[Stoves] Haiti: GACC 3
Traveller
miata98 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 3 12:44:39 CST 2017
Paul:
This is my take on Ron's comments on the LPG Webinar and the rest of your
questions on it.
----------
Every time I see the term "Climate Denial," I fear being declare mentally
retarded by some psychiatrists and forced to suffer very high temperatures.
But I then cheer up when I see it from Ron. He is just engineering
witchcraft -- abracadabra, poof, this where the world is moving!! :-)
That said, this is my response between *** below to some claims made by Ron
in response to your questions on LPG Webinar.
*[RWL2: I don’t have the time now to prove this, but am sure we can find
climate denial funding coming from this Association. *
*** I hold no brief for WLPGA or any of its members, but thank you, LPG
doesn't really need any marketing and it's a shame WLPGA has to waste its
members' dues to fight climateer hysteria against all fossil fuels. It is
grotesque that such hysteria arises largely from those comfortably
ensconced in their comforts delivered by fossil fuels. To promote LPG for
traditional ("uncontrolled") biomass combustion is not "climate denial";
quite the contrary. Please read up. Will save you time you waste in seeking
to prove the ludicrous.
I argued in response to Frank Shields yesterday that biomass cannot be
GHG-neutral. Go ahead, read up the rules and defend them to me. ***
*[RWL4: ..**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.]*
*** Perhaps. What does CBD have to do with LPG? I don't know "where the
world is moving" except to more coal, oil and gas. Just read up some IEO or
WEO forecasts for real people, please. Good luck with your world of some
other future. ***
*[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.*
*** Nobody is trying to go negative (except me). Would you do us all a
favor and read Kirk Smith instead of just dropping his name and go on with
your cite-o-logy? As for purported "health benefits", please bear in mind
that Prof. Smith as well as WHO/IHME folks had "solid fuel use" as a
practical surrogate for computing the BOD. That is, solid fuels were BY
DEFINITION unhealthy and LPG, electricity were BY DEFINITION healthy. I
have no problem with such short-cuts up to a point; getting to aDALYs
poppycock for small populations is beyond my tolerance limits.
As for "income generating" potential, there may be other choices for women
of the next generation than continue as cooks. Just watch what has happened
to making tortillas, injeras, and many breads and pastries around the
developing world. Not to speak of snacks and juices, or now - as Teddy has
pointed out - canned beans!! ***
*[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 is a bit confusing. What payback are you talking about, to whom?
If I were the finance minister, I would like to see how much public health
expenditures are reduced due to LPG subsidies, but frankly, I don't give a
damn. My job is to make a plan for revenues and expenditures, and satisfy
different interest groups. I may be persuaded by some academics if and when
I want to be. It is also pretty difficult to measure "health impacts" and
"gather data". Yes, Ajay can run some HAPIT scenarios for those who like to
eat such souffles; I don't. Otherwise, your argument is theoretically
correct -- transition to modern energy is generally a transition to higher
levels of productivity and capital accumulation (including human capital).
Subsidies can be good investments, but too many subsidies are justified as
investments by special interests. (We just had Clinton and Sanders playing
those word games.) ***
*[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.*
*** Cute. Needy housewives of America in the past century did not have
TLUDs. Fossil fuel companies and electric utilities have served humanities
damn well; no wonder they have been financed pretty well by investors and
lenders.***
*** Sorry, I listened to Drs Johnson and Pillarisetti at their October
Webinar and heard all that I needed to. ***
-------------------------------------------------
Now some of your (Paul's) comments:
"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."
*** Sorry, I don't see the logic in some "affirmative action" for women
anywhere and everywhere. A colleague/friend was the top notch US oil
industry expert until she retired, and another worked on oil industry in
Africa and pushed for gas/LPG promotion until she moved back to her country
ten years ago; I also remembered yet another woman from the Indian Oil and
Natural Gas Commission in the 1960s and 1970s. Capable women have jobs in
LPG business and more will follow; leave companies to serve their
shareholders, not ideologues of the academe or protest movements. ***
"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."
***Needy people need not have own money to make the initial transition from
traditional combustion to modern combustion of solid fuels or to
liquid/gaseous fuels or electricity. It is enough that their governments
have the money to spend on subsidies, for stoves, fuels, or (as Anil would
have it) cooked meals. Modern energy transition did not begin just in the
kitchens, nor did it stay there. I am amused at the "solid biomass for
household cookstoves" obsession of the Stoves communities; there are many
opportunity to develop marketable technology and compete with other
technologies.
Who cares if LPG is "carbon positive"? (It is not, against the baseline of
traditional biomass consumption. I don't believe in fNRB chicanery, but
even if I did, the GHG accounting is clear enough in favor of LPG.) Boys
and Girls of Paris? Even if there is a ceiling on net carbon accumulation
in the atmosphere (there isn't), it is axiomatic that some emissions will
increase and some will decline and that as yet, there is no binding limit
on any country, leave alone from LPG.
It doesn't matter that LPG is imported into some countries. So is clothing
or sugar or renewable energy consultants. And yes, LPG is indeed sucking up
so much of the subsidy money worldwide (exact numbers even IMF cooks can't
get right, have gone down with the world price of oil). But that is because
people prefer LPG over solid fuels for many applications. It is only
slightly less controllable and versatile than electricity. For a third of
LPG distribution costs, perhaps three times as much cooking could be
delivered by TLUD stoves but the proof of "usable and used" is still
missing. Gasoline and LPG burners have been around for more than a century.
***
"5. Also made a comment that LPG is "Low GHG." Nothing more said about
that. *——"*
*** Let's wait till Ron reads Kirk Smith and gets back to us. ***
"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. "
*** There have been several reports on Brazil and India, though I haven't
read on Brazil in the last five years. I know every little on Indonesia
except that back 30 years ago they were considering LPG lamps and I did
some scenarios of LPG v. grid electrification. Sort of like "improved
stoves" or "solar lighting" as intermediary steps to costlier options. Bear
in mind that Indonesia had huge kerosene subsidy for decades, and LPG
subsidy replaced it. This story here
<http://www.insideindonesia.org/somethings-cooking> - I just checked - says
57 million STARTER KITS were distributed; that is different from household
numbers. Subsidy figure of 31 trillion rupiahs for 2016 there comes to
US$2.4 billion at 13,000 Rp/US$, so the average subsidy is roughly $42 per
kit per year; one household may have more than one kit. ("Household" has no
meaning as such except in census terms, and even then definitions vary. I
don't know why people are so hung up on "household".) Also look here
<https://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/ffs_indonesia_lpgwkshop_factsheet.pdf>
for
some comparisons over time and with other countries; obviously, the subsidy
burden has come down with the drop in the price of oil. (Indonesia is now a
net oil importer.)
As for India, a "qualified household" gets an LPG "connection" from one of
the LPG suppliers and is entitled to a per month subsidy for a 14 kg
cylinder. That is, if all works according to design, the customer is
ensured of subsidized LPG supplies up to 14 kg a month. This scheme began
more than 50 years ago, no thanks to any public health reports and aDALY
computations. Last I checked, subsidy levels varied by state and by
consumer, but about $10 a month or $120 a year. ***
"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."
*** Yeah. Some folks like IISD or IMF get stomach upset thinking about
fossil fuel subsidies and want to do cost/benefit analysis for climate
change. Who cares? Let's also remove taxes on fossil fuels and see most
governments around the world collapse.***
"
*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."*
*** For various reasons. ***
"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. ------ "
*** Probably meant plastic pipe distribution from a central tank. Long-term
camps need individual cooking; can't be public meals all the time. (I
served oatmeal porridge to children in refugee camps. It was cooked on
wood.) ***
"9. A very interesting segment of the presentation was about Haiti. ...
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. "
*** BUT that is precisely what the GACC study is thinking -- 1 million
households, to be funded by some "health" money cooked up according to
Ajay's recipes!! "
---------
(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/20170103/53837c05/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list