much fuel they consume. 

I am about to check the field performance of the Kyrgyzstan stoves (three fuels). I hear the CO2 reduction from wood (90%) and coal (40% net) is broadly reported. That should elicit the broad support of those who have taken their time to criticise me personally for thinking wrong thoughts. 

The home owners do not think they are wrong thoughts. They really appreciate the massive reduction in BC emissions, fuel consumption, a boost in income of $1-2 a day, much less drudgery, a more comfortable home and, from reports, pride of ownership - a top three metric in some countries. 

There is nothing wrong with TLUDs or char making. The problem is the mathematical dung too often accompanies them. Just because someone lives on $2 per day doesn't mean they are stupid. It also doesn't mean that they live on a net value of $2 a day. I teed up that issue to Cecil who has studied issue for years. 

TLUD designers: poor people do not have lots of free time. They do not care as much about smoke as you do. They dislike additional manual work. They are much better at operating stick fed stoves than they are given credit for. Tincanium is not widely available. (Mali has only 20% of the metal it would need to have broad adoption of improved stoves.)

Producers: if you want me to promote your TLUD char making solutions, stop using the WBT to lie about how much fuel they consume. It is your albatross, shake it off your neck. 

Regards 
Crispin