[Stoves] ABC PODCAST: "Power, domination and the ethics of global philanthropy" — Gwilym David Blunt

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Julien

There is plenty of coercion involved in the “spread of technologies” in an unnatural fashion.  Consider these two examples:

According to a simple reading of the CDM rules for carbon trading, only the person doing the reduction of CO2 emissions can receive the money – get the benefit.  The buyer/user of the stove is the cook. On what basis is the manufacturer or the vendor getting the monetary benefit? And on what basis is this demonstrated to have been done fairly in terms of the rights of the cook?  Where they making an “informed consent” agreement to buy and use it, and in terms of the carbon money, lose it?

Thinking…
Crispin



From: Stoves <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org> On Behalf Of Julien Winter
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2022 14:58
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: [Stoves] ABC PODCAST: "Power, domination and the ethics of global philanthropy" — Gwilym David Blunt

Hi All;

I listened to this podcast again, and I think that Blunt makes good arguments.   That is not to say that he can't be criticized and that someone can't make counter arguments.  By examining arguments like Blunt's our own decisions are better informed.

For cookstoves, how much does the supply side or demand side determine what households end up with?   Hypothetically, if carbon credits were more available for one type or model of a cookstove and not another, then the supply side, and not the household, could determine what is available.

Whatever stoves an organization — like The Clean Cooking Alliance — backs can affect research funding, and business development.  What kind of voice do the end user households get in that choice?

What if all development funding was only for electric cooking devices and not for biomass cookstoves?  An argument for this can be made if exposure to PM2.5 is to be minimized.  But there are tradeoffs in this choice.

As we all know, the recipients of cookstoves don't have much purchasing power for imported goods, and they have to make tough choices between goods such as between medicines and stoves.  So it matters whether a stove is made, repaired and recycled in their country, or imported from an industrial nation.  What if funding promoted mass production of cookstoves in industrialized countries?

My view, and probably a common view on this email list, is that we work with end-users to develop technologies that meet their needs.  We need a diversity of economically and environmentally sustainable options for cooking.  The process should be as consultative and democratic as possible.  I think that is the gist of Blunt's main argument.  By contrast, Blunt would argue against the top-down imposition of cooking solutions:

An example of a top-down imposition of cookstoves was a case in Bangladesh where women were required to use an 'improved' cookstove in order for their household to qualify for a social forestry program.


Cheers,
Julien.




--
Julien Winter
Cobourg, ON, CANADA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20221210/100e406a/attachment.html>