<div dir="ltr">Moderator, List: I sent a partial post in error. Here is the complete version. <br><br>Thanks, <div><br>Nikhil<div><div class="gmail-m_8559913543534125798gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px">--------- </span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br><br><div dir="ltr">Let me first clear up some mild misconceptions: <div><br></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>a) I think Mr. Stanley is in error when he says, "remains a policy mechanism of the US government." Support to GACC was indeed part of Mrs Clinton's program, but I think very little money flowed from US government to GACC Secretariat other than some songs and dance. Some entrepreneurship development and support funds may have gone from State, USAID, or country diplomatic missions and these may have also helped generate revenue from other governments and private sector by an implicit "pay and play" promise, but I don't think that formed the bulk of US government financial support. Rather, a large part of such support What Mrs Clinton was able to accomplish is start EPA and HHS (Health and Human Services, directly or via NIH/CDC) funding for research and promotion, and inspire get Kerry and Obama to promise more funding and cajole more "Cooking Ambassadors" like Chef Jose Andres (who is being sued by The Donald). </div></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>That is, Crispin is correct that GACC Secretariat, which to my knowledge has so far got money from non-US governments and private sector. (UN Foundation as a whole has its own funds; not sure how much it gets from foreign governments. GACC does not publish financial reports and is an opaque activity with no public accounting, just evaluation reports to the donors). </div></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>b) Crispin is in error when he says, "The general goals of bringing healthier and more convenient living to women around the world is a policy of the US State Department. That is very unlikely to change, ever." It was Mrs Clinton who claimed US foreign policy will be based on three D's - <a href="http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/perfrpt/2010/html/153715.htm">Diplomacy, Defense, and Development</a>. While JFK is going around the world preaching rich man's sermons to <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/11/264446.htm">empower poor women</a> (last Friday in Peru), it was to advertise "Healthy Women Healthy Economies", a STEM initiative, no mention of cookstoves. Policies can be changed in a moment; that is what elections are for. There might still be gala parties and silly propaganda like <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radha-muthiah/20-men-who-care-about-cle_b_9408962.html">20 Men Who Care About Clean Cooking</a>. (I remember a UN Foundation dinner party for celebrities at the Willard Intercontinental. There is a lot of money in doing good and doing it badly.) </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"> </div><div dir="ltr"><div>On the other hand, Mrs Clinton has lost the election but that only means that if she chooses to, she can become a more active agent in GACC's goals and activities. The Leadership Council of GACC lost Antonio Gueterres to the UN, and had Mrs Clinton been in the White House, she would herself not have been able to channel funds to GACC. Now the Republican Congress may terminate the EPA and HHS programs - most of it useless galavanting, poverty tourism for peer-patted journals - but that is not certain. Currently the US government is running on "Continuing Resolution" basis, but as early as two weeks, the Congress can choose to eliminate EPA, HHS funds on what might have been seen as Mrs Clinton's agenda. I am sure the remaining Democrats will fight to continue, but Sens. Barbara Boxer and Mikulski are gone while Dick Durbin and Susan Collins, cosponsors of a black carbon bill, are still around. See <a href="http://www.bna.com/eyeing-democratic-majority-n73014446212/">this</a> for pre-election irrational exuberance. <br><br>Let me quote from a speech of Republican Senator from Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, in a <a href="http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-worldwide-threat#">2011 speech</a> at an open hearing for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, </div><div><br></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div>"But in these difficult economic times, resources are certainly a challenge. Resources are not infinite and must be prioritized. I caution the IC to not spread itself too thin in trying to respond to every potential national security issue without an honest assessment of your capabilities to add value. In my opinion, assessments produced in the past year--such as ``The Technology on Fresh Water Availability in 2040'' and ``The Devil in the Corner: Cookstoves and the Developing World''--have no place in the IC."</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div> </div><div>Whoa!! I didn't know that US Intelligence on Worldwide Threats had produced a threat from cookstoves!! Presumably "Secret", though might show up on Wikileaks or Mr. Wiener's laptop. <br><br>But then I know how bureaucracies have fads and need to please Madam Secretary. <br><br>Except that the Congress holds the purse. Who cares what The Donald thinks or says? Butter up Mitt - likely the next SOS - and get him to request extension of EPA, HHS grants from his Republican friends and followers on the Hill. <br><br></div><div>Mrs Clinton may not have the clout of "pay and play" of the Clinton Foundation in the years past, but she, if she wishes to, can now freely raise funds for GACC Secretariat if it can demonstrate competence to do the real policy and project work, not just fine-wine-dine-and-shine events at Delhi Imperial Hotel and White House South Lawn, the CEO collecting hefty bonuses for fund-raising. </div><div><br></div><div>Mrs. Clinton can earn such bonuses and take over UN Foundation, make a tripartite alliance of Turner (UN), Gates, and Clinton Foundations to pool some $2-3 billion a year for health and climate resilience of the poor. She has friends in high places still. <br><br>There is a lot of work to be done and members of this List should help reform GACC and draw in Mrs Clinton's support. </div><div><br></div><div>Nikhil</div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 06:17:36 +0000<br>
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>><br>
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'<br>
<<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.o<wbr>rg</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Future of GACC<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:YTOPR01MB023555FA10376C7FC154901FB1B40@YTOPR01MB0235.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM" target="_blank">YTOPR01MB023555FA10376C7FC154<wbr>901FB1B40@YTOPR01MB0235.CANPRD<wbr>01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Dear Anil<br>
<br>
The GACC is a project of the United National Foundation. The UNF is an organisation that cooperates in achieving the foreign policy goals of the US State Department. The general goals of bringing healthier and more convenient living to women around the world is a policy of the US State Department. That is very unlikely to change, ever.<br>
<br>
Whether the effectiveness of expenditure on the ?vehicle? of stoves is higher or lower than alternatives is something for the policy makers to assess. As most of the money accessible by the UNF is from foreign agencies, it is likely that the general goals will remain as will the funding remain in the international pool. If the goal is not taken up by one organisation, it will be take up by another, in the sense that the firehose will remain open, but the nozzle may point in different directions.<br>
<br>
Good question<br>
Crispin<br><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 23:29:51 -0800<br>
From: "<a href="mailto:Rstanley@mind.net" target="_blank">Rstanley@mind.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:rstanley@mind.net" target="_blank">rstanley@mind.net</a>><br>
To: Stoves and Biofuels Network <<a href="mailto:Stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">Stoves@lists.bioenergylists.o<wbr>rg</a>><br>
Subject: [Stoves] Future of the GACC<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4ED41AEA-C91C-4187-B4E4-E55A821CE553@mind.net" target="_blank">4ED41AEA-C91C-4187-B4E4-E55A8<wbr>21CE553@mind.net</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
Crispin,<br>
As a bona fide citisen of the US part of the Americas, and as recovering from the recent election and the early indicators of appointees I have to suggest Crispin, that I do not share your same confidence as our fortunate northern neighbor.<br>
We are experiencing a severe change in policy towards race, gender equality, environment and a host of other issues here, and funding sources aside, the GACC, no matter how well intended, remains a policy mechanism of the US government. That policy can change rather quickly on the whims of the administration in control.<br>
Richard Stanley<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
<br> <br>
******************************<wbr>********<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</div><br></div></div>