<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000">Xavier, list etal<br><br> 1. Thanks for the added insight - with which I mostly agree. The "mostly" refers to the word "hidden". BFW is very open about wanting to kill all forms of biofuel. Maybe "most" is more accurate - but I haven't seen a bio-gas or bio-liquid they liked. They may have approved of indigenous groups collecting fuel wood for cooking and heating. <br><br> 2. As you say - almost (?) every organization has a desire for self preservation. BFW has no reason to be an exception. The problem as BFW relates to Biochar is that they apparently see Biochar only as another biofuel.. Biochar proponents, like most on the Biochar lists generally place energy (or biofuels) last (if at all) among the three obvious potential dollar flows.. The stoves list is more divided - but rarely open hostility/denial towards sequestration or soil benefits, which BFW either ignores or denies.. Jobs, rural economic development, reduced irrigation and fertilizer needs, nutrient retention etc - all have to be put down by BFW- even though they have little place in the world of biofuels.<br><br> 3. Our Biochar job is to show that Biochar is inherently different from biofuels (because so many benefits can be retained at the site of converting biomass to Biochar) This assumes that the people willing to pay for sequestration agree that conversion should be done where the biomass is grown and harvested. We in the developed world need the developing world - and there are not many (any?) economic arenas where we can say that.<br><br>Ron<br> <br> 3. I'd like to see your 15 page list of quotes, if you care to. I promise confidentiality.<br><br>Ron<br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Xavier Brandao" <xvr.brandao@gmail.com><br><b>To: </b>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<br><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:09:06 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest imprecise reporting of facts. (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)<br><br>I am not gonna adventure into the climate discussion now, I think I did<br>express my opinions on the list. I am part of the team of "anthropogenic<br>climate change believers" :) Patient and carefully explained views are very<br>beneficial to everyone in my opinion, the debate should live, in an<br>open-minded way.<br><br>I just wanted to come back on a point underlined by Nat and Crispin, i.e.<br>the BFW "hidden agenda".<br>"When you are dealing with a funded organisation responsible one way or<br>another to donors, you have to tout and shout the current (funded) memes."<br>I think Crispin is right on that point, that is the reason. I worked in such<br>a heavily funded organization. Heavily funded so heavily dependent. Their<br>mission, objectives and technology (Solar Home Systems) were their Bible.<br><br>The problems are in my opinion, first the length of the funding programmes<br>these organizations benefit, they have to keep going with their goals and<br>communication over the years. Campaining for or against specific practices<br>or technologies, even if, meanwhile, the practices and technologies prove<br>they are useful, or on the contrary they fail their mission. Hard for them<br>to admit to funders, but also publicly, that they were wrong and they<br>misjudged, even a little, a technology. Charity or development projects need<br>funders and so communication to run. They tend to simplify complex problems<br>to reach a large audience. Black or white, no grey for them.<br>People at the head of these organizations often have limited scientific<br>knowledge, and are not regularly reviewing the literature of their field.<br>They don't put themselves into question since they follow a holy mission.<br><br>I sent 15 pages of quotations and references from and to various scientific<br>literature to the board of the foundation I was working in. Most of it from<br>renown and established international organizations working in the field of<br>energy and rural electrification. The board didn't even make the effort to<br>reply or comment, it was quickly tossed away and considered as heretic.<br>Sometimes scientific arguments simply desert the space of debate.<br><br>I think we are touching a major problem in the world of cooperation and aid.<br>It is in my opinion responsible for a big part of the inefficiency of many<br>projects over the world, and it should be addressed.<br><br><br>Xavier<br><br>P.S : it is not imprecise criticism, it is incorrect criticism<br><br><br><br>-----Message d'origine-----<br>De : stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org<br>[mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] De la part de<br>stoves-request@lists.bioenergylists.org<br>Envoyé : lundi 18 juillet 2011 20:00<br>À : stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<br>Objet : Stoves Digest, Vol 11, Issue 15<br><br>Send Stoves mailing list submissions to<br> stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <br>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists<br>.org<br><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> stoves-request@lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> stoves-owner@lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: Fire Stump (Jeff Davis)<br> 2. WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest imprecise<br> reporting of facts. (Nat of WorldStove)<br> 3. Re: WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest imprecise<br> reporting of facts. (Steve Taylor)<br> 4. Re: WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest imprecise<br> reporting of facts. (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:21:36 -0400<br>From: Jeff Davis <jeff0124@velocity.net><br>To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br> <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br>Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fire Stump<br>Message-ID: <1310937696.1471.1.camel@jeff-laptop><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br><br>For hybrid populars, at my location, 15 years would work. That's for a<br>saw log.<br><br><br>Jeff<br><br><br>On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 11:51 -0400, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>> >I cannot believe that lumber was grown in 27 years.<br>> <br>> In northern Swaziland they cut wood after 7 years! Pines. I have seen<br>> trees<br>> with an increase in diameter of 40 mm in a single year. Right climate<br>> and<br>> rainfall... <br><br><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:10:07 -0400<br>From: Nat of WorldStove <nataniele@aim.com><br>To: stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org, biochar@yahoogroups.com,<br> gasification@lists.bioenergylists.org<br>Subject: [Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest<br> imprecise reporting of facts.<br>Message-ID: <8CE12FE9145282D-1680-9A6B@webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br><br><br>For three years now BioFuelWatch has been attacking WorldStove for our<br>efforts to help improve the lives of others through the use of LuciaStoves<br>and Biochar. In our latest reply to them, we document three years of<br>information we have provided for them and that they have chosen to ignore. <br><br><br><br>With three new large programs it's taken me a bit to get the time to reply<br>out but you can read the full reply here<br><br><br>http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/download/critical_review.pdf<br><br><br>I've had a lot of help double checking the facts so that we reply to<br>misinformation with hard math and peer reviewed research.<br><br><br>Will try to engage BioFuelWatch in a public debate in Durban this December.<br><br><br>Hope those of you who choose to read the reply will find it informative,<br>factual and helpful for your work as well.<br><br><br>Nat of WorldStove<br><br><br><br><br>p.s. a very nice write up, by Trevor Mark Surridge , of how we do our work<br>can be found here.<br>http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/download/research_paper.pdf<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL:<br><http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a<br>ttachments/20110717/47ba84b1/attachment-0001.html><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:21:29 +0100<br>From: Steve Taylor <steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk><br>To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br> <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br>Subject: Re: [Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest<br> imprecise reporting of facts.<br>Message-ID:<br> <CAGW2POjAadNsgOqDC36Tk3LaCo_+g_qGd-KKjG30MWszPTD__Q@mail.gmail.com><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>On 18 July 2011 02:10, Nat of WorldStove <nataniele@aim.com> wrote:<br><br>><br>> For three years now BioFuelWatch has been attacking WorldStove for our<br>> efforts to help improve the lives of others through the use of LuciaStoves<br>> and Biochar. In our latest reply to them, we document three years of<br>> information we have provided for them and that they have chosen to ignore.<br>><br>><br>> With three new large programs it's taken me a bit to get the time to<br>> reply out but you can read the full reply here<br>><br>> http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/download/critical_review.pdf<br>><br>> I've had a lot of help double checking the facts so that we reply to<br>> misinformation with hard math and peer reviewed research.<br>><br><br>A masterful putdown. Nat, well written and to the point.<br><br>Steve<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL:<br><http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a<br>ttachments/20110718/7d89318b/attachment-0001.html><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 4<br>Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:30:43 -0400<br>From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott@gmail.com><br>To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"<br> <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br>Subject: Re: [Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest<br> imprecise reporting of facts.<br>Message-ID: <039e01cc4568$0b5c85b0$22159110$@gmail.com><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br><br>Dear Nat<br><br> <br><br>I read the article at<br>http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/download/critical_review.pdf and<br>repeat here your question near the end: <br><br> <br><br>"Why does BioFuelWatch refute fact and science, which we continue to cite."<br><br> <br><br>When you are dealing with a funded organisation responsible one way or<br>another to donors, you have to tout and shout the current (funded) memes.<br>This is apparently an organisation that believes that the Earth's climate,<br>which changes massively and continuously all by itself, can be brought to<br>stasis by the All-Powerful Hand of Man fiddling the level of CO2 in the<br>atmosphere. That alone is so unscientific that it beggars belief they follow<br>any scientific path at all, let along one that includes your observations<br>and supporting documents.<br><br> <br><br>I, frankly, have never heard of them and their anti-biochar position and<br>doubt they can do much to prevent the likes of you and me demonstrating all<br>sorts of technologies and their benefits.<br><br> <br><br>The first three links in your letter did not work. The 4th did:<br>http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/agrofuels_and_biochar_article.pdf which<br>outlines the massive subsidies to the beneficiaries of a lobby that seeks<br>money in order to survive. If there were no CO2 argument, there would be no<br>subsidy, so guess what, they flog it and the money rolls in. Agrofuels. Not<br>even 'biofuels' any more.<br><br> <br><br>One of the 'difficult sells' with biochar is not going to go away: having<br>collected the fuel, why not burn it all. If someone wants to get more carbon<br>in the ground, plant trees. If someone wants biochar for agriculture, set up<br>an industry to do that. It is fundamental that having procured, processed,<br>dried and prepared a fuel for the fire, it is unwise to throw any of it<br>away. There must be cases where it makes sense,. But a heck of a lot where<br>it does not.<br><br> <br><br>Everything proposed by the char producing stove seems, in my limited view,<br>to involve work for the stove user. If that work can be very limited and the<br>application of the small amount of char generated is concentrated on a small<br>portion of land, or as you point, dosed onto individual plants, it is<br>excusable. But not if there is no additional fuel readily available (because<br>the high energy portion is being tossed). But not if there is a net increase<br>in fuel taken from the source. It looks strange to see the ordinary need<br>for cooking being turned into a complex battle between agriculturalists and<br>rent-seekers trying to bring an ever-changing climate to a halt. <br><br> <br><br>They are attacking your products because they have no idea what they are<br>doing. That is my conclusion, on several levels. Wow.<br><br> <br><br>Your stoves work fine. If they could burn more of the carbon, so much the<br>better. Sitting in my urban shack having found a piece of a truck pallet to<br>cook for the night, I would rather have the heat than some black char to<br>toss outside in the roadside where it will be crushed and blown around my<br>already dirty, dusty township.<br><br> <br><br>While there is no one, perfect answer, there is also no perfect<br>understanding and far more than one path. One far too common element is so<br>many people grasping at money, and failing that, straws. In their view, you,<br>Nat, are collateral damage.<br><br> <br><br>Your fan,<br><br>Crispin<br><br> <br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL:<br><http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a<br>ttachments/20110718/0f9dd10c/attachment-0001.html><br><br>------------------------------<br><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<br>.org<br><br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>http://www.bioenergylists.org/<br><br><br>End of Stoves Digest, Vol 11, Issue 15<br>**************************************<br><br><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></body></html>