<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto" style="font-size:12.8px"><div>Paul: <br><br>This is my take on Ron's comments on the LPG Webinar and the rest of your questions on it. <br><br>----------<br><br>Every time I see the term "Climate Denial," I fear being declare mentally retarded by some psychiatrists and forced to suffer very high temperatures. <br><br>But I then cheer up when I see it from Ron. He is just engineering witchcraft -- abracadabra, poof, this where the world is moving!! :-) <br><br>That said, this is my response between *** below to some claims made by Ron in response to your questions on LPG Webinar. </div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>[RWL2: I don’t have the time now to prove this, but am sure we can find climate denial funding coming from this Association. </b></div><div><b><br></b></div>*** I hold no brief for WLPGA or any of its members, but thank you, LPG doesn't really need any marketing and it's a shame WLPGA has to waste its members' dues to fight climateer hysteria against all fossil fuels. It is grotesque that such hysteria arises largely from those comfortably ensconced in their comforts delivered by fossil fuels. To promote LPG for traditional ("uncontrolled") biomass combustion is not "climate denial"; quite the contrary. Please read up. Will save you time you waste in seeking to prove the ludicrous. <br><br>I argued in response to Frank Shields yesterday that biomass cannot be GHG-neutral. Go ahead, read up the rules and defend them to me. *** </div><div dir="auto" style="font-size:12.8px"><b><br></b></div><div dir="auto" style="font-size:12.8px"><b>[RWL4: <span style="white-space:pre-wrap">..</span></b><b>The word “biochar” appears 149 times - many excellent new cites - especially a large number from 2016. There are a few places I would quibble about - but a big improvement over previous CBD documents on biochar. No mention at all of LPG, but 88 uses of “fossil” and almost 1200 on “climate”. </b><b>The point perhaps is that this LPG-oriented study has failed to be thinking of where the world is moving.]</b></div><div dir="auto" style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">*** Perhaps. What does CBD have to do with LPG? I don't know "where the world is moving" except to more coal, oil and gas. Just read up some IEO or WEO forecasts for real people, please. Good luck with your world of some other future. *** </div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><b>[RWL5: When you are trying to go negative, every bit counts. Until we have net negative emissions, the global temperatures will continue to rise. My perception is that Kirk Smith believes this “low” is justified by the averted DALY’s. I think he and many are not including the potential for carbon negativity capabilities of TLUDs - which also have positive health benefits. But even more critical could be the cost reversal potential as biochar receives carbon credits in the future (I hope). Women in need of stretching limited funds could well choose to use an income-generating stove over one with an expensive, supposedly safer fuel.</b><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><b><br></b></div><span style="font-size:12.8px">*** Nobody is trying to go negative (except me). Would you do us all a favor and read Kirk Smith instead of just dropping his name and go on with your cite-o-logy? As for purported "health benefits", please bear in mind that Prof. Smith as well as WHO/IHME folks had "solid fuel use" as a practical surrogate for computing the BOD. That is, solid fuels were BY DEFINITION unhealthy and LPG, electricity were BY DEFINITION healthy. I have no problem with such short-cuts up to a point; getting to aDALYs poppycock for small populations is beyond my tolerance limits. </span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">As for "income generating" potential, there may be other choices for women of the next generation than continue as cooks. Just watch what has happened to making tortillas, injeras, and many breads and pastries around the developing world. Not to speak of snacks and juices, or now - as Teddy has pointed out - canned beans!! *** </span><div style="font-size:12.8px"><b><br></b></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><b>[RWL6: I hope this included some data gathering on the health impacts. It wouldn’t surprise me that such subsidies could be a good investment from a DALY perspective - so I hope someone reading this can comment on this payback question. Poor health is a terrible drain on national economies. But as we have been learning - a good stove in an otherwise unhealthy environment is not going to do much.</b></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><b><br></b></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">*** This is a bit confusing. What payback are you talking about, to whom? If I were the finance minister, I would like to see how much public health expenditures are reduced due to LPG subsidies, but frankly, I don't give a damn. My job is to make a plan for revenues and expenditures, and satisfy different interest groups. I may be persuaded by some academics if and when I want to be. It is also pretty difficult to measure "health impacts" and "gather data". Yes, Ajay can run some HAPIT scenarios for those who like to eat such souffles; I don't. Otherwise, your argument is theoretically correct -- transition to modern energy is generally a transition to higher levels of productivity and capital accumulation (including human capital). Subsidies can be good investments, but too many subsidies are justified as investments by special interests. (We just had Clinton and Sanders playing those word games.) *** </div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><b><br></b></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><b>[RWL7. Two personal hopes - a) climate change concerns could drown out the fossil companies; b) making money while you cook could entirely offset LPG interests. And a) and b) can be related - and there are not many options to a needy housewife as attractive to budgets as TLUDs.</b></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">*** Cute. Needy housewives of America in the past century did not have TLUDs. Fossil fuel companies and electric utilities have served humanities damn well; no wonder they have been financed pretty well by investors and lenders.*** </div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div><div style="font-size:12.8px">*** Sorry, I listened to Drs Johnson and Pillarisetti at their October Webinar and heard all that I needed to. *** </div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">------------------------------<wbr>-------------------</div><div dir="auto" style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Now some of your (Paul's) comments: </div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">"<span style="font-style:italic">3. Section on Women in LPG was about hiring more females. VERY few women in LPG activities (not counting the cooks). ---- This is PR work that makes sense. Not a complaint. Just a comment."<br><br></span>*** Sorry, I don't see the logic in some "affirmative action" for women anywhere and everywhere. A colleague/friend was the top notch US oil industry expert until she retired, and another worked on oil industry in Africa and pushed for gas/LPG promotion until she moved back to her country ten years ago; I also remembered yet another woman from the Indian Oil and Natural Gas Commission in the 1960s and 1970s. Capable women have jobs in LPG business and more will follow; leave companies to serve their shareholders, not ideologues of the academe or protest movements. ***<span style="font-style:italic"><br><br>"</span><span style="font-style:italic">4. In the world, LPG has 3 billion consumers. (accept that as a fact). (next might not be correctly noted: wanting to reach one billion (poor) people by 2030. ------ To me that says 5 people per household would be 200 million households. Admirable. But there are 500 million households with needs for clean cookstoves. So that looks like claiming 40% of the NEED to be taken care of by LPG. Wonderful. That will be mainly the more affluent of the needy people, not the BOP (Base of the Pyramid). So that leaves 60% to be handled by the other stove technologies. All of that is fine with me IF (big IF) LPG was not sucking up so much of the subsidy money and if LPG was not carbon positive. Being carbon neutral is harder to do. And being carbon NEGATIVE is even harder, but is done by the char-making TLUD stoves, that are NOT getting subsidies and do not need imported fuels."<br><br>***</span>Needy people need not have own money to make the initial transition from traditional combustion to modern combustion of solid fuels or to liquid/gaseous fuels or electricity. It is enough that their governments have the money to spend on subsidies, for stoves, fuels, or (as Anil would have it) cooked meals. Modern energy transition did not begin just in the kitchens, nor did it stay there. I am amused at the "solid biomass for household cookstoves" obsession of the Stoves communities; there are many opportunity to develop marketable technology and compete with other technologies.<br><br>Who cares if LPG is "carbon positive"? (It is not, against the baseline of traditional biomass consumption. I don't believe in fNRB chicanery, but even if I did, the GHG accounting is clear enough in favor of LPG.) Boys and Girls of Paris? Even if there is a ceiling on net carbon accumulation in the atmosphere (there isn't), it is axiomatic that some emissions will increase and some will decline and that as yet, there is no binding limit on any country, leave alone from LPG. <br><br>It doesn't matter that LPG is imported into some countries. So is clothing or sugar or renewable energy consultants. And yes, LPG is indeed sucking up so much of the subsidy money worldwide (exact numbers even IMF cooks can't get right, have gone down with the world price of oil). But that is because people prefer LPG over solid fuels for many applications. It is only slightly less controllable and versatile than electricity. For a third of LPG distribution costs, perhaps three times as much cooking could be delivered by TLUD stoves but the proof of "usable and used" is still missing. Gasoline and LPG burners have been around for more than a century. *** <br><br><span style="font-style:italic">"5. Also made a comment that LPG is "Low GHG." Nothing more said about that. </span><i>——"</i><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><i><br></i></div>*** Let's wait till Ron reads Kirk Smith and gets back to us. *** <div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">"<span style="font-style:italic">6. Three countries named:</span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-style:italic">A. Brazil is 95% connected for LPG. (That is "availability".) ------- No mention of cost/benefits or subsidy. Success story.</span><br><br><span style="font-style:italic">B. India is getting started. Later comments mention 67% penetration / access, ----- because households in or near urban areas where LPG is sold somewhere . Access means COULD get an LPG tank. Seeking massive LPG </span><u style="font-style:italic">coverage</u><span style="font-style:italic"> in the next 3 years. That could be distribution so that access is possible, and not about actual usage.</span><br><br><span style="font-style:italic">C. Indonesia. The numbers I copied down were: 57 million household are already in the LPG user-camp, and that the subsidy money to do that was US$ 14.6 BILLION. Nothing more was said. ------ So I submitted a comment/question that will have its answer when the webinar (and answered questions) are available for everyone. Check my math, but $14,600 Millions divided by 57 Millions is $256 SUBSIDY PER HOUSEHOLD. Ouch!!!! That does not seem possible. "<br></span><br>*** There have been several reports on Brazil and India, though I haven't read on Brazil in the last five years. I know every little on Indonesia except that back 30 years ago they were considering LPG lamps and I did some scenarios of LPG v. grid electrification. Sort of like "improved stoves" or "solar lighting" as intermediary steps to costlier options. Bear in mind that Indonesia had huge kerosene subsidy for decades, and LPG subsidy replaced it. This story <a href="http://www.insideindonesia.org/somethings-cooking" target="_blank">here</a> - I just checked - says 57 million STARTER KITS were distributed; that is different from household numbers. Subsidy figure of 31 trillion rupiahs for 2016 there comes to US$2.4 billion at 13,000 Rp/US$, so the average subsidy is roughly $42 per kit per year; one household may have more than one kit. ("Household" has no meaning as such except in census terms, and even then definitions vary. I don't know why people are so hung up on "household".) Also look <a href="https://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/ffs_indonesia_lpgwkshop_factsheet.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> for some comparisons over time and with other countries; obviously, the subsidy burden has come down with the drop in the price of oil. (Indonesia is now a net oil importer.) <br><br>As for India, a "qualified household" gets an LPG "connection" from one of the LPG suppliers and is entitled to a per month subsidy for a 14 kg cylinder. That is, if all works according to design, the customer is ensured of subsidized LPG supplies up to 14 kg a month. This scheme began more than 50 years ago, no thanks to any public health reports and aDALY computations. Last I checked, subsidy levels varied by state and by consumer, but about $10 a month or $120 a year. *** <br><br><span style="font-style:italic">"And this raises the question of what is in the works already for India which is more than 4 times larger in population than Indonesia. Some sort of cost/benefit analysis might be appropriate."<br></span><br>*** Yeah. Some folks like IISD or IMF get stomach upset thinking about fossil fuel subsidies and want to do cost/benefit analysis for climate change. Who cares? Let's also remove taxes on fossil fuels and see most governments around the world collapse.*** <br><br>"<i>7. The importance of the role of government in the provision of stove policies (and regulations about LPG importation and handling/distribution) was emphasized by the speakers. —— Certainly a correct statement, and the big-business LPG companies have much more contact and impact than do the little guys."<br></i><br>*** For various reasons. *** <br><br>"<span style="font-style:italic">8. There was a section on LPG in humanitarian aid, specifically mentioning refugee camps. Presentation spoke poorly of "Traditional fuels". One presentation spoke about the provision of LPG to refugee camps that are occupied for many years and are likely to remain in place for more years. The presenters suggestion for consideration is that maybe the camps should have LPG piped in instead of trucking in the LPG canisters. ------ "<br></span><br>*** Probably meant plastic pipe distribution from a central tank. Long-term camps need individual cooking; can't be public meals all the time. (I served oatmeal porridge to children in refugee camps. It was cooked on wood.) *** <br><br><span style="font-style:italic">"9. A very interesting segment of the presentation was about Haiti. ...</span><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-style:italic">D. For household (HH) stoves, the LPG target is 10,000 for low income HH. Have done 1150 thus far. Cost is $100 for the economy version and $160 for the premium version. ----- Haiti has about 2 million households, so there is no talk of covering 40% of those households with LPG. </span><br><br><span style="font-style:italic">E. How to fund these LPG products? Utilize the money of the 400,000 Haitians who live in the USA (and more in other countries) who send remittences to Haiti to support their relatives, etc. Called "Diaspora" Haitians. Mentioned making contact with the main Haitian-in-USA TV station to spread the word. "</span></blockquote>*** BUT that is precisely what the GACC study is thinking -- 1 million households, to be funded by some "health" money cooked up according to Ajay's recipes!! " </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>--------- </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">(US +1) 202-568-5831<br><i> </i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Paul Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Ron and Stovers,<br>
<br>
Ron's message below has his comments about my report on the LPG
stove webinar (but he used the Subject line of a different message,
so I have changed back to the LPG stove webinar Subject line.<br>
<br>
I thank Ron for his thoughtful comments.<br>
<br>
Ron asked specifically about the Canadian-funded initiative for
cookstoves in Haiti. The basic info is from the GACC on 5 pages
at:<br>
<a class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/RESOURCE/file/000/000/476-1.pdf" target="_blank">https://cleancookstoves.org/<wbr>binary-data/RESOURCE/file/000/<wbr>000/476-1.pdf</a>
That was written in about June 2016.<br>
<br>
Of interest in that document are the following lines:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In FAQ 2: ....The use of solid fuels also
results in a range of climate-damaging emissions</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> In FAQ 3. ....thus the substitution of
clean fuels is expected to result in a net climate benefit. The
application of robust stove standards and testing protocols is
expected to shift the market to better cooking technologies and
cleaner fuels. ..... <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> .... and will improve livelihoods through
lower expenditures for solid fuel for cooking...</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In FAQ 4. .... • Strengthen the supply of
clean and efficient cookstoves and clean fuels by improving
inclusive value chains... </blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> In FAQ 13. Such an assessment may include
the expected climate impacts or benefits from the use of
particular fuels recommended under the initiative ;</blockquote>
Sounds sweet and neutral, but it is blackballing of solid fuels
(particularly wood) and the promotion of "clean fuels." WE on the
SToves Listserv know that fuels are not dirty. But the writers of
the FAQ page about Haiti evidently do not. I suspect that the LPG
advocates have a heavy hand in these statements. LPG is planning
(as announced on the LPG stove Webinar) a major push into Haiti. <br>
<br>
Did someone read that the GACC is neutral about stove technology and
stove fuels???? I hope that the Canadians are real careful about
what they let others do with their money.<br>
<br>
Also, <br>
<blockquote type="cite">In FAQ 7. .... across our diverse partner
base, including over 54 national government partners,.... <br>
</blockquote>
Really???? 54???? Some influencial contacts in Haiti might
question that statement.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-size:18.4px;font-family:sans-serif">Also in FAQ 7: If your
organization is activelyworking in Haiti and would like to stay
informed of the Alliance’s efforts there, please ensure that
this is reflected in your partner profile in our online partner
directory</div>
</blockquote>
We know of some (including myself) who have been listed for years as
GACC Partners working in Haiti who were not even informed of this
new initiative, and were left out of meetings in Haiti. And whose
requests for minutes or drafts or other information about the past 6
months of planning have yielded zero information. (see next item)<br>
<div style="font-size:18.4px;font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-size:23.4px;font-family:sans-serif">10.WHAT IS THE TIMING FOR THE
INITIATIVE?</div>
<div style="font-size:18.4px;font-family:sans-serif">TheAlliance began work on the scoping
and mapping activities in June 2016.The plan is expected to be
completed by January2017.</div>
</blockquote>
It is now into the holiday season of Dec. And the expected
completion is by January (next month). Really??? Maybe the
planners have all the inputs that they think that they need. <br>
<br>
This message is going to Stovers Listserv and also specifically to
the Haiti coordinator for the GACC activities in Haiti, and higher
GACC personnel.<br>
*********************<br>
<br>
Also:<br>
Since June, the GACC released: <br>
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves<br>
Haiti Cookstoves and Fuels Market Assessment<br>
Preliminary Report<br>
<br>
I have a .pdf copy (4 MB), and cannot find the source document on
the Internet / GACC website. If you and others cannot find it,
please let me know. It is a very informative document, but I
cannot give you the link to it at this time.<br>
<br>
(And do read Ron's comments below about the LPG stove webinar.)<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:(309)%20452-7072" value="+13094527072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180moz-cite-prefix">On 12/17/2016 4:58 PM, Ronal W. Larson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Paul et al:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I
agree with all you have added. Here I only want to thank you
(tardily) for the little bit of your message that I have NOT
excised (and then also personally try to add to (as you have
requested) the good report you gave). See more below.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Dec 17, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Paul Anderson <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Ron and
Nikhil and Crispin and others,<br>
<br>
<snip two lines><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> I do note
that not a single person sent any message about my summary
of the LPG-stoves webinar. I thought that the data about
subsidies etc and not reaching the truly impoverished in
sustainable ways would get some reaction. No problem.
That topic is over.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[RWL: I apologize for not saying thanks right away.
I don’t think many will mind if I reopen the topic. I only
heard the last part of the webinar, and hoped to get back to
it when it was released. So here is what you said on the 15th
(that I have italicized for clarity). I am commenting only
where I hope to add something new.</b><br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><i><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Comments: (forgive me if my notes are
faulty, but I think I am saying things correctly.)</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">1.
---- Not a nice word said about biomass/solid fuels.
To be expected. Not a complaint. They were advocating /
"selling" LPG.</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">2.
The industry association (WLPGA) has 250 members and 1.4
million employees. ---- I calculate that to be 5600
employees per member. Wow. GACC has 1600 partners,
many with 5 or fewer employees (many who are the
owners). LPG is BIG business and has deep pockets. </span></i></div>
<div><i><br>
</i></div>
<div><i><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></i><b>[RWL2: I don’t have the time now to prove this,
but am sure we can find climate denial funding coming from
this Association. </b><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">3. Section on Women in LPG was about
hiring more females. VERY few women in LPG activities (not
counting the cooks). ---- This is PR work that makes
sense. Not a complaint. Just a comment.</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">4. In the world, LPG has 3 billion
consumers. (accept that as a fact). (next might not be
correctly noted: wanting to reach one billion (poor) people
by 2030. ------ To me that says 5 people per household
would be 200 million households. Admirable. But there are
500 million households with needs for clean cookstoves. So
that looks like claiming 40% of the NEED to be taken care of
by LPG. Wonderful. That will be mainly the more affluent
of the needy people, not the BOP (Base of the Pyramid). So
that leaves 60% to be handled by the other stove
technologies. All of that is fine with me IF (big IF) LPG
was not sucking up so much of the subsidy money and if LPG
was not carbon positive. Being carbon neutral is harder to
do. And being carbon NEGATIVE is even harder, but is done
by the char-making TLUD stoves, that are NOT getting
subsidies and do not need imported fuels. </span></div>
<div><i><br>
</i></div>
<div><i><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></i><b>[RWL4: I spend a majority of my time these days on
a list called “Geoengineering” - particularly hot right now
as we are discussing a just-ended major COP (Conference of
Parties) meeting in Cancun (Mexico) on CBD (the Convention
on Biodiversity). I am still learning, but presume there
was not much favorable said there about LPG. My impression
on the handling of biochar (to be produced via TLUDs and
many other ways) was appreciably better than earlier by the
CBD. See this document: </b></div>
<div><b><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.cbd.int/doc/<wbr>publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf</a>
</b></div>
<div><b><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The
word “biochar” appears 149 times - many excellent new cites
- especially a large number from 2016. There are a few
places I would quibble about - but a big improvement over
previous CBD documents on biochar. No mention at all of
LPG, but 88 uses of “fossil” and almost 1200 on “climate”. </b></div>
<div><b><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The
point perhaps is that this LPG-oriented study has failed to
be thinking of where the world is moving<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
</b><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">5. Also made a comment that LPG is
"Low GHG." Nothing more said about that. </span><i>——</i></div>
<div><i><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></i><b>[RWL5: When you are trying to go negative, every
bit counts. Until we have net negative emissions, the
global temperatures will continue to rise. My perception is
that Kirk Smith believes this “low” is justified by the
averted DALY’s. I think he and many are not including the
potential for carbon negativity capabilities of TLUDs
- which also have positive health benefits. But even more
critical could be the cost reversal potential as biochar
receives carbon credits in the future (I hope). Women in
need of stretching limited funds could well choose to use an
income-generating stove over one with an expensive,
supposedly safer fuel.</b><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">6. Three countries named:</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">A. Brazil is 95% connected for LPG.
(That is "availability".) ------- No mention of
cost/benefits or subsidy. Success story.</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">B. India is getting started. Later
comments mention 67% penetration / access, ----- because
households in or near urban areas where LPG is sold
somewhere . Access means COULD get an LPG tank. Seeking
massive LPG </span><u style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">coverage</u><span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> in the next 3 years. That could be
distribution so that access is possible, and not about
actual usage.</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">C. Indonesia. The numbers I copied
down were: 57 million household are already in the LPG
user-camp, and that the subsidy money to do that was US$
14.6 BILLION. Nothing more was said. ------ So I
submitted a comment/question that will have its answer when
the webinar (and answered questions) are available for
everyone. Check my math, but $14,600 Millions divided by 57
Millions is $256 SUBSIDY PER HOUSEHOLD. Ouch!!!! That
does not seem possible. </span></div>
<div><i><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></i><b>[RWL6: I hope this included some data gathering
on the health impacts. It wouldn’t surprise me that such
subsidies could be a good investment from a DALY perspective
- so I hope someone reading this can comment on this payback
question. Poor health is a terrible drain on national
economies. But as we have been learning - a good stove in
an otherwise unhealthy environment is not going to do much.</b><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">This data needs verification. I do
not want to start any "fake news". And who got this
money? Maybe there are "factors" in calculating the
subsidy, such as counting things that maybe could be left
off of the costs. </span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">But even at half ($128) that would be a
massive subsidy per stove. </span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">And this raises the question of what is
in the works already for India which is more than 4 times
larger in population than Indonesia. Some sort of
cost/benefit analysis might be appropriate.</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="font-style:italic;white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[RWL6: I’ll try to return to these important
details after listening to all of the webinar. (and applies
to all your questions)</b><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><i>7. The importance of the role of government in
the provision of stove policies (and regulations about LPG
importation and handling/distribution) was emphasized by
the speakers. —— Certainly a correct statement, and the
big-business LPG companies have much more contact and
impact than do the little guys. </i></span></div>
<div><i><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></i><b>[RWL7. Two personal hopes - a) climate change
concerns could drown out the fossil companies; b) making
money while you cook could entirely offset LPG interests.
And a) and b) can be related - and there are not many
options to a needy housewife as attractive to budgets as
TLUDs.</b><i><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
</i><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">8. There was a section on LPG in
humanitarian aid, specifically mentioning refugee camps.
Presentation spoke poorly of "Traditional fuels". One
presentation spoke about the provision of LPG to refugee
camps that are occupied for many years and are likely to
remain in place for more years. The presenters suggestion
for consideration is that maybe the camps should have LPG
piped in instead of trucking in the LPG canisters.
------ </span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">9. A very interesting segment of the
presentation was about Haiti. Many very good statistics.</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">A. Very low LPG infrastructure and
usage at present.</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">B. 4800 schools (institutional
cooking, maybe including orphanages?) in Haiti, of which 143
so far have LPG services. Price of installation
(equipment, etc) is US$900 for the basic and up to $5000 for
the larger more complete kitchen conversions. Capacity for
conversions to LPG was stated to be 1500 per year.
Mentioned fuel cost SAVINGS because the cost of charcoal in
Haiti is so high that LPG could be sold at higher prices and
still be competitive.</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">C. Discussion of street vendors using
LPG ------ (which makes sense to me).</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">D. For household (HH) stoves, the LPG
target is 10,000 for low income HH. Have done 1150 thus
far. Cost is $100 for the economy version and $160 for the
premium version. ----- Haiti has about 2 million
households, so there is no talk of covering 40% of those
households with LPG. </span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">E. How to fund these LPG products?
Utilize the money of the 400,000 Haitians who live in the
USA (and more in other countries) who send remittences to
Haiti to support their relatives, etc. Called "Diaspora"
Haitians. Mentioned making contact with the main
Haitian-in-USA TV station to spread the word. </span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">F. ------ No mention of the Canadian
government 50 million dollar commitment to improve stoves in
Haiti, but I am sure that LPG entities have their eyes on a
hefty chunk of those funds. Still in the planning stages
until January 2017 </span></div>
<div><b><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>[RWL:
Can you give a cite on these Canadian dollars?</b><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">***************************</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">So much of this presentation was
marketing. Fair enough. The survey of the attendees
showed that most (80+%??) were involved with some business
aspect of LPG (or were considering it). Only a few (such
as me) marked "Other" as the reason for attending. I
wanted to know about the LPG cookstove approach. The
session was highly informative. Thanks to the presenters
and to EPA and Winrock for making available important
information. </span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">I wonder if this topic will be
discussed on the Stoves Listserv. I hope so.</span><br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<span style="font-style:italic;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Paul</span></div>
<div><i><br>
</i></div>
<div><i><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></i><b>[RWL_end: Me too (re discussion). </b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span> Again
- thanks and apologies for my too-delayed response. We all
should be reporting on information opportunities like this -
and Winrock (Elisa Derby) / EPA (John Mitchell) (on behalf
of PCIA and now GACC) deserve a lot of credit for this
series (the last was the excellent one featuring Michael
Johnson and Ajay [a cc, whose recent doctoral thesis I have
complimented] that explained their new model and coupling
with DALYs)</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b><span class="gmail-m_4002053844585277180Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I
just checked at </b><a href="http://www.pciaonline.org/webinars" target="_blank">http://www.pciaonline.org/<wbr>webinars</a>,
<b>and this December webinar was not yet up - but I
recommend (again) listening to Michael and Ajay and others
on their November similar (?) webinar.</b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ron</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><snip
lots></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>