<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" 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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>You make a number of good points and raise interesting questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>First the CO2 thing: The improve stoves burn about 30-40% less coal to provide the same amount of heat. I can’t prove people don’t lead more comfortable lives by living warmer. If they don’t then the CO2 reduction is 30-40%, or about 400,000 tons per year. It is a drop in the bucket. I don’t begrudge people their warm hearth.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>3. An impoverished household in Mongolia or elsewhere that can cook and heat cleanly (health-wise) with coal is another truly small fish regarding its CO2 footprint. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Exactly. There is no room for fanaticism at forty below.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>We should not be working or advocating against them having coal-burning stoves that are CLEAN for their health (CO2 is not poisonous). <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Correct.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Crispin, do you have numbers (CO2, black carbon, methane, etc.) about the climate impact of the new coal burners <u>in comparison with </u>the climate impact of the old-style coal burners? <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I do not have methane numbers. Insignificant. BC, the % reduction is large but BC is short lived anyway. The impact of P< is affected by the fact that there is a lot of air pollution from the desert, roads, vehicles and smoking. Having a smoker in the house is far worse than breathing heavily polluted outdoor air (most people are not aware of that).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>How much better (lower climate impact)? <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Thar requires an impact assessment of the climate impact of CO2. The feeling these days is that for a doubling of CO2 the global temperature will rise about 0.6 to 0.9 degrees. That makes the impact of stoves miniscule, and the difference for changing the stoves vanishingly small. My advice is, take the CO2 money and run. Do something useful with it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Is that improvement not sufficient justification to stimulate (financially bolster) the transition from the old to the new coal burners? <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>It depends on the carbon market which is in poor shape.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>5. The GACC certainly embraces clean burning LPG and natural gas, and would like to have clean-burning kerosene stoves. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>They explained their position last November and it appears to be the immediate banning of coal and kerosene combustion, the early phasing out of wood combustion and replacing them with LPG and electricity. I have not seen any mention of natural gas.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>To leave LPG in and exclude coal is hypocrisy that must be addressed at the GACC Forum in November. Either all cleanly burned fossil fuels and their stoves must be acceptable to the GACC, or no fossil fuels should be in the GACC discussions and programs. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Good luck with that. It depends on who you want to ignore you. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Fossil fuels with GOOD stoves are either ALL IN or art ALL OUT. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>To address that seriously, comprehensively, you would have to address the issue of whether or not oil and natural gas really are fossil fuels and not produced naturally in the Earth below critical depths. Then the whole CO<sub>2</sub> thing. Gov Brown was on TV blaming the California fires on man-made global warming. There is an El Nino going now (causing the drought). There is no connection at all between CO<sub>2</sub> and El Ninos. Do we want stove development and project funding to be directed by something that shaky? I would rather have less money but based on common sense and science. If CO<sub>2</sub> becomes unfashionable will we just jump on the next bandwagon?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>At the Forum, certainly the World Bank and other financial backers of the Mongolia success will be advocating for coal to be included, along with the attendees from Mongolia. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>It is politically incorrect to talk about coal. It is far more likely whole populations will just carry using what they have available. I would like them to use it very efficiently and cleanly. That is not going to happen without significant interventions. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>All in or all out!!! Or does climate change trump family health?<span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Here below is what a rare reader of this list said yesterday on that subject. It is someone who wishes to remain anonymous. Their position is that the stove community is filled with nutters and have manifestly failed to bring much benefit to anyone. This is a voice from the professional world of developmental health. A lot of people are fed up with the claims made by stove programs. They have seen the money flow and the lack of delivery and impact. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Brace yourself<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>+++++++<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Do you think there is an incentive in public health departments of the [PC] variety to show that some coals are inherently better than others? Check into some mining schools or an OTA publication <i>Direct Use of Coal</i>, 1978. The stover community is by and large the "renewable biomass" zealots. They worship trees, and demonize coal. They found soulmates in the California Cowboys on energy and health when Shell Foundation organized Household Energy and Health chatter in Jul-Sept 2001. They will next claim that water boiling tests in Bangladesh confirm that uncontrolled water vapor is toxic because it has Arsenic in it. <br><br>Napoleon supposedly said "Do not rush to ascribe to conspiracy that which mere stupidity would suffice to explain." Upon calm reflection, it is obvious that Napoleon only advised us not to rush. Do not be content with ascribing to stupidity that which stinks to high heaven of conspiracy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Coal will survive longer than wood in many areas of the developing world so long as there are miners. Wood isn't cheap. Land, water and labor opportunity costs are high. Also, it is a ludicrous assumption that just a battery of hi-falutin' tests and fancy pronouncements from Berkeley, Washington, and Geneva would convince "nations" to ban coal and switch to wood. Ain't happening in India in the next 30 years. While these Neros burn Rome, er wood, in their stoves, cooks will be playing fiddle. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Any presentations that mass adoption of superduper woodstoves will save 200 million lives (over the next 50 years, taking into account higher fertility rates and longevity increments at the bottom of the pyramid) are mere infomercials for the gullible. I fail to understand such debates as this are even taking place. Confirms my decades old suspicion that the stover community itself is "indoor air pollution" - huddling in a room, closing doors and windows, ignoring chemistry and culture alike, because they have to save the trees, or now the people. They didn't save many trees, wouldn't save many people (if at all, continue to recruit new converts, offering PhDs in return). <br><br>Forty years of failure - improved woodstoves. Forty more years? Our daughters deserve better.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>