[Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala

Xavier Brandao xav.brandao at gmail.com
Sat Sep 2 16:51:05 CDT 2017


Dear Tom,

 

I am not asking anyone to reject the WBT. I just want to clarify things, to get answers to simple questions.

 

-          I asked Ron: who is currently, as of now September 2017, still advocating continued use of the WBT?

-          Ron said Andrew likely was

-          Then I basically asked Andrew: are you?

-          Andrew said: no

 

So the initial statement was not true.

Tom, you can understand that, it had been said in the past, by different people, and right now by Ron, that there is only a minority who rejects the WBT (only Crispin is always unhappy). And there is a majority who supports its continuous use. This statement somewhat belittles the issues with the WBT, does it not? It means « there’s no urgency, all is fine, carry on. »

We can now see that, probably, that picture is not right.

 

We are making progress. I just want to understand, I just want the clear picture.

 

“The earlier call didn’t include the discussion of technical issues with the current methods”

What is that discussion?

 

“If you will recall at that time we highlighted Franco’s presentation at and the discussion at ETHOS about methods like WBT and contextual design but that was ignored”

No, I don’t recall, sorry. What is that presentation? What is that discussion at ETHOS about methods like WBT and contextual design? Do you have a link to that?

 

“These issues are actually being discussed”

Where? Can I have a link to that?

 

“to some degree implemented within the stoves community”

Where? By whom?

 

“sometimes by the same organizations that are accused of defending the status quo”

What are these organizations? What implementation actions are they doing?

 

“you have a number of articles to refer to”

What are these articles?

 

I am really serious in all my questions above. I am really not sure what you are talking about. If things in the right direction are being done as we speak, fine, but I don’t know them, and I would like to.

 

“by rude and personal attacks”

Have I ever been rude and attacked anyone personally? Can you please quote when that was the case?

 

“drove a lot of contributors to the list, and to stoves development, out of this discussion.”

If possible, can you tell me if anything in my posts made people leave? Ideally, I would like to be able to talk with them, and understand, because this is the first time I hear that.

I always tried to be respectful, and tried not to take too much space. Since the advocacy initiative started, I don’t think I have been posting that much over the last 8 months, I think I left room for others.

 

“discussion to the technical aspects of policies and methods”

Haven’t I tried to do the same? I asked what the WBT had that the alternative protocols had not. I highlighted the technical issues with the WBT, and asked for another opinions, with technical argumentation. I provided plenty of sources and documentation. I asked for critique of the HTP and CSI, constructive technical critique. I asked that the protocol document be read, and commented. I asked for reviews.

Isn’t that all constructive, normal scientific discussion we should be having?

 

Ron was the one making the non-technical contribution that I was part of a small minority, and that there were many supporters of the WBT. Now we see it is not the case.

Should I be blamed to want to answer to something I think is a false idea?

 

Best,

 

Xavier

 

De : Tom Miles [mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com] 
Envoyé : samedi 2 septembre 2017 19:55
À : 'Xavier Brandao'; 'Ronal W. Larson'
Cc : 'Discussion of biomass'; 'Crispin Pemberton-Pigott'; 'Karin Troncoso'
Objet : RE: [Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala

 

Xavier,

 

This is a more productive direction than the earlier outright call for rejecting current methods. The earlier call didn’t include the discussion of technical issues with the current methods. If you will recall at that time we highlighted Franco’s presentation at and the discussion at ETHOS about methods like WBT and contextual design but that was ignored. Anything that was funded by GACC or contributing organizations was rejected outright.  These issues are actually being discussed, and to some degree implemented within the stoves community, sometimes by the same organizations that are accused of defending the status quo, which is why you have a number of articles to refer to.   

 

Unfortunately, the call to abandon current methods has been accompanied by rude and personal attacks that drove a lot of contributors to the list, and to stoves development, out of this discussion. As the list owner, sponsor, host and moderators we have been very tolerant and tried to steer the discussion to the technical aspects of policies and methods. Let’s hope that we can continue in a productive direction.      

 

Tom 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170902/db28481e/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list