[Stoves] Response to Ron (about Leaping)- role of stove anthropologists in empowering stove users/producers to form & ask own questions

[Tom Miles]

Nikhil,

 

As usual, you are generous with criticism and short on constructive solutions. You advocate destroying everything that has been done and changing everyone’s “wrong” approach. Your credibility is at anal time low since we have seen that you will spin any project to support your theories of conspiracy. We’ve all had it with your negativity. Since you are the self-appointed expert, what is your idea of a “correct” plan?  What should be done? How will you fund it? And, what do you recommend to the millions of individuals and organizations who are heavily invested in improving health and household energy, many of whom are represented on this discussion list?    

 

 

 

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Nikhil Desai
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2017 11:58 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Response to Ron (about Leaping)- role of stove anthropologists in empowering stove users/producers to form & ask own questions

 

Paul:

Thank you for your courageous opinion exposing the underbelly of stove science funding. It has much more to do with the cycle of preconceived notions generating failed recommendations than just whether or not anthropologists are consulted or marketers placed between designers and vendors. 

First about anthropology. I remember the pop sloganeering  "observe and report, but do not alter the society." prevalent at the time (40 years ago). What seems to have happened - especially with anthropologists in what is called "sub-altern studies" and some renegades from the academe - is, if not "alter the society", at least alter the narratives about the history and the future of societies. A whole new wave of re-interpretation of the colonial experience has been going on for the last 30-odd years.

About stoves, I do think that "the people should design the stove" is quaint romanticism of a generation gone by. We can keep the spirit of inquiry without the baggage of teenage fancies. Social anthropologists have probably recognized that the slogan shouldn't be "the people should design the stove" but simply that "the people should be listened to, because only when they feel heard they would accept your questions and dare to challenge your questions and teach you what to ask."

All of it in vernacular languages, not in standard forms printed in English or French. 

It is the joule-counters - doing energy balances and not collective mass balances or balance sheets -- who have continued to relish their infantile fantasies of protecting forests, chastity, lives, and climate ad nauseum. 

Why? Why is it that tens of millions of dollars are wasted on purported "health impacts", secret contracts of UN Foundation, and advocating billions of dollars of subsidies for LPG and electricity, even marketing ludicrous "voluntary carbon" credits and aDALYs, but pathetically little on basic engineering of usable biomass stoves for households and non-household users?

We need to follow the money to understand how propaganda influences research funding decisions. Why else would the WBT have survived as long as it has, or ISO TC 285 work reduced to what Ranyee Chiang now calls "Living with Diversity" (ETHOS 2017)? 

Living. With. Diversity. Code for acknowledging that it is not possible to force groupthink over scientists with an open mind. 

How about that? :-) 

Chiang shows three stages of alleged harmonization - "Discussions have led to greater agreement", "Try to reach agreement, and live with areas that can’t be aligned", and "When we have different priorities, be clear about what each of us means."

These are code words, respectively, for "We can't get people to agree" to "Give up trying to force slavish compliance to the indefensible", and "Some renegades must have ulterior motives". 

Nice progress at the TC after more than five years. 

I think bureaucrats of the aid industry -- principal culprits are in the US and European governments, with the make-merry charity foundations in the wine-dine-and-shine parties -- need to be held accountable for fooling too many people far too long. 

With nothing to show. 

Nikhil

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai

(India +91) 909 995 2080 <tel:+91%2090999%2052080> 
Skype: nikhildesai888

 

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu> > wrote:

Stovers,

Relating to Ron's quest for questionnaires about stove research, he wrote: 

 I am NOT interested in standard stoves;  I want to know what was considered in the framework of TLUDs and biochar -both by Probec and World Bank (and anyone else).

[Here is my OPINION, without much documentation.]   When the people (stove users) and the researchers do NOT have awareness of what are TLUD stoves and their char-making capabilities, neither the people nor the researchers will include in questionnaires the issues that are most relevant to TLUDs / char making stoves.

Back in my student days (1964), I considered becoming an anthropologist.  But I rejected that profession for me because the instruction basically said "observe and report, but do not alter the society."   I wanted then and still do want to alter societies in beneficial ways.  I would not have been a good anthropologist.  

When NEW material is intentionally not presented because the thinking is that "the people should design the stove", there is no way that a regular cook is going to say "I would like a stove that produces charcoal."   Too foreign a concept.  And if a questionnaire asked "Would you like a stove that makes charcoal while you are cooking?", there would certainly be puzzled looks, maybe a few laughs, and the researcher would need to be prepared to justify the absurdity of such a question.  

There are many die-hard knowledgeable Stovers (including those who administer stove projects) who resist every aspect of TLUD stoves.  Why would they want questionnaires with questions that touch upon TLUD issues?  

Even when research projects are being designed, for many years TLUD micro-gasifier stoves were not included in the stoves for consideration.   And there are examples of projects that included (and spent money on) poorly designed stoves that are marginally TLUDs (Sampada is a leading example), and certainly did not include the strongest TLUD-ND design (Champion, from India).    Or they think that ACE / Philips or Biolite represent forced air TLUD-FA stoves.

About the above paragraph, some readers of this message do not know the differences between those named stoves, and yet they will make decisions about what stoves to include in funded research.   And the results are weak because of poor decisions at the beginning.

Ron, the questionnaires (if you find them) will not include many, if any, questions that relate to TLUD issues.  

As I said, that is my OPINION.

Paul



Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu> 
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <tel:(309)%20452-7072> 
Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com> 

 


_______________________________________________
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

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170529/5ec46203/attachment.html>