[Stoves] GACC promises and premises: looking back to 2010

[Nikhil Desai]

Tom:

Thank you. If I don't write a thorough piece, it won't go to anybody.

My writings and my chats belong to different universes. Let me begin a
conversation, though and see if you or anybody else has a disagreement in
principle. Our policy choices may differ and we may disagree on how I say
something rather than that I say anything at all.

If you recall, I became a fan of GACC CEO back in February. I may not like
some approaches and don't  have factual material in terms of contract
reports, annual reports, so I have to go by news items and intuition. My
intuition is that a) she was given an impossible script by her predecessor,
who in turn was following a script by State and EPA, in particular Jacob
Moss and Susan Annenberg; b) it is in the nature of charity business such
as UN Foundation to market false promises based on false premises, and the
enthusiasm back in 2009-10 was so great, there were bound to be mistakes
and failures.

Washington, with all its facades and fibs, runs on certain transparency and
honesty, even now. Rather, I cannot give up on the hope that some of the
time.

Yes, there are positive contributions - to me, the most positive is simply
"awareness raising". (I am not being sarcastic. I made fun of dinners at
the Imperial Hotel or White House South Lawn. But I know that is how
Washington or New Delhi do business. I cannot suffer them, but hats off to
GACC to playing that game.)

I will say that some alleys GACC started on are dead-end -- DfID may not
like my assertion about the "Evidence Base" project, whose results we don't
know yet, but who knows, it may open up avenues of another kind of search.

And I also don't think the TC-285 bandwagon will go anywhere or that public
donors should do bulk procurement of cookstoves without regard to cooks,
fuels, and contexts;  "international standards" for efficiency and PM2.5
emission rates is also a dead-end alley.

UN Foundation was a bad choice for hosting GACC, but understandable due to
Mrs. Clinton's support and the State/EPA history.

If GACC did not directly provide money for, and oversight for, better solid
fuel stoves, that is one negative. So is UNF interference with energy and
health related SDGs. So moving GACC out is an idea worth tabling. It might
even allow for different procurement and reporting procedures.

Moving from cookstoves to fuels and foods is another thought, though I am
sure many people on this list would disagree, and organizing a program on a
broader set of problems will be even more difficult. Still, how about the
principle of considering foods and fuels - and biochar for agricultural
productivity or fuel markets - over the long term?

Because, if we agree on "Healthier Human Environments" , they are not just
about smoke sources but about foods. I happen to suspect that mal- and
under-nutrition have not only life-long consequences but inter-generational
consequences.

If you are with me so far, please suggest other "positives". I think it's a
time to go past the reductionist view of stoves as smoke devices, though I
would also readily concede that material and design break-throughs must be
worked on to deliver a clean enough cooking energy system to please the
cook.

You'd never know that pleasing sisters is my life-long passion, would you?
:-)

Nikhil







On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:48 PM, <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

> We need to recognize the pros and cons of the program. While there are
> aspects of the GACC project that people may disagree with there have also
> been positive contributions. If you are going to do an opinion piece than
> be thorough. Otherwise it’s just conversation.
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> *From:* Nikhil Desai [mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 11:07 AM
> *To:* Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> *Cc:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.
> org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] GACC promises and premises: looking back to 2010
>
>
>
> Tom:
>
> GACC aren't open about their history, so why bother asking them about
> their future?
>
> I don't know GACC; am considering writing an opinion piece. Opinions
> welcome.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> -------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:06 AM, <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
>
> You should contact GACC about plans for the future.
>
>
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Nikhil Desai
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 12, 2017 9:24 PM
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.
> org>
> *Subject:* [Stoves] GACC promises and premises: looking back to 2010
>
>
>
> List members:
>
> Back in 2010, soon after Mrs. Clinton had announced the creation of GACC
> at the UN Foundation, there was an event on The Martha Stewart Show
> demonstrating clean cookstoves;  Clean Cookstoves Featured on The Martha
> Stewart Show
> <http://www.prweb.com/releases/clean-cookstoves/martha-stewart/prweb4923294.htm>
> .
>
>
>
> Below an excerpt from some promises made at the time and the premises
> behind them.
>
> I have some impressions of where things have gone since then, though not
> quite sure where they stand for how long.
>
> Since WHO was a Founding Partner, I suppose the creation of Guidelines for
> Household Fuel Combustion can be said to have met the goal of developing
> air quality guidelines, but I am not sure. (WHO already had IAQ Guidelines,
> but of relevance to cookstove projects is whether in actual developing
> country residential environments, having emission rate targets for
> individual stoves is an adequate or even useful instrument for achieving
> compliance with indoor air quality guidelines.
>
> As things stand, the Alliance has three more years to go. Any views on
> what it can accomplish in the next three years, or what plans should be
> made beyond 2020 and by whom?
>
>
>
> Nikhil
>
> "The reductions in emissions achieved by clean cookstoves have the *potential
> to create revenues from carbon credits. Stove companies can use this
> revenue to reduce stove prices *or expand into new markets. More broadly,
> the entire clean cookstove supply-chain should be a source of economic
> opportunity and job creation at the local level.
>
> To achieve its '100 by 20' goal, the Alliance w*ill establish industry
> standards; spur innovative financing mechanisms; champion the cause across
> the donor and development communities; develop indoor air quality
> guidelines; address global tax and tariff barriers; field test clean stoves
> and fuels; and develop research roadmaps across key sectors such as health,
> climate, technology and fuels. *
>
> *A thriving global industry for clean cooking solutions** will provide a
> range of long-term benefits for the entire world -- from improving global
> health to combating climate change**.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171013/8fdf3fad/attachment.html>