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

[Xavier Brandao]

Dear Ranyee,

I wanted to get back to you, you didn't answer to my last email of the 
20/01 (see below).

Could you please let us know what is preventing the GACC, RKTCs, and ISO 
working groups to take a final decision on the WBT and decide if it is 
reliable or not, and therefore should be used for stove development and 
programmatic purposes? What are the remaining questions?

You also mentioned the round robin testing which is, I believe, underway.
Maybe you gave more information about it at the ETHOS meeting earlier 
this year, I don't know.
I searched on the GACC website, on the ETHOS website, and on the 
internet as well, I wasn't able to find information about it.

Could you please let us know:

  * what is the round robin testing about, and who is involved in it?
  * when did it start and when will it be finished?
  * how much budget is dedicated to it?

Thanks in advance and looking forward to your answer,

Xavier


On 1/20/17 01:17, Xavier Brandao wrote:

> 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/20170313/dc8fc944/attachment.html>