[Stoves] Jagger, et al. paper (Re: Tom, Paul, Crispin)

[Nikhil Desai]

Crispin:

Picking up on the earlier thread about this paper the reference to Ryan
(2011) cited by Jagger, et al. I am ccíng Prof. Jagger on this and will
have a reply to Tom Miles about aDALYs separately.

The Ryan (2011) paper is available on researchgate
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227759431_Above-_and_Belowground_Carbon_Stocks_in_a_Miombo_Woodland_Landscape_of_Mozambique>.
It is about estimating carbon densities above and under ground for LULUCF
accounting purposes. Jagger et al. (2017) - from now on Jagger, in
plurality -  reference to it is for carbon mass balances. Ryan too assumes
that tree dry mass has 47% carbon. Nothing to do with thermal conversion
which entails some carbon loss to air.

At a superficial glance, the Jagger paper is an arithmetical exercise --
assume this, assume that, multiply, divide, add, subtract. At least, very
explicit statement, unlike IHME/WHO stuff.

The key gain, however, is that Jagger, et al. seek to "directly compare two
intervention scenarios: 10% of the village switching to the Philips stove
or 50% of the same village switching to the Chitetezo Mbaula."

This is a "collective" level equivalent of Kirk Smith's "stacking" problem
-- instead of a household switching to a new stove ("truly health
protective" as he would have it, meaning LPG or electric) 50% of the time
or 100% of the time (as he demands in India).

Jagger, et al. are asking "What does it mean to have wider adoption of a
cheaper stove compared to a narrower adoption of a more expensive stove,
given the lab results with selective protocols used for selective metrics"?

One can take issue with assumptions, methods, and lab or "simulated
kitchen" protocols or declare that the results are not applicable at a
larger scale. (Among other assumptions, there is also the assumption that
each household uses only one type of stove; no reason to assume that, but
like other assumptions, this keeps the arithmetic tractable.)

No matter. Leave bean-counting aside and see the message.

It is so refreshing to read - "since neither stove demonstrated in-field
performance capable of reducing air pollutant concentrations below levels
that would have an immediate impact on health, *we emphasize that the
economical Chitetezo Mbaula is a preferable alternative* to the more
expensive Philips stove."

I am not endorsing the stove choice itself - this is a small hypothetical
exercise - but endorsing the way Jagger, et al. go about formulating a
problem and analyzing the consequences of choice. (I remember the Malawi
health study about a year ago and dismissed it. If epidemiologists cannot
find that a Philips use produces expected differences in diseases, they
ought to re-examine their theories of pollution and disease, not declare
that cleaner combustion has no demonstrated "health benefit". But that's
another story.)

In a policy exercise, I might want to commission more surveys of consumer
preference and usability, then recommend when and how much subsidies may be
applied to these two or ten other types of stoves.

I so welcome the Jagger, et al. justification for supporting a "cleaner"
cooking system at a collective level, not just some "truly health
protective" stove at the household level. Let consumers choose. Understand
the context and potential scale before pronouncing how billions of dollars
are needed for "clean cooking". (Clean cooking push suffers from 'shocking
lack of funding'
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-energy-financing/clean-cooking-push-suffers-from-shocking-lack-of-funding-idUSKCN1BT0U4>,
Megan Rowling, Reuters, 18 September 2017 citing $4.4 billion a year need
computed by a SE4All report
<http://www.seforall.org/sites/default/files/2017_SEforALL_FR2_HR.pdf> )

The "implementation science" folks at GACC and NIH only want "Tier 4"
stoves - whether or not users want them (not 100% sure about LPG and
electricity either). This paper should give them pause.

It concludes, "It may be that not all three goals [reducing emissions of
SLCPs, human exposure to HAP, and fuel consumption - ND] can be achieved
from one intervention or one improved cookstove but we emphasize *the
importance of affordable and accessible improved cookstoves as an
intermediate step*." (emphasis added)

Amen. I am grateful that a political economist ventured in this field.
(Some Elinor Ostrom shade here, considering Prof. Jagger's trail?)

I assume affordable and accessible would also be usable and used in
specific contexts of Malawi. When I last went there 14-15 years ago, I
discovered that Aids was taking such toll on life, coffin production was
considered a larger deforestation threat than charcoal. I also looked into
gelfuel and solar cooking/water heating potential for households as well as
other users.

A well-planned national intervention not limited to just wood cookstoves
for households and not particularly targeting "results" in aDALY,
deforestation or climate fancies might help everybody, perhaps just not
theorists. (Just because there are metrics for efficiency and emission
rates doesn't mean they need validation in terms of CO2 avoidance, forest
cover, aDALYs with a lot of middlemen spending a lot of time and money for
monitoring and certification.)  This "results" mania has become destructive
rather than productive.

And let people stack. I am for a woman's right to choose, not a "pro-lifer"
(professional lifers selling aDALYs, that is).


Nikhil
----------------

On Sep 18, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

Dear Paul



<snip>



Ryan (2011) assuming that the dry mass can be converted to 47% carbon is
not a fact, it is a bad assumption reflecting a misunderstanding (at least)
about what is in biomass and what is in charcoal. Treating it as a fact is
unhelpful.



Regards

Crispin





char costs ----Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and
drawdown



tom,

This quote is from Pam Jagger's article, and cites Ryan.

We assume that dry mass can be converted to carbon mass using 47%C (Ryan et
al., 2011),

What does   "  47%C " actually mean?   That is not the same as   "% yield
of charcoal compared to dry-weight of biomass"

Who can explain such a process with such a high yield of charcoal?    I did
not think that it is possible, unless it is a bit beyond torrified wood.

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170929/00c3d0e1/attachment.html>