[Stoves] CO2 drawdown (Re:Jock) / TLUDs in West Bengal

Sun Feb 5 17:06:16 CST 2017

Cecil,
On 2/5/2017 12:43 PM, cec1863 at gmail.com wrote:
> Dear CPP, Jock, Paul, et al,
>
> I think I gave my best response to your question in my next to last 
> post to the list‎ on the topic of CO2 drawdown (re Jock) which began 
> with Occam's razor.
Yes, that was a very good response!!!   (which I happened to read after 
this current message from you.).   In very many ways I am in agreement.  
And I think that you will find that the approach of the West Bengal TLUD 
stove efforts is very close to what you are recommending.   Not a 
perfect match, but quite close.

Could you boil down  your two messages into 5 to 15 "check points" 
against which the West Bengal TLUD efforts (and other stove projects) 
could be analyzed?  You pull those check points from your messsages, 
without reference to any stove or project.   Examples:

Some are saying the same thing:
> judged by end users as to have delivered....... (what people want)
> earn the highest approval ratings from actual stove users 
> These operator preferences and culturally preferred performances 
> "trump" the efficiency and emission performance of improved 
> scientifically designed stoves. 
*******
> the only way to turn the charcoal production into a socio-economic 
> benefit in the minds of local stove users is to create a reliable 
> local demand for the surplus charcoal produced by a TLUD. 
This was done in the Deganga project (see rhe report)
******************
Disagree partially here:
> My idea is to start the stove revolution by smuggling radical 
> improvements in efficiency and emission reductions  without the stove 
> user having to change his or her stove skills and operating behaviors 
> very much or at all. 
TLUDs are "radical improvements" in the eyes of the West Bengali TLUD 
users.   In eastern Darjeeling they called it "jadu" (magic) stove.  
They still cook the same foods in the same pots.   And fuel preparation 
is NOT an issue there.     But they changes were not smuggled in or 
indirectly presented.   The stoves were demonstrated publically, and 
people wanted them.  No need to trick anyone.   If the people will not 
accept the changes, they will reject the stoves.  MUCH depends upon the 
quality of the introduction of the stoves, which is well done in WB.

*************
other issues.   eg, to NOT be by a big company?

*********

It remains to be seen if the West Bengal work can sustain its initial 
successes and grow and be replicated elsewhere.

Looking forward to support by Stovers.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

>
> Specifically I think it is unseemly for Euro American stove scientists 
> and unelected Foundations funded by very rich titans of industry and 
> their political allies to be inserting indicators into stove 
> performance tests which turn the stove into a technology which 
> minimizes CO2 and black carbon production when there is no cultural 
> consciousness, interest or recognized personal benefit to the stove 
> buyer from reducing the stove users carbon footprint.
>
> The notion seems to be that if we monetize the benefit to the 
> planetary ecosystem by giving a cost for each ton of CO2 buried in the 
> ground which indirectly helps pay for the stove and also the stove 
> NGOs - or through the sale of charcoal to nearby cooks using braziers 
> - it seems to me we are on the verge of becoming delusional.
>
> Why say that? Because of the fragility of the resulting financial 
> instruments and the sheer complexity of the resulting carbon trading 
> markets. There is little or no moral accountability by the managers of 
> global carbon markets and funds and stove buyers in villages in India 
> and Africa. It is a playground for for chancers and high living 
> members of the lords of poverty. It does not empower the bottom up 
> transformation of the local economy and the healing of the regional 
> eco-system. It runs the risk of becoming another Tulip Mania  that is 
> managed by computer monks in glass towers heated by coal and gas 
> powered electricity generating plants.
>
> So my request is that we reduce the scale of our stove interventions 
> down to an arena where the actors and agents are part of a moral 
> community which can hold each other accountable to their agreements. 
> Therefore it is a dangerous distraction to allow carbon taxes to be 
> transferred from Cleveland Ohio to Timbuktoo to subsidize the 
> importation of high quality TLUD or any other improved stoves 
> manufactured in China and costing say $100 delivered to a family 
> eeking out a bare living on a turn over of $2 to $5 a day.
>
> My work in the townships of Lusaka ‎clearly indicated that very low 
> income households can not save more than 10% of their daily income for 
> more than a few weeks (about 2 weeks) so at a dollar a day a family 
> will be able to save $1.50 to $7.50 in a two week time horizon. 
> Zambians say saving is luck because any family crisis will wipe out a 
> two week stash of savings.
>
> My advice to myself and others is to think and act locally to discover 
> a stove that will be a viable and respected friend of the poorest 
> households at the BoP‎. I advise us to smuggle radical new stove 
> technologies into the traditional stove boidies, cultures of stove 
> operation, cooking and fuels that dominate the local stove economy. So 
> let's smuggle radical new stove technologies into the traditional 
> biomass energy economy. Evolve the new stove in situ inside the shell 
> of the old stove/fuel/operator/fabricator economy.
>
> That is all I have to say on how to innoivate break throughs in situ.
>
> In search and service,
>
> Cecil
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> *From: *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> *Sent: *Saturday, February 4, 2017 7:48 PM
> *To: *Stoves
> *Reply To: *Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] CO2 drawdown (Re:Jock)
>
>
> Dear Cecil
>
> How does the additional labour involved stack up against potential cash?
>
> Jock posits, "If you are living in $2 per day, if making charcoal 
> could double your income, and maybe even improve your kitchen garden..."
>
> People living on $2 a day get a great deal on their livelihood from 
> the local environment. What is the opportunity cost of the time taken 
> to prepare fuel, load a batch burner, extinguish the char, do 
> something agricultural with it like preparing balls of it to dose 
> fertilise plants?
>
> In a $2 a day economy a little charcoal isn't much even if you sell it 
> as fuel.
>
> From what I understand from Jock, the motivation is to repair a busted 
> climate, everyone should do their part. I can't see how that char can 
> ever have a value of say $1 if the opportunity cost is time that could 
> be spent doing something else. 'using it' is also part of that 
> opportunity cost‎.
>
> Jock points out it is not economically viable (yet). Maybe the 
> analysis by the cook Will not be economic ‎but gain/expense of time. 
> People with a cash income of $2 per day don't usually live on that 
> income, they live by investment of time.
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170205/4132b16b/attachment.html>