<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>Dear Stovers and Discussants (if you are not stovers)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>Samer indirectly asks if this: “…</span>centric approach serves the 'poor' or the 'environment'.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>Consider this: steel sheeting is made without no anticipation of the products that will be formed from it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>A stove designer forms a product from steel sheets, limited by his or her understanding of what might be possible using it. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>Nature produces a variety of fuels with different properties and strengths with no concern as to what possible fire may consume them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>A cook buys the stove and creates foods unimagined by the stove designer or the steel maker. The cook uses the fuels in ways unseen in natural fires. The cook makes the fire and the stove sing and dance, performing the required actions, producing the right amount of heat, light, and food.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>Which is the most important, the most significant, the most influential factor creating the final products? The cook. Without understanding the needs, desires, intentions and skills of the cooks, how is it possible to design a stove or fuel, or combination, that will do what is needed? It is not possible.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>Homogenizing the production and broadening the footprint of distribution of improved stoves carries great risks, mostly the risk of failure to adopt. Similarly the introduction of subsidized fuels has multiple intended and unintended consequences.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>With this in mind we should recognize there are two large scale agendas at work. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>The first is those who would replace the stoves with products that are far more efficient and flexible, attractive to own and worth investing in for comfort and pleasure with reduced PM and CO emissions and which make better use of the available energy carriers. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>The second is that group which seek to remove solid fuels altogether from the kitchen, promoting as they do and will, electricity, LPG, natural gas and light fraction liquid fuels. Their byline is 'to provide clean cooking solutions to those who have traditionally been forced to burn solid fuels'. The implication is that there are no 'clean-burning' solid fuels which rather sets their agenda against that of the first group.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>Old-timers may remember the contribution by Liz Bates (former editor of Boiling Point magazine) remarking on the improvement in the lives of cooks in Sudan who received subsidised LPG stoves and fuel. LPG is a wonderful solution to IAQ problems, but does LPG address all the social and material needs of the users of fire?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>Let's ask Cecil.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>Regards<br>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'>===============<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-CA'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Dear Jock,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I found the article very stimulating. Of course, there is much that can be examined in terms of how the global stoves 'industry' is developing. For instance, if one examines the topics discussed at the ETHOS meetings year in and out, there are moments when clear shifts in what is being discussed (and who discusses) occur. As I read it, the broad trend has shifted from concerns of design, implementation, and marketing in context, to global markets (e.g. carbon credits, international testing standards, advocacy).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>This trajectory will have foreseeable benefits for energy-oriented bilateral agreements, mass manufacturers of stoves, NGOs/corporations that will tap into carbon offsets, and laboratories authorized to certify stoves, etc. Along with this is a strong *claim* that this global market-centric approach serves the 'poor' or the 'environment'.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I wish to stay way from simple dichotomous arguments of global/local, top-down/bottom-up, standardized/pluralism, or laboratory/field, but certainly the 'regenerative capitalism' approach you suggest might demand a reconsideration of this trend towards standardization, scale, and donor-driven markets? What alternatives might your approach suggest?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Your thoughts on this matter are appreciated!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Best,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Samer<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>