[Stoves] Off-topic: Time to shut off dripping drivel - mine or GACC's? (Re: Tom Miles)

Sat Jan 14 14:59:03 CST 2017

Tom:

You write, "shall we just shut off your dripping drivel? If you have a
better program let’s hear about it."

Just as I pointed out the dripping drivel of GACC rhetoric five years ago,
asking "What does UN Foundation have to show for chewing up donor money on
fine-wind-dine-and-shine parties? The IWA circus with WBT?"

How much has GACC contributed to funding design and real-life testing of
"better biomass stoves", purportedly this list's objective?

I think I did make positive contributions arguing for "contextuality"
(Cecil's concepts) and "usability" (borrowing from Mike Toman's research
following Results-Based Finance report on stoves). Critiquing the methods
of researches and claims on "clean cookstoves", "health benefits", "climate
benefits", "women's empowerment benefits" is also a positive contribution;
so what if my language is negative?

Dogs need to bark when thieves surround the house.

If GACC and IWA are relevant to this List, critique of, and reforms in,
GACC and IWA processes can be a positive program. Nobody has asked me or
this List, but I am trying to shed light on the opaque adventures of GACC,
WHO, ISO, and some US government agencies.

Independent financial and performance audits should be demanded by
government members of the ISO and all the partners of GACC and donors to
GACC, as well as an evaluation by technical experts (including this List
itself), users of GACC-promoted "clean cookstoves", and some surveys among
cooks exposed to GACC promises.

But exposes are imperative. Whether they are done in behind the doors and
kept under wraps or stated in diplomatic manner. Or by my researching open
source documents and pointing out the deceit. (A journalist's job is to
wake up those put to sleep by propaganda, not comfort the comforted. I am
hoping some real journalists take up the challenge like one courageous
woman did with her Up in Smoke in India.)

It's your choice.

I will write one more post after this and shut down.

Maybe two, including an off-topic response to Ron about my 28 sins of
impudence. I owe that to him and the List.

*************

As Kirk Smith said (the precise quote is not handy), about the Global
Burden of Disease ("Millions Dead.." paper of his), there is a "natural
urge" to confuse (or conflate, I forget) the "attributable" with the
"avoidable".

You may avoid the rancor attribuable to me, but the facts are out there.
There are enough problems with attributing x Burden of Disease to HAP as
risk factor (read Kirk Smith). And many more problems to claim that this
BOD can and will be avoided by mere "clean fuels and cookstoves". (Again,
read Kirk Smith).

1. The term "clean cookstoves" has no meaning, and all the efforts of
WHO/EPA experts to anoint Tier-hood to stoves via PM2.5 emission rates to
"averted DALYs" is deceit.
2. GACC is less unaccountable than Chicago Police Department or Donald
Trump and his appointees. At least, each of them has a well-defined job and
most of them execute it well. Chicago police officers risking their lives
patrolling communities that deeply distrust them. and resent the Consent
Decree entered into with the US Department of Justice.

By contrast, GACC has no public financial data or independent technical
examination by people who might know something about energy and poverty by
groundwork (as many on this List do, which is why I decided to respond to
Xavier Brandao's post about why it is so difficult to design a biomass
stove that will appeal to users and reduce pollution exposures.

There is a larger problem than GACC. UN Foundation, Inc. is a private
empire, running nearly 20 "programs and initiatives" and has no annual
report after a "Five Year Annual Report"
<http://www.globalproblems-globalsolutions-files.org/unf_website/PDF/5year_annual_report.pdf>
since end-2002, which shows it having made some $500+ million grants in the
previous five years, source of money unreported. As of today, it's webpage
on Annual Reports is blank -
http://www.unfoundation.org/news-and-media/publications-and-speeches/five-year-annual-report.html.

GACC's Five Year Report <http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/406.html> or 2016
Annual Report <http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/495.html> does not even
mention finances. In its First Annual Report
<http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/274.html> it said it had "raised more
than $78 million in partner commitments" and aimed "to raise $250 million
over ten years". Out of the $78 million, "more than $53 million" were in
"parallel five-year commitments from the US government" (State, HHS and EPA
did much more than that, but all JFK promises are now subject to
Congressional appropriations). In its three-year report
<http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/280.html> it claimed that in 2011-12
"Alliance raises $29 million in total for Secretariat and grant programs,
and leverages more than $120 million in parallel funding"; and "To date,
the Alliance has raised over $38 million in total funding for the
Secretariat and its grant programs, and leveraged more than $200 million in
total parallel support.

In the Phase I Report <http://unf.mediapolis.com/resources/283.html>, and
the 2016 Progress Report
<http://cleancookstoves.org/reports/GACC_AR_2016_FlowPaper2/#page=9>,
curiously there is no mention of fund-raising. (The Secretariat is as much
of a misnomer as CEO, since they all seem to be employees or contractors of
UN Foundation.)

Indeed, on GACC's webpage for financial information
<http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/01-01-1990-financial-information.html>,
the purported link to "Alliance financial statement" has been broken for
months.

Phase I Report confidently declared, "The global health community will
fully embrace and act on the issue of household air pollution" and that by
2017, "60 million households adopt cleaner and more efficient cookstoves
and fuels" (as if Narendra Modi needed GACC's gas.) The lady presented to
the world as GACC CEO is declared as "Executive Director", without
disclosing that she is the Executive Director of UN Foundation, Inc., since
GACC is not a legal person.

Absent donor evaluations and detailed audited financial statements, I am
forced to conclude that UN Foundation Inc. and its project GACC, are in
need of a Chelsea Clinton. She raised questions about her father's
Foundation, now she needs to come to the aid of her mother's Alliance.

Nikhil

---------

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

> Nikhil,
>
>
>
> After six months of whining about GACC are you ever going to get around to
> your positive and productive recommendations for the “stovangelists”, or
> shall we just shut off your dripping drivel? If you have a better program
> let’s hear about it.
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Traveller
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 14, 2017 10:41 AM
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.
> org>
> *Subject:* SPAM: [Stoves] Revisiting UNF's Igniting Change - the stove
> that didn't light?
>
>
>
> 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/20170114/5abc93c7/attachment.html>