<div dir="ltr">Dear Stovers<div><br></div><div>A) I have been following the debates on stove emissions, health effects (dallying with DALYs) and carbon climate neutrality with interest, and varying degrees of amusement and despair at the grave (or jocular) misrepresentations of science and the scientific method. My interventions, under a new thread, are intended to go back to basics of science on air pollution and health. I hope thereby to clean up some of the messier aspects of recent debates that are based on misconceptions of science. (Regrettably, I claim no authority to be able to similarly clarify issues of policy, developmental economics or institutional politics.)</div><div><br></div><div>B) As a starting point, a draw your attention to the following article:</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail-fm-sec gmail-half_rhythm gmail-no_top_margin" style="margin:0px 0px 0.6923em;font-stretch:normal;line-height:1.3846"><b>Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution</b><div class="gmail-half_rhythm" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125em;margin:0.6923em 0px"><div class="gmail-contrib-group gmail-fm-author"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Pope%20CA%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=11879110" style="color:rgb(100,42,143)">C. Arden Pope, III</a>, PhD, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Burnett%20RT%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=11879110" style="color:rgb(100,42,143)">Richard T. Burnett</a>, PhD, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Thun%20MJ%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=11879110" style="color:rgb(100,42,143)">Michael J. Thun</a>, MD, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Calle%20EE%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=11879110" style="color:rgb(100,42,143)">Eugenia E. Calle</a>, PhD, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Krewski%20D%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=11879110" style="color:rgb(100,42,143)">Daniel Krewski</a>, PhD, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Ito%20K%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=11879110" style="color:rgb(100,42,143)">Kazuhiko Ito</a>, PhD, and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Thurston%20GD%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=11879110" style="color:rgb(100,42,143)">George D. Thurston</a>, ScD <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;text-align:right">JAMA. 2002 Mar 6; 287(9): 1132-1</span><span class="gmail-fm-citation-ids-label" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;text-align:right">141.<font color="#000000" face="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:0.8461em">PMCID: </span></font></span><font color="#000000" face="arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif" style="font-size:small;text-align:right"><span style="font-size:0.8461em">PMC4037163 (Journal of American Medical Association)</span></font></div></div><div class="gmail-fm-panel gmail-small gmail-half_rhythm" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;font-size:0.8461em;margin:0.6923em 0px;line-height:1.6363em"><div class="gmail-togglers"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(34,34,34)">The publisher's full final edited version of this article is available at JAMA with no paywall: </span></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div style="margin-left:1em"><div class="gmail-fm-vol-iss-date" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;font-size:10.9987px"><span class="gmail-cit" style="color:rgb(100,42,143)"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=11879110" style="color:rgb(100,42,143)">JAMA. 2002 Mar 6; 287(9): 1132–1141</a>.</span></div><div class="gmail-fm-vol-iss-date"><span class="gmail-cit"><br></span></div><div class="gmail-fm-vol-iss-date"><span class="gmail-cit"><b><font size="4">Abstract<br></font></b><br><b>Context</b><br><div><div class="gmail-sec gmail-sec-first" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"times new roman",stixgeneral,serif;font-size:15.9991px;clear:both"><p class="gmail-p gmail-p-first-last" style="margin:0.6923em 0px">Associations have been found between day-to-day particulate air pollution and increased risk of various adverse health outcomes, including cardiopulmonary mortality. However, studies of health effects of long-term particulate air pollution have been less conclusive.</p></div><div class="gmail-sec" style="clear:both"><b>Objective</b><p class="gmail-p gmail-p-first-last" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"times new roman",stixgeneral,serif;font-size:15.9991px;margin:0.6923em 0px">To assess the relationship between long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution and all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality.</p></div><div class="gmail-sec" style="clear:both"><b>Design, Setting, and Participants</b><p class="gmail-p gmail-p-first-last" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"times new roman",stixgeneral,serif;font-size:15.9991px;margin:0.6923em 0px">Vital status and cause of death data were collected by the American Cancer Society as part of the Cancer Prevention II study, an ongoing prospective mortality study, which enrolled approximately 1.2 million adults in 1982. Participants completed a questionnaire detailing individual risk factor data (age, sex, race, weight, height, smoking history, education, marital status, diet, alcohol consumption, and occupational exposures). The risk factor data for approximately 500,000 adults were linked with air pollution data for metropolitan areas throughout the United States and combined with vital status and cause of death data through December 31, 1998.</p></div><div class="gmail-sec" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"times new roman",stixgeneral,serif;font-size:15.9991px;clear:both"><h3 style="font-size:1em;line-height:1.25em;margin:1.2856em 0px 0.6428em;color:rgb(114,65,40);font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif">Main Outcome Measure</h3><p class="gmail-p gmail-p-first-last" style="margin:0.6923em 0px">All-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality.</p></div><div class="gmail-sec" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"times new roman",stixgeneral,serif;font-size:15.9991px;clear:both"><h3 style="font-size:1em;line-height:1.25em;margin:1.2856em 0px 0.6428em;color:rgb(114,65,40);font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif">Results</h3><p class="gmail-p gmail-p-first-last" style="margin:0.6923em 0px">Fine particulate and sulfur oxide–related pollution were associated with all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality. Each 10-μg/m<span style="font-size:0.8461em;line-height:1.6363em;vertical-align:baseline">3</span> elevation in fine particulate air pollution was associated with approximately a 4%, 6%, and 8% increased risk of all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively. Measures of coarse particle fraction and total suspended particles were not consistently associated with mortality.</p></div><div class="gmail-sec gmail-sec-last" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"times new roman",stixgeneral,serif;font-size:15.9991px;clear:both"><h3 style="font-size:1em;line-height:1.25em;margin:1.2856em 0px 0.6428em;color:rgb(114,65,40);font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif">Conclusion</h3><p class="gmail-p gmail-p-first-last" style="margin:0.6923em 0px">Long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air pollution is an important environmental risk factor for cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.</p></div></div></span></div></div><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>|____________</div><div><br></div><div>C) The significance of this article for the stove list debates is that:<br><ul><li>It is a primary research article - not a secondary summarised/re-interpreted version valorised by the WHO. <br></li><li>It deals with <b>statistical associations (</b><b>Risk Ratios) </b>between PM2.5 and lung cancer and cardiovascular mortality over a 16 year period for a study cohort numbering in the millions. It does not claim or explain causality.</li><li>It presents statistical correlations of <b>Risk Ratios of lung cancer and cardiovascular mortality. </b>It does use the concepts of premature deaths, a source of heated contestation in StoveList debates. It does not enter into a discussion of the financial value of life or DALYs.</li><li>The study deals comprehensively with the confounding effects of smoking - which has a higher Risk Ratio - and mentions in passing other factors controlled for and which have elevated Risk Ratios for the study population (e.g. gross obesity (level 3).</li><li>No enhanced Risk Ratio was found in association with PM10 (defined in the post-2000 sense of particles below 10 but above 2.5-micron diameter). </li></ul><div>D) Arising from this, several points of clarity regarding the science:</div></div><div><ol><li>Establishment of Risk Ratios is a property of the <b>population ensemble</b> numbering in hundreds of thousands. This<b> ensemble property</b> of a population cannot be attributed to individuals or small populations of a few hundred or thousand. Accordingly, taunts such as "Show me one life that has been saved by a clean cook stove", reveal a perhaps jocular but nevertheless foolish conceptual misunderstanding.</li><li><b>PM2.5 and EQUITOXICITY</b> (addressed mainly to Crispin). <br>PM2.5 is measured as an <b>INDICATOR</b> of fine particulate matter (mainly in urban atmospheres). Scientists and regulators are well aware that fine particulate matter originates from diverse sources and contains particles of widely differing physical and chemical composition, and that some of these species may be more damaging to the human respiratory system than others. Nevertheless, as an INDICATOR of urban air quality, PM2.5 serves the purpose of an indicator. (a) It is readily measurable with a moderate amount of technical skill and commercially available apparatus; (b) It is applicable across a range of conditions in space and time, allowing for tracking of trends. (c) The indicator values are easily communicated to and understood by the lay public. PM2.5 is again an <b>ensemble property</b>, and at a superficial level may one assert that all particles comprising the ensemble are EQUITOXIC. That some individuals may have used the term EQUITOXICITY in this sense, is not intended to be taken literally. To rail against the term is to set up a straw man argument, dressed in funny clothes designed to scare off the crows. </li><li>However, when it comes to controlling or reducing sources or PM2.5 in particular localities, then source apportionment studies are needed, to establish the relative contributions from diverse sources, that may include residential wood burning (also in American cities in colder climates), sulphates from coal combustion, diesel soot emissions. Reductions are planned and regulated on the basis of cost-effectiveness, reflected in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in USA jurisdictions. Source apportionment plans deal with reducing the concentrations of overall PM2.5, without going into issues of health effects and consequent economic loss due to mortality of morbidity - the domain of epidemiologists, not air quality regulators. In the case of specific high toxicity compounds, such as asbestos fibres or CrVI (chromium valence 6), other air toxic regulations come into play quite separately from the generalised PM2.5 control strategies.<br>On the health effects of various species of particles in the PM2.5 ensemble (often now referred to as nanoparticles), there are significant advances in the last decade of understanding the modes of interaction between particles and the human physiological system. One interesting finding is that some materials are more active (toxic) in the finely divided nano range than one would suppose from the bulk properties of the material.</li><li>Inhalation of and deposition of PM2.5.<br>Point 2 above leads to the need to clarify misconceptions reflected in recent stove list discussions concerning the deposition of particles in the human respiratory system.<br>Broadly, coarse particles greater than 2.5 microns diameter are trapped in the upper airways (nose, throat), while fine particles (<2.5 microns) proceed into the bronchial system. Particles in the range 300 nm (0.3 microns) and less, the bulk of PM2.5 mass, behave similarly to gas molecules and are carried in the air stream through 18 bifurcations of the bronchial system to the alveolar sacs. Once in the alveolar region, governed by laws of diffusion, some of the nanoparticles may reach the walls of the alveolar sacs and be dissolved or absorbed and transmitted to the blood stream (e.g. nicotine droplets from tobacco smoke). Insoluble particles are attached by macrophages (white blood cells) and either transmitted away by the lymph drainage fluids, or remain in place eventually forming inflexible fibrous tissue (in advanced cases causing e.g. silicosis and emphysema). Paradoxically, the very properties that allowed the nanoparticles to reach the deepest airways, similarly allow the particles to make their way out of the lungs and to be exhaled. In each breath, typically only about 60% of particles are deposited, and 40% are exhaled. For example, a smoker will still exhale detectable levels of nicotine fumes for ten to twelve breaths after the last puff.<br>Coarse particles deposited in the upper airways can also trigger physiological responses - one need only mention the allergic response to inhalation of pollen grains (typically in size range 5 to 50 microns) that are trapped in the nose. </li></ol><div>E. Arising from this, a personal comment based on my four decades as an academic research on atmospheric particles. This point addresses ongoing messiness and confusion in the recent StoveList debates (which is a good open forum for robust verbal sparring) but more seriously has resulted in major conceptual confusion in the debates of the international efforts to devise clean stove evaluation procedures and associated performance criteria (tiers).</div><div><br></div><div>The fundamental error is to try and combine efforts to reduce particulate emissions from stoves (source characterisation and emission control measures) with Relative Risk outcomes or, even more remotely, with premature deaths or DALYs.</div><div><ol><li>Stove experts know about stoves, thermal and emissions performance testing.<br></li><li>Exposure modelling and monitoring of stove emissions concentrations in homes and air pollution in general in the ambient environment are separate disciplines that do not necessarily fall within the knowledge domain of stove experts.<br></li><li>Correlations between exposure to air pollutants and specific health outcomes are established by epidemiologists at a population scale. Even relationships between tobacco smoke and adverse health outcomes took decades and population-scale studies to establish. </li><li>Testing for causal relationships (i.e. beyond statistical correlations) between specific pollutants and human immunological responses is properly the domain of specialised medical studies.</li></ol>As professional scientists, environmentalists, developmental economists we are aware of the broad issues of air quality and public health. However, when the task was a relatively straightforward assignment: <b>Develop a standard method for testing the energy and emissions performance of a domestic stove designed for cooking and space heating</b>, it is in my opinion a grave perversion of sound science, technology and regulation to try and conflate two or more of the above four stages into a single standard. For well-intentioned students who approached me to supervise a project on air pollution and health because they were concerned about the health consequences of high smoke concentrations (in South Africa from domestic coal combustion), I had to advise them: I can supervise a study of ambient concentrations, of the emissions of stoves, or the characterization of individual particles or bulk particulate matter. However, as a physicist, environmentalist, geographer, I cannot supervise and I cannot marshall the resources to do a health based study. If you wish to study health effects, then you need to be in a medical faculty. </div><div><br></div><div>I rest my case.</div><div><br></div><div>A similar argument can be mounted concerning the conflation of stove testing and global soil properties, food security, de/reforestation and global change, but that may be a topic for a future post.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards</div><div>Harold the Sceptic</div><div><br></div><div>(N.B. I am a sceptic by vocation and profession, for such is the nature of science. To those who wish to believe, go the church on Sunday or mosque on Fridays. On all other days of the week, I will tempt you to doubt, ye even deny, and ask for the evidence.)</div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><div><br></div><div>Harold Annegarn<br>Energy Institute<br>Cape Peninsula University of Technology<br>Mobile +27 (0)83 628 4210 Office +27 </div><div><a href="mailto:hannegarn@outlook.com">hannegarn@gmail.com</a></div><div><a href="mailto:hannegarn@outlook.com">hannegarn@outlook.com</a> <br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 January 2017 at 08:11, Traveller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:miata98@gmail.com">miata98@gmail.com</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 dir="ltr">Dear Ron: <br><br>Happy New Year! <br><div><br>First, I am DELIGHTED, RELIEVED to read your definition of a "climate denier" - "a person with no interest in carbon dioxide removal (CDR)."<br><br>I do have megahours of interest in CDR. Just tell me from where, when, how much, by whom, at what cost, and where to put it. <br><br>I have been doing CDR for all my life. <br><br>Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now that I am not a climate denier, I don't have to fear going to hellfires or ovens till I die. <br><br>It's all a matter of accounting. <br><br></div><div>***</div><div>On the other hand, I am sad to see you start out a New Year on a sour note. <div><br></div><div>On Haiti and LPG Webinar, I did address your Comment 1 - "<b>I don’t think many will mind if I reopen the topic." </b>and Comment 2 - "<b> I don’t have the time now to prove this, but am sure we can find climate denial funding coming from this Association. " </b>I took my cue to reopen the topic from you, and I also made some comment on WLPGA. Please don't blame me for your neglect to read. <br><br>***<br><br>We can continue that LPG thread if you read my replies to Paul and to you on GACC and Haiti (more to come). Here I address your "I will respond about Kirk when I am told which of hundreds of Kirk Smith writings I should read. "<br><br>Oh, dear. I don't know what if anything you have read from Kirk Smith. You could start with his opinion pieces - "In Praise of Petroleum", "Power to the People", and "The Petroleum Product That Can Save Millions Of Lives Each Year". <br><br>I assume you have read his research on putting carbon gases in the atmosphere via traditional biomass combustion (defined as uncontrolled combustion of unprocessed solid biomass). <br><br>What you may find is relevant to both this thread as well as Paul's question on LPG in the Haiti thread about lower GHGs (and one earlier). <br><br>Please also tell us just what of Kirk Smith's papers you have read on health effects of biomass combustion and quotes that you like. Taking his name in vain is intellectual abuse. <br></div><br>In a 6 November 2016 post on this list's thread "LPG versus gasifiers with dry biomass", I had cited Prof. Smith's assertion: <br><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>"<span style="font-size:12.8px">And, as yet, no biomass stove in the world comes close to the boundary – is</span><i style="font-size:12.8px"> clean enough to be <span class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-il">truly</span> <span class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-il">health</span> <span class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-il">protective</span> in household use."</i></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>He was also reported in a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-cheap-clean-stoves-were-supposed-to-save-millions-of-lives-what-happened/2015/10/29/c0b98f38-77fa-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html">Washington Post item</a> in 2015 “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use”.<br><br>I expressed my dissent from this view, but if you agree with it, please say so. <br><br>Because that means biomass stoving for the last 50-odd years has failed in terms of being "truly health protective in household use." <br><br></div><div>Amen. I was hoping to leave all that in the last year. </div><div><br></div><div>****<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>Now to the main issue here - biomass power and climate-neutrality. <br><br>It is a matter of ideological accounting, not science. <br><br><div>Whoever has a hammer in hand sees nails everywhere. Biochar seems to be your hammer.<br> <br>I have written earlier that I discovered Biochar in 2007/8 and Stephen Joseph made me a believer. <br><br>Now just tell me your global plan for biochar. I will be a partner in Alliance for Biochar Cooking (ABC). GACC CEO can be invited to help. </div><div><br></div><div>I did some CDR work 20+ years ago on TVA co-firing of peanut shells in Georgia and other biomass power options. I also worked on CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration) options and putting CO2 in old mines and domes. How much CDR did you do? </div><br>*****<br>Apart from biochar or such projects, taking the earth system as a whole, I repeat my assertions: <br><br>“<i><b>To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period</b>. "</i><br><br>This time I will give you some suggestions to read - <a href="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf">Ruddiman</a> and <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Unger_un02100s.pdf">Unger</a>. Also <a href="http://www.humansandnature.org/william-ruddiman-and-the-ruddiman-hypothesis">this</a>. Prove me wrong. <br><br>Water and biomass is nearly there is to understand about human climate. But please read Kirk Smith, then we can debate the GHG-neutrality of biomass combustion (alone). <br><br>“<i><b>And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any carbon from biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a new tree anywhere</b>." </i><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">This is a scientific truism - that any carbon emitted anywhere may be re-absorbed anywhere (tree or not) - and other assumptions are matter of accounting. Prove me wrong. <br><br>Chemistry is everything. Not counting molecules. CO2 is not a WMD; do ask CIA though. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Nikhil<br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail_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>--------- <br></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</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 style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Nikhil: cc List and Paul</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Whew - 5 messages today from Nikhil and finally one that I can see all of on my screen at once. (Here’s hoping I don’t have to read 5 more tomorrow for the third day in a row.)</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>In three of the four others I see one citation - GACC on Haiti. It would help me (and I think others) if Nikhil would keep all of my messages, not selectively pull out of them. (for his GACC2, Nikhil has excised all of my remarks #1 and #3. Why?)</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I will respond about Kirk when I am told which of hundreds of Kirk Smith writings I should read. I seriously doubt that Kirk has written much about the two cites below covering BECCS and albedo. Note that neither of these have much, if anything, to do with stoves.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I don’t have time tonight to refute any of the mostly incorrect and non-pertinent arguments below, but let me repeat one (yNikhil, from below)that could only come from a climate denier - defined here as a person with no interest in carbon dioxide removal (CDR):</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>“<i><b>And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any carbon from biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a new tree anywhere</b>." </i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><span class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I interpret Nikhil to mean that CDR via biochar only makes sense when source and sink are in the same block, county, state, or country, (or continent?) Whew! If not, what then does he mean? (Of course you have to read more below.)</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>In sum, I strongly support Paul’s gentle request to Nikhil to stick to topics that relate to this list - not things again/always in support of coal. And not blame me for not having responded quickly enough to some un-named publication of Prof. Smith (whose work, I repeat, on health matters related to stoves I strongly support - and look forward to learning what I am supposed to dissociate myself from in order to agree that the (9:04 AM CDT) climate-denying material (not in any way stove or health-oriented) below is on-topic.)</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Last point for Nikhil re his last line below </div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div> (“<i><b>To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period</b>. ")</i></div><div>- does he think that biochar from stoves cannot be carbon negative?</div><div><br></div><div>Ron</div><div><br></div><div>ps. I argue these topics (albedo, BECCS, afforestation , etc) most every day - on half a dozen lists - but never on this list. </div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:36 PM, Traveller <<a href="mailto:miata98@gmail.com">miata98@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">Paul: <br><br>It might become on-topic once Ron reads Kirk Smith. <br><br>Nikhil</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165gmail_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 <a href="tel:(202)%20568-5831" value="+12025685831">+1) 202-568-5831</a><br><i> </i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Paul Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">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">
To Nikhil only,<br>
<br>
I agree that your message is "Off-topic". Thank you for making
that clear in your subject line. Please do not make more messages
that are so far off-topic that they just are beyond the scope of the
Stoves Listserv.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165m_5372609412239450046moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165m_5372609412239450046moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:(309)%20452-7072" value="+13094527072">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165m_5372609412239450046moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com/">www.drtlud.com</a></pre><div><div class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165h5">
<div class="gmail-m_2923274598937539906m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165m_5372609412239450046moz-cite-prefix">On 1/3/2017 9:04 AM, Traveller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Oh, dear. Just because a tree is releasing CO2
absorbed earlier makes it carbon neutral? <br>
<br>
Then all trees could be harvested, burnt, and that would still
be carbon neutral. I don't think IPCC allows that -- its
inventorying methods require that such "land use change" be
reported separately. <br>
<br>
****<br>
<div>Another way of putting the question (and I think this is
implied by the current methods) is whether the CO2 released
will in future be absorbed by another tree. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
But that raises a different problem -- this re-absorption may
take years and that it may happen somewhere else. Assuming
that the Drax carbon emissions from biomass burning were to be
re-absorbed in the US forests where the pellets came from is
quite a stretch. <br>
<br>
And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any
carbon from biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a
new tree anywhere. <br>
<br>
Since CO2 from wood combustion in a power plant is no
different from CO2 from my breaths or cremation or CO2 from a
power plant, it is plausible to argue that CO2 from Chinese
coal-fired power plant is what gets absorbed in the net
expansion of boreal forests in Canada and Europe. <br>
</div>
<br>
Aha! But then we have the dilemma of changing the albedo effect.
(<a href="https://thinkprogress.org/planting-trees-climate-change-solution-3e5b6979561f#.jok1faoia">Reforestation Doesn’t Fight Climate Change
Unless It’s Done Right</a>, Natasha Geiling, ThinkProgress, 31
August 2016).
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps it's better to trim boreal forests, convert into
charcoal, and export to Nigeria, Ethiopia, DRC. <br>
<br>
Albedo effect, apart, bioenergy capture has another problem -
"<span>“</span><span>But if you are going to do
BECCS, you are going to have to grow an awful lot of trees
and the impact on land use may have very significant effects
on food security,” (</span><span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/26/geoengineering-could-offer-solution-last-resort-climate-change">Reflecting sunlight into space has
terrifying consequences, say scientists</a>, Damien
Carrington, Guardian (UK) 26 November 2014)</span>
<div><font size="2"><br>
</font></div>
In short, the CO2 accounting business is riddled with
confusion. <br>
<br>
****<br>
<br>
Deliberate confusion for political purposes. The methods of
GHG accounting are NOT value-free; they (including the choice
to use 100-year GWPs instead of 20- or 50-year GWPs) are
intentionally biased. (I was marginally involved with this
30-odd years ago.) <br>
<br>
The most serious objection to the purported "carbon
neutrality" of "biomass" is that depending on combustion
technology, the emissions of non-CO2 GHGs - methane, which is
counted under Kyoto cooking of numbers, and NMVOCs, CO, which
Kyoto does not permit -- are more potent than CO2. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you add in black carbon, the non-CO2 damage is
significantly higher. <br>
<br>
More so if you use 20-year GWP (my preference for the
developing countries). </div>
<div><br>
The combined GHG loads from biomass direct thermal use around
the world - when counting all GHGs and black carbon (I can
cook up some estimates) - are in the range of all CO2 from
Indian coal-fired power plants, maybe even all CO2 from
Chinese coal-fired power plants. <br>
<br>
So, global warming is due to inefficient biomass use, as much
as it is from India-China coal-fired power plants. <br>
<br>
Surprised? <br>
<br>
Some sages said 16+ years ago, "If one is going to put carbon
in the atmosphere anyway, CO2 is the least harmful species
from climate or health point of view." <br>
<br>
The policy implications of this observation are profound. <br>
<br>
To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period. <br>
<br>
<br>
Nikhil</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" rel="noreferrer">http://lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_<wbr>lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
<a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" rel="noreferrer">http://stoves.bioenergylists.<wbr>org/</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>