[Stoves] Yet another review paper (2014): Perspectives in Household Air Pollution Research: Who Will Benefit from Interventions

[Ronal Larson]

List with ccs

	The pertinence here seems to be that Peel once worked with Smith.  Not at all pertinent to my initial query - on using the fact that char-making (not char using as Nikhil uses in his final paragraph). Is different from all other stove types. And is almost not discussed at all in stove—health publications.  And clearly char-making stoves are the healthiest of all starting with biomass.

	There is a surprising link to my carbon-climate world towards the end of this paper - recommending this paper:  https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/4B8AFEEA2102B1F54561B05586E5FA8A/S1068280519000200a.pdf/div-class-title-estimating-the-present-value-of-carbon-sequestration-in-u-s-forests-2015-2050-for-evaluating-federal-climate-change-mitigation-policies-div.pdf <https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/4B8AFEEA2102B1F54561B05586E5FA8A/S1068280519000200a.pdf/div-class-title-estimating-the-present-value-of-carbon-sequestration-in-u-s-forests-2015-2050-for-evaluating-federal-climate-change-mitigation-policies-div.pdf>.  It has no connection to char-making cookstoves - which I think will be limited to the half of the world now cooking with biomass.  And who could use a little more income (and a lot less expense).

	Again,  My query to this list is - how can we best use the fact that char-making stoves can make money for their users?  Nikhil has failed to address that issue.  Is mine a non-serious question?  One has to believe that climate change is real to get into this topic in a serious way.

Ron


> On Jan 2, 2020, at 8:07 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ron: 
> 
> Your references led to more references; here  Clark, M.L. & Peel, J.L. Perspectives in Household Air Pollution Research: Who Will Benefit from Interventions? <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40572-014-0021-0#citeas>  Curr Envir Health Rpt (2014) 1: 250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-014-0021-0 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-014-0021-0>  
> 
> "Several investigators have hypothesized that those individuals who are more susceptible to the adverse effects of air pollution exposure may also be the groups that benefit most from efforts to reduce air pollution levels (e.g., traffic reduction plans, industrial facility closings, indoor air filter interventions) [47 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40572-014-0021-0#CR47>, 48 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40572-014-0021-0#CR48>], yet this question has largely been ignored in the cookstove field. Valid assessments of the true exposure-response relationships among various subpopulations are necessary to inform a more accurate estimate of the global burden of disease attributed to cookstove smoke, an identified research gap needed to convince governments and policy makers to enact interventions [49 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40572-014-0021-0#CR49>]. Evidence regarding who benefits from improved air quality is limited and inconsistent. It is not known whether larger predicted benefits among certain subpopulations are due to differences in greater relative improvements associated with air pollution reductions (i.e., different exposure-response functions experienced by the subgroups) or differences in absolute improvements because of poorer baseline health status, which may be independent of air pollution [47 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40572-014-0021-0#CR47>]. " `(Emphasis added).
> 
> Let me put this in simple but contentious terms: as of 2014 at least, NOBODY KNEW. Kirk Smith's robust physicist approach to setting the boundaries of HAP as solid fuel origin emissions meant that, in practical terms, solid fuels were demonized and LPG/gas/electricity promised as "life saving" (aDALY terms, at least). 
> 
> Mind you, one of the co-authors here (J. Peel) also co-wrote with Kirk Smith the paper "Mind the gap" (2010), in my view opening up a radical (but mistaken) path to concocting the Integrated Exposure Response, whereby Kirk Smith ignored all the chemical diversity, took PM2. equitoxicity as an article of faith, and his colleagues manufactured extremely limited concentration estimates from some 600 Indian households during winters (as I remember it; I forget the village locations and months). 
> 
> What happened in 2014 is well-known: a set of hasty "literature reviews" for the WHO, and Burnett et al. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24518036> cooking up the IER, IHME the HAP DALYs. Then EPA contractors essentially dictating to WHO the terms of HCFC Guidelines <https://www.who.int/airpollution/guidelines/household-fuel-combustion/IAQ_HHFC_guidelines.pdf> and thereby the ISO TC-285 methods and tier levels. 
> 
> What Clark and Peel observed in 2014 is still valid, more so since GACC has morphed into CCA, paid marketers of LPG, and Kirk Smith is still looking to market aDALY consultancies if Goldman Sachs and Gold Standard have their way. 
> 
> For biomass stovers, though, the question remains: how much really needs to be known to make a meaningful change? Thee authors say "The ability to know what to expect from cookstove interventions (i.e., to accurately describe the presence of the subgroup response, as simplified in Figure 1, as being a meaningful shift in health improvement) is crucial to reducing scientific uncertainty and to encourage policy makers to enact change. "
> 
> What has happened is that "scientific uncertainty" and ignorance are suppressed and a new religion of LPG has taken shape in CCA. 
> 
> My view is, quantification of "health effects" is academic sideshow. The real challenge is to develop biomass stove designs for commercial and household markets that can make demonstrable contributions to reduction in air pollution exposures. I submit household wood cookstoves can do  that, charcoal stoves do that, and commercial charcoal stoves could do that faster. But then, that's just a hunch. CCA has got the money to spread the gas. 
> 
> N
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
> (US +1) 202 568 5831
> Skype: nikhildesai888
> 
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20200102/cf744acb/attachment.html>