[Stoves] A clear claim for stoves making DALYs avoidable; Anenberg et al, 2017

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott crispinpigott at outlook.com
Thu Sep 21 11:14:11 CDT 2017


Dear Friends of Clean Air

Mozambique health and climate benefits_Anenberg_ERL_2017.pdf<https://collaboration.worldbank.org/servlet/JiveServlet/downloadBody/24444-102-1-32485/Mozambique%20health%20and%20climate%20benefits_Anenberg_ERL_2017.pdf>

This document is available at

https://collaboration.worldbank.org/servlet/JiveServlet/downloadBody/24444-102-1-32485/Mozambique%20health%20and%20climate%20benefits_Anenberg_ERL_2017.pdf

Abstract
Approximately 95% of households in Mozambique burn solid fuels for cooking, contributing to elevated indoor and outdoor fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations and subsequent health and climate impacts. Little is known about the potential health and climate benefits of various approaches for expanding the use of cleaner stoves and fuels in Mozambique. We use state-of-the science
methods to provide a first-order estimation of potential air pollution-related health and climate benefits of four illustrative scenarios in which traditional cooking fires and stoves are displaced by cleaner and more efficient technologies. For rural areas, we find that a 10% increase in the number of households using forced draft wood-burning stoves could achieve >2.5 times more health benefits from reduced PM2.5 exposure (200 avoided premature deaths and 14 000 avoided disability adjusted life years, DALYs, over a three-year project lifetime) compared to natural draft stoves in the same households, assuming 70% of households use the new technology for both cases. Expanding use of LPG stoves to 10% of households in five major cities is estimated to avoid 160 premature deaths and 11 000 DALYs from reduced PM2.5 exposure for a three-year intervention, assuming 60% of households use the new stove. Advanced charcoal stoves would achieve ∽80% of the PM2.5-related health benefits of LPG stoves. Approximately 2%-5% additional health benefits would result from reduced ambient PM2.5, depending on the scenario. Although climate impacts are uncertain, we estimate that all scenarios would reduce expected climate change-related temperature increases from continued solid fuel use by 4%-6% over the next century. All results are based on an assumed adjustment factor of 0.8 to convert from laboratory-based emission reduction measurements to exposure reductions, which could be optimistic in reality given potential for continued use of the traditional stove. We conclude that cleaner cooking stoves in Mozambique can achieve health and climate benefits, though both are uncertain and local information about baseline and intervention PM2.5 exposure levels are needed.

+++++++++++++++++

“>2.5 times more health benefits” than what? Than natural draft stoves.  Whose natural draft stoves? My natural draft stoves reduce PM exposure basically to zero. Xunda also has such stoves. Openly vented forced draft stoves can’t come near the ‘health protection’ of natural draft stoves with chimneys. If we are going to spend money why not get the maximum bang for the donated buck and reduce exposure by 99.9%?

The claim that an intervention will avoid 200 premature deaths implies that the lives ‘saved’ will occur within the cohort of recipients of improved stoves. Similarly, the avoided disability adjusted life years will also be enjoyed by those who participate in the project. Am I reading that correctly? But those GBD numbers are related to population statistics, not measured exposure and disease consequence. It reads like an early shot fired in a revolutionary war to enthrone the aDALY.

The ‘uncertain’ assumption that climate change-related temperature increases from continued solid fuel use will be mitigated is contradicted by the fact that biomass burning provides a net-negative GHG forcing. Cleaning up the emissions of OC and burning LPG will provide a net-positive GHG forcing over the next century.

“This method of attributing the climate impacts from radiative forcing has been validated through comparison of the estimated surface temperature responses using ARTPs to the calculated response from several fully-coupled earth system models (Shindell et al 2012, Stohl et al 2015).”

No it has not been “validated”. To date no such set of models has come within two standard deviations of matching global temperatures over the past 20 years, something admitted by Prof Michael Grubb in Nature Geoscience a few days ago, confessing that modeled predictions of any warming by 2100 were ‘on the hot side’. Who knew, right?

Regards
Crispin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 51498 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170921/637df00f/attachment.bin>


More information about the Stoves mailing list