[Stoves] Revisiting UNF's Igniting Change - the stove that didn't light?

Traveller miata98 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 14 12:41:07 CST 2017


I remembered the irrational exuberance - or  a plan to fool - "Igniting
Change: A Strategy for Universal Adoption of Clean Cookstoves and Fuels
<http://cleancookstoves.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/UNF_IgnitingChangeReport_4.2MB.pdf>
".

I wonder how much fuel - or money - was ignited.

It was produced by "more than 350 members of nine Alliance Working Groups
and two Cross-Cutting Committees". I wonder there will now be press release
that "More than 90% of ISO TSA scientists have reached a consensus that
solid fuels direct use must be banned globally in support of health,
women's empowerment, climate protection, and continuous meddling of
spurious science in the name of the poor."

Five years ago, it was good to see attention to "fuels", not just "stoves".
Footnote 3 also makes clear "For purposes of this report, “clean” shall be
used to denote “clean, safe, and efficient cookstoves”."

Without defining "clean" or "efficiency" (Crispin and Ron argue about it
still.) And surely not "clean, safe AND efficient"? With what fuels and
what power levels?

This Global Dalliance with Blogal Photography - produced by UNF staff for
Global Alliance on Clean Cookstoves - used pretty pictures of women, some
dressed with magnificently colorful clothing (I suspect some Masais, some
Rabaris) and other accoutrements. (I think the Masai women's bangles are
plastic, whereas the Rabari women's ivory bracelets or armlets might be
worth more in the market than a "better biomass stove" available to them.)
Made to fit the marketing to bleeding hearts with deep pockets.

I wonder if GACC has any staff of its own -- the CEO is probably just an
executive of herself.

Otherwise, it was sophomoric, saying practically nothing:

"Improved cookstove designs that better reflect consumers’ needs, more
precise health and climate data detailing the harmful impacts of
traditional cookstove use, innovative business models and financing
mechanisms, comprehensive national programs, robust testing protocols, and
inexpensive but effective monitoring devices are just a few of the
promising breakthroughs that have propelled the sector to a ‘tipping
point’."

So there's a 'clean cookstove' sector? Around a 'tipping point'? Cute.

Climate data? Comprehensive national programs? Robust testing protocols?

****
Igniting Change has been a dud.

Let the wine jug tip, and let people realize it's all stinking vinegar.

"Yet, despite the recent surge in clean cookstove innovation in the past
few years, with the market entry of multinational players bringing world
class research and development to the sector, the breadth of cookstoves
required to meet consumers’ needs and wants does not yet exist. Some
cookstoves are efficient, safe, and durable, but their initial cost may be
too expensive for consumers (usually in the $15-$40 range). Others are very
clean, but cost even more ($25-$150 range), while others only cost a few
dollars and sell at scale, but *their health and environmental benefits may
be limited in scope* and the cookstoves may not last long enough to obtain
carbon revenues. The physical appearance of the stove, including its color,
size, and shape, as well as its user-friendliness and ability to cook the
locally-preferred foods in the proper way, also impact a cookstove’s
desirability to the end-user and further complicate the design equation.
Important elements for achieving these results include materials and design
research and  field testing, advocacy and education, and activities that
support entrepreneurs’ efforts to scale design and production of
high-quality cookstoves and fuels."


Ok, ok, so what's the hoopla about? Or have rich boys and babes
re-discovered poverty and reality? Oh, well. We all have to go through our
amateurish phase.

"Similarly, the sector needs to explore the more efficient use of existing
fuels and/or develop new fuels. Turning biomass – wood, leaves, rice husks,
etc. – into dense fuel pellets through machines that crush and bind the raw
material together can improve fuel efficiency, though there is somewhat
limited consistency in performance. However, this consistency has been
addressed by a few players in the sector that are making standardized
pellets from a mix of biomass  selected to maximize efficiency and minimize
emissions. Other firms are growing cassava that can be turned into ethanol
and sold locally, displacing the use of expensive, dirty, and
environmentally destructive charcoal. Still others are marketing solar
cookers and other technologies that harness the sun’s rays to cook food
cleanly and cheaply."


Sounds like a decade more to getting to the U of Universal.

Saving poor women has become such a marketable cause for the saviors. No
surprise. The number of poor women has doubled in the last 30 years (though
many of them have found their own clean stoves and fuels, no thanks to the
stovangelists), and the revenue potential for the saviors has also grown
(thanks to taxpayer subsidies to outfits like UN Foundation, Inc.)

If only the potential savees knew how the saviors work.

Hopefully in the wider sense of efficiency - enough process transformation
so that total factor productivity improves significantly. But I doubt "make
believe" science understands anything but kJ, ktCO2e, ng/kJ/kg. Money flows
in $/personmonth under government contracts matter, not $ per balanced,
adequate meal.

Igniting Change might have cost $10,000 a page, if not more. But certainly
did bring UN Foundation $1 million a page. With such a quick and stupendous
ROI, why won't Wirth host the Hillary initiative?

The romantic blogal dalliance (nothing wrong with that, I commit the sin at
every chance) might still consummate the marriage of the glib and the
gullible - and produce glibble.

****

It's probably too early to shut down GACC. But the Clintons can draw
inspiration from their Rwanda experience, as released in a Wikileaks e-mail
<https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/53146>(authenticity not
guaranteed), where Amitabh Desai (no relation to me) writes,

"RECOMMENDED OPTION: Declare progress and implicitly distance WJC from the
ongoing operations of the business. During the next Africa trip, WJC could
visit the sites of the businesses, declare the progress that’s been
achieved, and implicitly/overtly say we have succeeded in creating new
businesses and that continuing responsibility for the businesses now shifts
to the shareholders on record. Reality is that going forward, WJC would not
be able to say that we have ongoing agricultural programs on the ground,
but this would resolve the reputational concerns with Rwandan government
and public."

Substitute Clintons for WJC, and "clean cookstoves" for "agricultural", and
take out "Rwandan", pluralize to "governments and publics".

What does UN Foundation have to show for chewing up donor money on
fine-wind-dine-and-shine parties? The IWA circus with WBT?


N
--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170114/0b19c1e1/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list