[Stoves] Another attack on solid fuels by public health (Response to Roger's message on subsidies)

[Karin Troncoso]

Dear Roger

Thank you for your email.

First of all, I completely agree that electric cooking is promissory.
Considering a gradual transition of electricity systems towards 100%
renewable energy, electric cooking would address the health issues while
avoiding GHG emissions. The experience of Ecuador in the transition from
LPG to electricity (with induction stoves) is particularly interesting. And
in cases where peak demand is an issue (e.g. in off-grid systems), electric
stoves with heat retention devices are likely to be part of the solution.

Now, with regards to the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, let me first
explain the origin of this paper: I have been working on the issue of
adoption for some time. At the beginning I thought that the cultural
barriers were more important than the economic barriers in the transition
to LPG. Then I started hearing many women in different parts of Latin
America saying that they would prefer to use LPG. For me the case of
Ecuador (and also, to some extent, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, and El
Salvador) shows that price reduction leads to fuel substitution, and I find
this interesting.

I am not judging the subsidy policies. The paper is only studying the
connection between fuel subsidies and fuel transition. I agree with you
that subsidies, especially if they are regressive and long-lasting, have
perverse economic impacts. And there are challenges in the design and
implementation of targeted, time-bound subsidies.

Finally, let me say that, with the exception of Haiti, Latin-America is
very different from Africa or Asia. In LA, the use of solid fuels is much
lower, and the use of LPG and electricity is much higher. Therefore, the
analysis that we carried out in LA would likely yield very different
results in other continents.

I hope this answers your questions.

Best regards

Karin

---original message---

Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 20:56:00 +0000 (UTC)

From: Roger Samson <rogerenroute at yahoo.ca>
Message-ID: <1569360030.717423.1495832160610 at mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Karin



Many of us on this list come from a renewable energy and development
background and find large scale subsidization of fossil fuels problematic.
I have worked 20 years in developing countries on poverty issues. Most poor
people will buy advanced cooking stoves and fuels on their own if they
perceive they need it as they find the money.



I can see perhaps in the very worst of situations of large urban air
quality situations it might make sense but when its such a low priority
need ranking of the poor and cultivates dependency.... it's a fools game
subsidizing the extractive energy industry. The poor could use that same
donor cash for more urgent needs like food security and health care or even
livelihood projects that could make them more financially independent.



Why don't you do a more comprehensive study that compares human well being
changes where the poor get to choose between fossil fuel cooking subsidies
vs their other priority needs and monitor health and well being impacts
over a longer period.



With how fast solar power prices are coming down about 20%/yr it seems to
me that the lifecycle cooking costs of electric cooking with well insulated
pots will become increasingly attractive fo urban areas in the next 3-5
years. Why not spend the money on piloting electric cooking strategies with
integrated heat retention devices to minimize energy demands.



I think we can make progress on urban air quality issues but that
subsidizing fossil fuel cooking systems is a low sustainability strategy to
address the problem.



best regards


Roger Samson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170530/86292ea3/attachment.html>