<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000">Crispin (cc list)<br><br>
To stovers. The original start of this thread yesterday by Nat
Mulcahy was on "Biochar". There are four "biochar" lists also managed
by Tom Miles. <br>
<br>
To the Yahoo biochar lists: We have agreed that the one related
to climate topics should be "biochar-policy" (URL given above). For
continuity (hopefully temporary as it relates to the climate topic), I
also include "biochar".<br>
<br>
I think there have been no restrictions on talking climate topics
on "stoves" - so I feel it necessary to comment on the several
(conflicting) types of misinformation I find in Crispin's message
below. mainly from the stoves perspective. I wrote a different kind of
support response last night to the "Biochar" list, for any (non-biochar) stovers
finding this interesting.<br><br>See inserts below.<br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott@gmail.com><br><b>To: </b>"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, July 18, 2011 10:30:43 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest imprecise reporting of facts.<br><br><div class="WordSection1"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Dear Nat</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">I read the article at <a href="http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/download/critical_review.pdf" target="_blank">http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/download/critical_review.pdf</a> and repeat here your question near the end: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">“Why does BioFuelWatch refute fact and science, which we continue to cite…”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US">When
you are dealing with a funded organisation responsible one way or
another to donors, you have to tout and shout the current (funded)
memes. This is apparently an organisation that believes that the Earth’s
climate, which changes massively and continuously all by itself, can be
brought to stasis by the All-Powerful Hand of Man fiddling the level of
CO2 in the atmosphere. That alone is so unscientific that it beggars
belief they follow any scientific path at all, let along one that
includes your observations and supporting documents.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"> <strong>[RWL1:
Crispin. you have not read enough of the Biofuel Watch literature.
You have gotten the BFW message exactly backwards (hope you can prove me
wrong). They repeatedly warn against all (especially Biochar) man-made
intervention in attacking global warming. They are mysteriously silent
on what they believe about anthropogenic causation of warming.
However, unlike you, I am pretty sure they do acknowledge that global
warming exists and that it is due predominantly to fossil fuels. You
continue to amaze me with your denial of these two fundamental beliefs.
If I thought they believed as you I wouldn't be paying as much
attention to their nonsense about Biochar. <br></strong></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><strong>
I have asked you repeatedly to tell me one thing found at
www.skepticalscience.org with which you diagree. I ask again (I think
this site does an excellent job of saying what the [mainly experimental]
evidence is for what you claim doesn't exist). The complaint of Nat
about BFW, with which I agree totally, has nothing to do with the
causation of the sequestration need for biochar..</strong><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US">I,
frankly, have never heard of them and their anti-biochar position and
doubt they can do much to prevent the likes of you and me demonstrating
all sorts of technologies and their benefits.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> <strong>[RWL2:
After you start reading more of the anti-biochar literature (almost all
originating with BFW), you will find that they [three non-experts (zero
peer-reviewed publications) in the field] have been hugely influential
in slowing down actions to promote biocchar R&D and
implementation. They are very clever in the PR department.]</strong><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US">The first three links in your letter did not work. The 4<sup>th</sup> did: <a href="http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/agrofuels_and_biochar_article.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/agrofuels_and_biochar_article.pdf</a>
which outlines the massive subsidies to the beneficiaries of a lobby
that seeks money in order to survive. If there were no CO2 argument,
there would be no subsidy, so guess what, they flog it and the money
rolls in. Agrofuels. Not even ‘biofuels’ any more.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL3:
Again you need to read more closely. There is a 97% consensus on a
"CO2 argument" among climate scientists (I am sure you know where to
find the data behind that statistic). The money for Biochar R&D is
miniscule - I believe still none officially in any US Government agency -
specifically marked "Biochar"</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;">
I am not sure why you couldn't pick up the first link (to a June 2011
BFW document). I had the same problem until I was sure I had both lines
of Nat's citation. This is the key one. I assume the others work. I
hope you will find the most damaging statement to Biochar's promise
that you can find there (out of 150) and we can talk about the validity
of that citation. Nat's complaint in part is that they are misusing
what he is saying - and I think many of the "citees" would say the
same. Most of the cites are non-controversial; I am talking about ones
that you think make Biochar look really bad or dumb. (the BFW
hypothesis)]<br></span></span> <br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">One
of the ‘difficult sells’ with biochar is not going to go away: having
collected the fuel, why not burn it all. If someone wants to get more
carbon in the ground, plant trees. If someone wants biochar for
agriculture, set up an industry to do that. It is fundamental that
having procured, processed, dried and prepared a fuel for the fire, it
is unwise to throw any of it away. There must be cases where it makes
sense,. But a heck of a lot where it does not.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL4:
Sorry, this is only a difficult sell with deniers. Start learning
about Biochar's reason for rapid growth at
www.biochar-international.org. New technical papers on Biochar are
coming out at a rate of about twice a week - and popular press much more
often. While there, look at the IBI view of the BFW misconception at <br></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"><strong> </strong></span><span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT865"></span><a target="_blank" href="http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/Biochar%20Misconceptions%20and%20the%20Science.pdf">http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/Biochar%20Misconceptions%20and%20the%20Science.pdf</a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br></span></p><p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US">In
brief, charcoal is more valuable in the soil than being combusted -
but you have heard this many times before. Believe me, Nat is not
throwing any away. Of course, no one would disagree that some places
are better than others.<br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Everything
proposed by the char producing stove seems, in my limited view, to
involve work for the stove user. If that work can be very limited and
the application of the small amount of char generated is concentrated on
a small portion of land, or as you point, dosed onto individual plants,
it is excusable. But not if there is no additional fuel readily
available (because the high energy portion is being tossed). But not if
there is a net increase in fuel taken from the source. It looks strange
to see the ordinary need for cooking being turned into a complex battle
between agriculturalists and rent-seekers trying to bring an
ever-changing climate to a halt. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL5:
I find it hard to believe, but everything in this paragraph is wrong.
One of the biggest advantages of the TLUDs and TLODs is an ability to
start them and then leave them alaone. Nat is finding 5-6 times more
char being turned in than expected. Reason: people are going into
business with the stoves. Also if you would read Nat's material you
would find the words "pellets", and "residues" and "non-trees". Life
is decidedly simpler for the Lucia stove user - one of the the reasons
for rapid expansion of Nat's business.<br>
</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US">They are attacking your products because they have no idea what they are doing. That is my conclusion, on several levels. Wow.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL6. Now we agree. Not sure how you got here though.]</span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Your
stoves work fine. If they could burn more of the carbon, so much the
better. Sitting in my urban shack having found a piece of a truck pallet
to cook for the night, I would rather have the heat than some black
char to toss outside in the roadside where it will be crushed and blown
around my already dirty, dusty township.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL7:
On your first point, Nat has made a conscious decision to only market
pyrolyzers. His (unique) concept could gasify - and he has chosen not
to - for reasons I think you cant (as a climate denier) understand.
The dust you are talking about is coal dust - which has no place in
anyone's garden. Users of Biochar take great pains to get it safely in
the ground - especially (in Nat's case) using char surrounding
individual seeds.</span> <br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">While
there is no one, perfect answer, there is also no perfect understanding
and far more than one path. One far too common element is so many
people grasping at money, and failing that, straws. In their view, you,
Nat, are collateral damage.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL:
Again several agreements and disagreements. Obviously we can all agree
with your first sentence. But I ask anyone reading this to suggest an
alternative better for either carbon sequestration or soil augmentation
(Biochar comping from pyrolyszing stoves being the one Nat is
following). I think you have insulted a lot of fine people (maybe
Nat?) who are in the Biochar business for the right reasons. Unless you
have some proof of the intentions of those entrepreneurs who are trying
hard to make Biochar work, I think it better not to guess on
motivations (which BFW does continually). BFW shrewdly makes a big deal
of Mantria - but that is/was an outlier, in my opinion. When Nat talks
about unknown money - he is referring to those very few who downplay
Biochar. <br></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;">
Lastly, Nat is nowhere approaching "collateral damage". His is a
spectacularly successful operation, growing very rapidly - based on an
outstanding business plan. What amazes me is his ability to find the
time to fight back against the likes of BFW..</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255); font-weight: bold;">Apologies for taking up too much space - but I
couldn't let Crispin's (and BFW's) comments stand unchallenged. I urge
you to re-read both Nat's and the BFW material.</span><br style="font-weight: bold;">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ron<br></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Your fan,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Crispin</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Stoves mailing list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>http://www.bioenergylists.org/<br><br></div></div></div></div></body></html>