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

Mon Sep 4 19:00:00 CDT 2017

Xavier et al

	I’d like to insert a different slant.  Setting international “standards”  (in this case only something on recommended test procedures and this weird thing called a “Tier”) is generally considered by people I have talked to as one of the least desirable ways for any intelligent person to spend their time.  To volunteer (few get paid), you have to really believe in the importance of the cause.   

	To say that for efficiencies to be identified by Tiers (0….4, 5)  linearly related to nominal efficiencies measured by decades (10, 20,….50) doesn’t strike me as bizarre.  Anyone have a better set of tiers?  Anyone think that the concept of tiers is awful?

	I believe you will find that ANSI and ISO staff do not find it easy to fill the ranks of standard reviewers.  There are many who have and will join to advance their own businesses.  There is big money to be made with standards that influence purchases.  Thanks to Sally and Ranyee for taking on these thankless jobs.

	So, I trust you will agree that not everyone who says they want to be involved should be involved.

	I agree with you that protocol development will occur outside the ISO process - AND HAS - especially for the stove world.

	By chance I today independently found the Lima accord cite:  http://www.pciaonline.org/testing/lima-consensus <http://www.pciaonline.org/testing/lima-consensus>.    The key word is “consensus”.

	This was cited in a Jetter et al 2012 paper at: http://heatkit.com/research/downloads/cookstove%20rankings%20jetter2012.pdf <http://heatkit.com/research/downloads/cookstove%20rankings%20jetter2012.pdf>   Kirk Smith is a co-author.

Ron
	

> On Sep 4, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Sally,
>  
> Thanks for the clarification.
> In that case, it is not as easy to access and join to ISO TC 285 as it was previously declared.
>  
> I then maintain that a conversation including all, any, interested party who wants to contribute to stove testing and protocols has to happen outside of the ISO.
>  
> Best,
> 
> Xavier
>  
>  
> De : Sally Seitz [mailto:SSeitz at ansi.org <mailto:SSeitz at ansi.org>] 
> Envoyé : dimanche 3 septembre 2017 12:20
> À : 'Xavier Brandao'; ndesai at alum.mit.edu <mailto:ndesai at alum.mit.edu>; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> Cc : Dr. Ronal Larson; 'Crispin Pemberton-Pigott'; Neeraja Penumetcha
> Objet : RE: [Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala
>  
> Hello everyone,
>  
> I would like to point out that the presentation to which you refer was for the IWA which took place prior to the formation of ISO TC 285.  ISO rules are different for an IWA – any interested party may attend an IWA meeting and participation is not limited to National Member Bodies or liaison.  The rules are different for participation in ISO Technical and Subcommittees.  Participation in ISO TCs and SCs is limited to National Bodies and liaison organizations, and participation includes both offering comments on drafts and attending meetings.  
>  
> I do hope this clarification helps.
>  
> Kind regards,
> Sally 
>  
> From: Xavier Brandao [mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com>] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2017 5:40 PM
> To: ndesai at alum.mit.edu <mailto:ndesai at alum.mit.edu>; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
> Cc: Dr. Ronal Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>>; 'Crispin Pemberton-Pigott' <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>>; Neeraja Penumetcha <npenumetcha at cleancookstoves.org <mailto:npenumetcha at cleancookstoves.org>>; Sally Seitz <SSeitz at ansi.org <mailto:SSeitz at ansi.org>>
> Subject: RE: [Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala
>  
> Dear Nikhil,
>  
> « Taking her word, what Ms. Seitz seems to be suggesting is that "opposition to substantial issues" can be expressed by "concerned interests", not necessarily limited to National Standards Bodies that participate in the ISO process, and that the ISO process at least has an obligation to seek to take into account (read that bureaucratese anywhich way you wish) "the views of all parties concerned). »
> OK, I didn’t know that, thanks for sharing the information, I’ll have a look at it.
>  
> « I am afraid there is no "We".  Despite GACC and World Bank claims about "stove sector" or "improved and clean cooking sector", there is no official stamp on any testing protocol. »
> I am for cooperation rather than division. I think a lot can be worked out by discussion.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Xavier 
>  
>  
>  
> De : Nikhil Desai [mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com <mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>] 
> Envoyé : samedi 2 septembre 2017 04:20
> À : Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Xavier Brandao
> Cc : Ronal W. Larson; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Neeraja Penumetcha; Sally Seitz
> Objet : Re: [Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala
>  
>  
> I Xavier:
> 
> 1. ISO is not the only body developing "standards". All national standards institutions develop and revise standards, and private organizations also devise standards to be voluntarily accepted. Why, just a few days ago, the Gold Standard Foundation calls itself a "standard and certification body <https://www.goldstandard.org/our-story/who-we-are>" has floated Gold Standard for Global Goals <http://gold%20standard%20for%20the%20global%20goals/>, for "future-proof Gold Standard projects for changing market conditions, including the emerging rules of the Paris Agreement and the aviation sector’s new market mechanism CORSIA, as well as broader trends in corporate sustainability and climate and development funding."
> 
> CDM and Gold Standard use of WBT, or any protocol for any metric that it purports to but does not directly measure, are as important at this stage as anything that develops out of the ISO TC-285. I don't know how many countries with what market type and size would incorporate "international" standards in domestic law and have the capacity to enforce them. We know EPA will not, and that's that. Why EPA is indirectly - via GACC and ANSI - is leading the TC-285 exercise is not exactly a mystery, just not out in the open. (Ms. Penumetcha or Ms. Seitz, cc'd here, may want to share ANSI contract scope of work with US Government or its agencies and theirs with ISO.) 
>  
> 2. You ought to read Ms. Seitz' presentation at the IWA. She said: 
> 
>> a. An international standard is characterized by ""consensus: General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. (emphasis added) and
>>  
>> b. A Standard, inter alia, "provides governments with a technical base for health, safety and environmental legislation, and conformity assessment" and "shares technological advances and good management practice"
>  
> Taking her word, what Ms. Seitz seems to be suggesting is that "opposition to substantial issues" can be expressed by "concerned interests", not necessarily limited to National Standards Bodies that participate in the ISO process, and that the ISO process at least has an obligation to seek to take into account (read that bureaucratese anywhich way you wish) "the views of all parties concerned). 
> 
> Therefore, I suggest that you prepare a document to be sent directly to Ms. Seitz and Ms. Penumetcha (as GACC is officially contracted with ISO and perhaps the US Government). I see no problem in requesting them to not only dump WBT for reasons that you have raised but officially acknowledge its limits. I think it is entirely permissible to write this in your personal capacity, and you could share it with this group. Those from this group, in their individual capacities, may endorse a petition. 
> 
> Such an effort can also be taken to the D-Lab convenors at MIT for their limited and short-sighted version of stove science progress. 
>  
> Your view is"We have to take the time. To take the time to do the right thing, to correct the past mistakes, to move forward, we have to take the time to stop wasting time."
> 
> Just as I said to Crispin that "There is no there there" in Kirk Smith, et al. GBD estimates or worse still, HAPIT, I am afraid there is no "We".  Despite GACC and World Bank claims about "stove sector" or "improved and clean cooking sector", there is no official stamp on any testing protocol. 
> 
> Yes, this applies to WBT in the US. I am not aware of any Federal Register entry that designates WBT - or those who claim to test according to WBT - as "certified" measure or entity respectively. 
> 
> Wherefore, anybody who has been damaged by the use of WBT is entitled to bring a claim in a US Federal court for relief against false claims or other torts. 
> 
> US claims to be a nation of laws. So US entities are bound by legal agreements. 
> 
> Nikhil
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
> (US +1) 202 568 5831
> Skype: nikhildesai888
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com <http://www.symanteccloud.com/>
> ______________________________________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170904/49328747/attachment.html>