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

Ronal W. Larson rongretlarson at comcast.net
Sun Jan 15 00:12:47 CST 2017


Tom:  

	Thanks.  I think you’ve been handling this well.

	I have been trying to help Wilson Hago for the last two days on a biochar project - so have been unable to join in.  I know he has talked to you.

	He just learned a few hours ago that his father has hours or days to live (Florida hospital has given up) - so whole family is making rush plane trip to Florida tomorrow at 6:00 AM (where he is moving permanently).

	Nikhil having said two more messages is the best news I have heard.  I’ll try to answer some others before these last two,  I wonder how he is going to handle my “28 negatives" message.  I will try to avoid any comment that would justify his coming back.

	Not on the above - but I wonder if each message as it gets delivered to the list could carry the number it has in the stove list archives?   I find it difficult to keep track of Nikhil’s 5 -6 - 7 messages in one day.

Ron
	
	



> On Jan 14, 2017, at 12:08 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 <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 <mailto: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
> --------------------
> 
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170114/8edc8ddc/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list