[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT

[Xavier Brandao]

Dear Ranyee,

Thanks a lot for answering so quick.

It is good to hear that the GACC is aware of the issue, and that there 
are people working on it at the moment in the ISO committee.

But how long will it take?

I was present in The Hague, for the IWA workshop, in February 2012. At 
that time, a few persons in the audience, including Crispin, agreed to 
sign the agreement only under the conditions that the protocols, 
especially the WBT, are discussed and challenged, and their validity 
assessed. The ISO TC 285 would be working on it.

That was 5 years ago.

The papers I quoted to Ron date from the last few years. The authors can 
be contacted.

It seems to me, from what I read, that there is something like 95% 
certainty that the WBT is highly flawed, and as Crispin said, unfixable. 
It has evolved a lot during a decade, several versions, but the very 
core issues are still there.

With all the documentation we have now, the burden of proof lies on the 
WBT side. What we should be taking now is the precautionary principle. 
That is the most reasonable decision. If something has high chances to 
be harmful, it should be put aside. Indecision is a decision. Inaction, 
is an action already.

Now, all the information needed is at hand, it is in those studies, well 
documented. Could you please let us know:

·what is preventing the GACC, RKTCs, and ISO working groups to take a 
final decision on the WBT? What are the remaining questions?

Thanks in advance,

Xavier

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170120/ff191766/attachment.html>