<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">Andrew - see few comments below<br><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Andrew C. Parker" <acparker@xmission.com><br><b>To: </b>"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, December 27, 2011 12:08:50 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar - Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon<br><br>Ron,<br><br>I ran across the article while reviewing news of Cameroon at <br>allafrica.com, something I do about once a month to keep up with news in <br>the Bakassi area. I posted it without comment and asked that it be <br>forwarded to the Biochar list. Until your cross-post, there had been no <br>discussion of the article.<br><br> <strong>[RWL: Thanks for asking for that extension - which Tom Miles did. There was no mention of this latest BFW material on the stoves list - only on 5 Biochar lists - because BFW isn't interested in stoves and there were none used in The Cameroon.]</strong><br><br>I was inclined to let sleeping dogs lie, but since you broke the ice, I <br>strongly disagree with your statement that, "It doesn't belong - there is <br>zero stoves aspect to the BFW story." You continually advocate biochar on <br>this list, yet an article critical of the merits of biochar and carbon <br>credit schemes has no place in the discussion? <br><br> <strong>[RWL: Three minutes after the stoves list received your note (this AM), there was a message from the lists owner - Tom MIles, saying (to Yury) in his final sentences</strong>:<br> <span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-style: italic;">"So
discussion about improved biomass cooking stoves belongs on this list.
Discussion about biochar belongs on the biochar lists unless you are
making biochar with a cooking stove.</span>"<br> <span style="font-weight: bold;">It was in this same spirit that I made my statement. I am pretty sure I have only talked about Biochar on the stoves list in the (very important) context of making char with simple stoves. So in answer to your last question above, is that critical articles certainly have a place on "stoves" - if there is a stove connection. In this case, I still believe there was no such connection (but I haven't gone back to check every word). The reason is that many on the stoves list don't care about the Biochar topic and even those who care are unlikely to know much about the behavior of char in soil - which is what BFW was (incorrectly) claiming was poor.</span>]<br><br style="font-style: italic;"> <br><br> I don't know or claim to <br>know if the article is correct or biased or a complete fabrication. I <br>felt it was important that people are aware of what is being discussed in <br>the broader arena. If I or someone else on this list am planning on using <br>a carbon credit scheme to fund a biochar producing stove project (purely, <br>hypothetical in my case), it makes perfect sense to know what policy <br>makers, clients, and donors are reading about it. More importantly, if I <br>or someone else on this list was looking at the possibility of promoting a <br>biochar producing stove by invoking carbon credits and soil improvement, <br>would it not be the professional thing to do to look at more than one side <br>of the story before committing time, money and reputation to it?<br> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL: Absolutely it would be the professional thing for all of us to look at more than one side - but you are much better off going to a site where there are knowledgeable people interested in that topic.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">I hope you will join the Biochar list community. - which has a lot of people also interested in charcoal-making stoves.]</span><br><br>I have read the BFW article and the discussion thread you referenced. I <br>recommend that those who are interested in the subject do the same. I <br>also did a quick search for BFW in my Stoves list archives and there are 3 <br>threads: "Have a look at Biochar Land Grabbing in Africa", April 26, 2010; <br>"Biochar", April 27, 2010; "WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest <br>imprecise reporting of facts.", July 17, 2011. An entertaining review, if <br>you have the time. I thought I had read something similar before, and now <br>I know why.<br> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL: Glad to hear your recommendation to read the cited "defense" of Rademakers. If there is something in error there, I hope we can hear what it is. <br> I haven't looked, but I'll bet there are at least ten times as many similar rebuttals of BFW on the Biochar sites - primarily on "Biochar-policy". We started talking about BFW about the time of the 2008 Newcastle meeting - when BFW first blasted Biochar. In my opinion, BFW has done a truly masterful job of PR - but lousy Science. I will try to make that point again on something I am now working on (and will <u>not</u> send to "Stoves"). <br> If anyone has read anything that sounds like BFW really has found a real problem with Biochar - please let me know which reference(s) they have cited. (BFW staff has done zero Biochar field/lab research as near as I can tell - and have no peer-reviewed Biochar literature they have authored themselves. But they are very skilled in all the ways that climate skeptics are skilled - in raising doubts.<br><br> I look forward to your (any) reaction to these comments.]</span><br><br><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ron</span><br><br>Andrew Parker<br><br><br><br><br><br>On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:01:41 -0700, <rongretlarson@comcast.net> wrote:<br><br>> Kevin and ccs:<br>><br>> 1. This is getting complicated - as the dialog has shifted from the BFW <br>> story on Africa/Rademakers over to the IBI material.prepared by Kelpie <br>> Wilson. <br><br> <snip - rest not pertinent here><br></div></div></body></html>