[Stoves] Haiti: GACC
Traveller
miata98 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 3 12:12:42 CST 2017
Paul:
This is part I of response to your 18 December comments and questions on
Haiti, emanating from the LPG Webinar (which I did not see). I will respond
to Ron's comments separately.
In my branded fashion (Ron has some choice words for my impudence), I can't
resist pointing out some inconvenient truths here.
Haiti is a poster child for environmental consequences of charcoal use.
That it has been so for decades now is a reason to ask what is wrong - not
with the Haitians but the pilgrims on the path of good intentions, I mean
the priesthood of stoves.
Why? Because Haiti is also a poster child of the wreckage of stove dreams
past. A few years ago I too had dreamt of a project in Haiti.
Never been there; helped deliver solar LED lanterns there after the 2010
earthquake. The quake also brought in our Saint Bill of Quakes - who tested
blood in doing good just after a quake in my part of India a week after he
had left the White House.
Recent floods prompted me to look into the Clintons' gala development
record in Haiti since 2010. In case you didn't know it, the Clintons,
American Red Cross, and the UN all earned great notoriety for their Haiti
work.
But back to stoves -- I remember posting something on this List and was
going to post something else in late October. Then I hesitated - why pick
on Hillary, who was maligned by all sorts of loonies then. Besides, I found
a World Bank report on Haiti cooking energy markets that promised to be
quite sensible. I didn't have time to read it, so I dropped my draft post.
I will recover and complete it.
The question is not why stove programs in Haiti have failed in the past. We
know how tough this business is. The problem, rather, is why Haiti hasn't
grown wood sustainably for its charcoal use. (Spoiler alert: I suspect
Haiti has grown wood sustainably for its household charcoal market, just
that the international market for lies is pretty lucrative.)
Another question is, why has Haiti remained poor, for it could now afford
solar electricity and induction cooking plus all other electrical
appliances?
The answer, I am afraid, is imperialism.
French imperialism underdeveloped Haiti. The French neo-imperialism -- I
mean, the Paris Agreement, which is merely the higher stage of world
imperialism after Brazil 1992, Japan 1997. Mexico, South Africa of years
gone by - continues to underdevelop Haiti.
My reasons for raising this imperialism wolf will become clear when I
complete the other story. GACC is a part and parcel of the global
imperialism - a conspiracy against the poor by pushing academic cakes down
the throats of the hungry.
I am afraid the Government of Canada is a financier of this racket.
The Clinton Global initiative - yes, the pretty pink ballerina whom Bill
killed just a few months ago - had another racket, a stove program that got
a CDM concept approval.
I will send in all the details later. For now, answers to your questions;
feel free to challenge.
---------------------
1. "Did someone read that the GACC is neutral about stove technology and
stove fuels???? I hope that the Canadians are real careful about what
they let others do with their money."
**** I doubt GACC can claim "neutrality". For one, I cannot even measure
biases in GACC; what does GACC do - allocate funds? - that can be assessed
for biases? GACC is a money-making venture for UN Foundation, Inc., nothing
more. It does not publish a financial report and is not required to -
because it is not a legal entity on its own.
What should Canadians be really careful about - that some GACC project
money might go for LPG promotion? I doubt LPG companies need any promotion,
except for this ludicrous bandwagon of epidemiology and black carbon
bean-counting, neither of which has any legal relevance. It's all "make
merry at public expense" for researchers. So GACC can claim it has enhanced
the, ahem, "Evidence Base" (a silly exercise funded in part by DfID), and
raise more money for UN Foundation.
That aside, I tend to side with you on "blackballing of solid fuels
(particularly wood)". "Solid fuels" are a practical surrogate for "dirty
cooking"; hysteria flows from there down. ****
2. " .. across our diverse partner base, including over 54 national
government partners,....
> Really???? 54???? Some influencial contacts in Haiti might question
that statement."
**** Oh, GACC may well mean there are 54 governments that have filled out
its online registration form. If there are 54 partners from the Government
of Haiti, I suppose other partners can log in and find out. ****
3. "Also in FAQ 7: If your organization is actively working in Haiti and
would like to stay informed of the Alliance’s efforts there, please ensure
that this is reflected in your partner profile in our online partner
directory
We know of some (including myself) who have been listed for years as GACC
Partners working in Haiti who were not even informed of this new
initiative, and were left out of meetings in Haiti. And whose requests for
minutes or drafts or other information about the past 6 months of planning
have yielded zero information. (see next item)"
**** I will read through the document you sent me, but I think GACC did put
up information about this new initiative on its website. Unless it is
something different from what I read two months ago. If the same, I
remember GACC putting up an RFP for a research project as well. ****
4. "10.WHAT IS THE TIMING FOR THE INITIATIVE?
TheAlliance began work on the scoping and mapping activities in June
2016.The plan is expected to be completed by January2017.
It is now into the holiday season of Dec. And the expected completion is
by January (next month). Really??? Maybe the planners have all the
inputs that they think that they need.
**** Oh, should you really ask "Really???" If this is the same as I had
read before, there are some delays. (As I gathered from GACC website then;
I have no inside information).
Nikhil
---
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
Ron and Stovers,Ron's message below has his comments about my report on the
LPG stove webinar (but he used the Subject line of a different message, so
I have changed back to the LPG stove webinar Subject line.I thank Ron for
his thoughtful comments.
>
>
> Ron asked specifically about the Canadian-funded initiative for
cookstoves in Haiti. The basic info is from the GACC on 5 pages at:
> https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/RESOURCE/file/000/000/476-1.pdf
That was written in about June 2016.
>
> Of interest in that document are the following lines:
>
> In FAQ 2: ....The use of solid fuels also results in a range of
climate-damaging emissions
>
> In FAQ 3. ....thus the substitution of clean fuels is expected to
result in a net climate benefit. The application of robust stove standards
and testing protocols is expected to shift the market to better cooking
technologies and cleaner fuels. .....
>
> .... and will improve livelihoods through lower expenditures for solid
fuel for cooking...
>
> In FAQ 4. .... • Strengthen the supply of clean and efficient cookstoves
and clean fuels by improving inclusive value chains...
>
> In FAQ 13. Such an assessment may include the expected climate impacts
or benefits from the use of particular fuels recommended under the
initiative ;
>
> Sounds sweet and neutral, but it is blackballing of solid fuels
(particularly wood) and the promotion of "clean fuels." WE on the SToves
Listserv know that fuels are not dirty. But the writers of the FAQ page
about Haiti evidently do not. I suspect that the LPG advocates have a
heavy hand in these statements. LPG is planning (as announced on the LPG
stove Webinar) a major push into Haiti.
>
> Did someone read that the GACC is neutral about stove technology and
stove fuels???? I hope that the Canadians are real careful about what
they let others do with their money.
>
> Also,
>
> In FAQ 7. .... across our diverse partner base, including over 54
national government partners,....
>
> Really???? 54???? Some influencial contacts in Haiti might question
that statement.
>
> Also in FAQ 7: If your organization is activelyworking in Haiti and
would like to stay informed of the Alliance’s efforts there, please ensure
that this is reflected in your partner profile in our online partner
directory
>
> We know of some (including myself) who have been listed for years as GACC
Partners working in Haiti who were not even informed of this new
initiative, and were left out of meetings in Haiti. And whose requests for
minutes or drafts or other information about the past 6 months of planning
have yielded zero information. (see next item)
>
> 10.WHAT IS THE TIMING FOR THE INITIATIVE?
> TheAlliance began work on the scoping and mapping activities in June
2016.The plan is expected to be completed by January2017.
>
> It is now into the holiday season of Dec. And the expected completion
is by January (next month). Really??? Maybe the planners have all the
inputs that they think that they need.
>
> This message is going to Stovers Listserv and also specifically to the
Haiti coordinator for the GACC activities in Haiti, and higher GACC
personnel.
> *********************
>
> Also:
> Since June, the GACC released:
> Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
> Haiti Cookstoves and Fuels Market Assessment
> Preliminary Report
>
> I have a .pdf copy (4 MB), and cannot find the source document on the
Internet / GACC website. If you and others cannot find it, please let me
know. It is a very informative document, but I cannot give you the link
to it at this time.
>
> (And do read Ron's comments below about the LPG stove webinar.)
>
> Paul
---------
(US +1) 202-568-5831
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> Ron and Stovers,
>
> Ron's message below has his comments about my report on the LPG stove
> webinar (but he used the Subject line of a different message, so I have
> changed back to the LPG stove webinar Subject line.
>
> I thank Ron for his thoughtful comments.
>
> Ron asked specifically about the Canadian-funded initiative for cookstoves
> in Haiti. The basic info is from the GACC on 5 pages at:
> https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/RESOURCE/file/000/000/476-1.pdf
> That was written in about June 2016.
>
> Of interest in that document are the following lines:
>
> In FAQ 2: ....The use of solid fuels also results in a range of
> climate-damaging emissions
>
> In FAQ 3. ....thus the substitution of clean fuels is expected to result
> in a net climate benefit. The application of robust stove standards and
> testing protocols is expected to shift the market to better cooking
> technologies and cleaner fuels. .....
>
> .... and will improve livelihoods through lower expenditures for solid
> fuel for cooking...
>
>
> In FAQ 4. .... • Strengthen the supply of clean and efficient cookstoves
> and clean fuels by improving inclusive value chains...
>
>
> In FAQ 13. Such an assessment may include the expected climate impacts
> or benefits from the use of particular fuels recommended under the
> initiative ;
>
> Sounds sweet and neutral, but it is blackballing of solid fuels
> (particularly wood) and the promotion of "clean fuels." WE on the SToves
> Listserv know that fuels are not dirty. But the writers of the FAQ page
> about Haiti evidently do not. I suspect that the LPG advocates have a
> heavy hand in these statements. LPG is planning (as announced on the LPG
> stove Webinar) a major push into Haiti.
>
> Did someone read that the GACC is neutral about stove technology and stove
> fuels???? I hope that the Canadians are real careful about what they let
> others do with their money.
>
> Also,
>
> In FAQ 7. .... across our diverse partner base, including over 54
> national government partners,....
>
> Really???? 54???? Some influencial contacts in Haiti might question
> that statement.
>
> Also in FAQ 7: If your organization is activelyworking in Haiti and
> would like to stay informed of the Alliance’s efforts there, please ensure
> that this is reflected in your partner profile in our online partner
> directory
>
> We know of some (including myself) who have been listed for years as GACC
> Partners working in Haiti who were not even informed of this new
> initiative, and were left out of meetings in Haiti. And whose requests for
> minutes or drafts or other information about the past 6 months of planning
> have yielded zero information. (see next item)
>
> 10.WHAT IS THE TIMING FOR THE INITIATIVE?
> TheAlliance began work on the scoping and mapping activities in June
> 2016.The plan is expected to be completed by January2017.
>
> It is now into the holiday season of Dec. And the expected completion is
> by January (next month). Really??? Maybe the planners have all the
> inputs that they think that they need.
>
> This message is going to Stovers Listserv and also specifically to the
> Haiti coordinator for the GACC activities in Haiti, and higher GACC
> personnel.
> *********************
>
> Also:
> Since June, the GACC released:
> Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
> Haiti Cookstoves and Fuels Market Assessment
> Preliminary Report
>
> I have a .pdf copy (4 MB), and cannot find the source document on the
> Internet / GACC website. If you and others cannot find it, please let me
> know. It is a very informative document, but I cannot give you the link
> to it at this time.
>
> (And do read Ron's comments below about the LPG stove webinar.)
>
> Paul
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <(309)%20452-7072>
> Website: www.drtlud.com
>
> On 12/17/2016 4:58 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>
> Paul et al:
>
> I agree with all you have added. Here I only want to thank you (tardily)
> for the little bit of your message that I have NOT excised (and then also
> personally try to add to (as you have requested) the good report you
> gave). See more below.
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
> Ron and Nikhil and Crispin and others,
>
> <snip two lines>
>
>
> I do note that not a single person sent any message about my summary of
> the LPG-stoves webinar. I thought that the data about subsidies etc and
> not reaching the truly impoverished in sustainable ways would get some
> reaction. No problem. That topic is over.
>
>
> *[RWL: I apologize for not saying thanks right away. I don’t think many
> will mind if I reopen the topic. I only heard the last part of the
> webinar, and hoped to get back to it when it was released. So here is what
> you said on the 15th (that I have italicized for clarity). I am
> commenting only where I hope to add something new.*
>
>
>
>
> *Comments: (forgive me if my notes are faulty, but I think I am saying
> things correctly.) 1. ---- Not a nice word said about biomass/solid
> fuels. To be expected. Not a complaint. They were advocating /
> "selling" LPG. 2. The industry association (WLPGA) has 250 members and 1.4
> million employees. ---- I calculate that to be 5600 employees per
> member. Wow. GACC has 1600 partners, many with 5 or fewer employees
> (many who are the owners). LPG is BIG business and has deep pockets. *
>
> *[RWL2: I don’t have the time now to prove this, but am sure we can find
> climate denial funding coming from this Association. *
>
> 3. Section on Women in LPG was about hiring more females. VERY few women
> in LPG activities (not counting the cooks). ---- This is PR work that
> makes sense. Not a complaint. Just a comment.
>
> 4. In the world, LPG has 3 billion consumers. (accept that as a fact).
> (next might not be correctly noted: wanting to reach one billion (poor)
> people by 2030. ------ To me that says 5 people per household would be
> 200 million households. Admirable. But there are 500 million households
> with needs for clean cookstoves. So that looks like claiming 40% of the
> NEED to be taken care of by LPG. Wonderful. That will be mainly the
> more affluent of the needy people, not the BOP (Base of the Pyramid). So
> that leaves 60% to be handled by the other stove technologies. All of
> that is fine with me IF (big IF) LPG was not sucking up so much of the
> subsidy money and if LPG was not carbon positive. Being carbon neutral is
> harder to do. And being carbon NEGATIVE is even harder, but is done by
> the char-making TLUD stoves, that are NOT getting subsidies and do not need
> imported fuels.
>
> *[RWL4: I spend a majority of my time these days on a list
> called “Geoengineering” - particularly hot right now as we are discussing
> a just-ended major COP (Conference of Parties) meeting in Cancun (Mexico)
> on CBD (the Convention on Biodiversity). I am still learning, but presume
> there was not much favorable said there about LPG. My impression on the
> handling of biochar (to be produced via TLUDs and many other ways) was
> appreciably better than earlier by the CBD. See this document: *
> * https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf
> <https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf> *
> * The word “biochar” appears 149 times - many excellent new cites -
> especially a large number from 2016. There are a few places I would
> quibble about - but a big improvement over previous CBD documents on
> biochar. No mention at all of LPG, but 88 uses of “fossil” and almost 1200
> on “climate”. *
>
> * The point perhaps is that this LPG-oriented study has failed to be
> thinking of where the world is moving *
> 5. Also made a comment that LPG is "Low GHG." Nothing more said about
> that. *——*
> *[RWL5: When you are trying to go negative, every bit counts. Until we
> have net negative emissions, the global temperatures will continue to rise.
> My perception is that Kirk Smith believes this “low” is justified by the
> averted DALY’s. I think he and many are not including the potential for
> carbon negativity capabilities of TLUDs - which also have positive health
> benefits. But even more critical could be the cost reversal potential as
> biochar receives carbon credits in the future (I hope). Women in need of
> stretching limited funds could well choose to use an income-generating
> stove over one with an expensive, supposedly safer fuel.*
>
> 6. Three countries named:
> A. Brazil is 95% connected for LPG. (That is "availability".) -------
> No mention of cost/benefits or subsidy. Success story.
>
> B. India is getting started. Later comments mention 67% penetration /
> access, ----- because households in or near urban areas where LPG is
> sold somewhere . Access means COULD get an LPG tank. Seeking massive LPG
> *coverage* in the next 3 years. That could be distribution so that
> access is possible, and not about actual usage.
>
> C. Indonesia. The numbers I copied down were: 57 million household
> are already in the LPG user-camp, and that the subsidy money to do that was
> US$ 14.6 BILLION. Nothing more was said. ------ So I submitted a
> comment/question that will have its answer when the webinar (and answered
> questions) are available for everyone. Check my math, but $14,600 Millions
> divided by 57 Millions is $256 SUBSIDY PER HOUSEHOLD. Ouch!!!! That
> does not seem possible.
> *[RWL6: I hope this included some data gathering on the health impacts.
> It wouldn’t surprise me that such subsidies could be a good investment from
> a DALY perspective - so I hope someone reading this can comment on this
> payback question. Poor health is a terrible drain on national economies.
> But as we have been learning - a good stove in an otherwise unhealthy
> environment is not going to do much.*
>
> This data needs verification. I do not want to start any "fake news".
> And who got this money? Maybe there are "factors" in calculating the
> subsidy, such as counting things that maybe could be left off of the
> costs.
>
> But even at half ($128) that would be a massive subsidy per stove.
>
> And this raises the question of what is in the works already for India
> which is more than 4 times larger in population than Indonesia. Some sort
> of cost/benefit analysis might be appropriate.
> *[RWL6: I’ll try to return to these important details after listening to
> all of the webinar. (and applies to all your questions)*
>
> *7. The importance of the role of government in the provision of stove
> policies (and regulations about LPG importation and handling/distribution)
> was emphasized by the speakers. —— Certainly a correct statement, and
> the big-business LPG companies have much more contact and impact than do
> the little guys. *
> *[RWL7. Two personal hopes - a) climate change concerns could drown out
> the fossil companies; b) making money while you cook could entirely offset
> LPG interests. And a) and b) can be related - and there are not many
> options to a needy housewife as attractive to budgets as TLUDs.*
>
> 8. There was a section on LPG in humanitarian aid, specifically
> mentioning refugee camps. Presentation spoke poorly of "Traditional
> fuels". One presentation spoke about the provision of LPG to refugee
> camps that are occupied for many years and are likely to remain in place
> for more years. The presenters suggestion for consideration is that maybe
> the camps should have LPG piped in instead of trucking in the LPG
> canisters. ------
>
> 9. A very interesting segment of the presentation was about Haiti. Many
> very good statistics.
> A. Very low LPG infrastructure and usage at present.
>
> B. 4800 schools (institutional cooking, maybe including orphanages?) in
> Haiti, of which 143 so far have LPG services. Price of installation
> (equipment, etc) is US$900 for the basic and up to $5000 for the larger
> more complete kitchen conversions. Capacity for conversions to LPG was
> stated to be 1500 per year. Mentioned fuel cost SAVINGS because the cost
> of charcoal in Haiti is so high that LPG could be sold at higher prices and
> still be competitive.
>
> C. Discussion of street vendors using LPG ------ (which makes sense to
> me).
>
> D. For household (HH) stoves, the LPG target is 10,000 for low income
> HH. Have done 1150 thus far. Cost is $100 for the economy version and
> $160 for the premium version. ----- Haiti has about 2 million
> households, so there is no talk of covering 40% of those households with
> LPG.
>
> E. How to fund these LPG products? Utilize the money of the 400,000
> Haitians who live in the USA (and more in other countries) who send
> remittences to Haiti to support their relatives, etc. Called "Diaspora"
> Haitians. Mentioned making contact with the main Haitian-in-USA TV
> station to spread the word.
>
> F. ------ No mention of the Canadian government 50 million dollar
> commitment to improve stoves in Haiti, but I am sure that LPG entities have
> their eyes on a hefty chunk of those funds. Still in the planning stages
> until January 2017
> * [RWL: Can you give a cite on these Canadian dollars?*
>
> ***************************
> So much of this presentation was marketing. Fair enough. The survey of
> the attendees showed that most (80+%??) were involved with some business
> aspect of LPG (or were considering it). Only a few (such as me) marked
> "Other" as the reason for attending. I wanted to know about the LPG
> cookstove approach. The session was highly informative. Thanks to the
> presenters and to EPA and Winrock for making available important
> information.
>
> I wonder if this topic will be discussed on the Stoves Listserv. I hope
> so.
>
> Paul
>
> *[RWL_end: Me too (re discussion). *
>
> * Again - thanks and apologies for my too-delayed response. We all
> should be reporting on information opportunities like this - and Winrock
> (Elisa Derby) / EPA (John Mitchell) (on behalf of PCIA and now GACC)
> deserve a lot of credit for this series (the last was the excellent
> one featuring Michael Johnson and Ajay [a cc, whose recent doctoral thesis
> I have complimented] that explained their new model and coupling with
> DALYs)*
>
> * I just checked at *http://www.pciaonline.org/webinars, *and this
> December webinar was not yet up - but I recommend (again) listening to
> Michael and Ajay and others on their November similar (?) webinar.*
>
> Ron
>
>
> <snip lots>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170103/d293d29f/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list