<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Crispin<br>
<br>
India had a major program in the 1980s for "smokeless chulas", with
the basic objective of having chimneys.<br>
Ref:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> <a class="algo-title "
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309762986_Why_Have_Improved_Cook-Stove_Initiatives_in_India_Failed"
target="_blank">Why Have Improved Cook-Stove Initiatives in <b>India</b>
Failed? (PDF ...</a>
</div>
<cite class="algo-display-url"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309762986_Why_Have_Improved_Cook-Stove_Initiatives_in_India_Failed">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309762986_Why_Have_Improved_Cook-Stove_Initiatives_in_India_Failed</a></cite>
<span class="algo-summary">In <b>India</b>, efforts to design and
diffuse improved cook-stoves. began with nationalist .... early <b>1980s</b>
onward, by the late 2000s, virtually none were in. use. In
contrast of the ... But this was easier said than done; <b>chimneys</b>
were exo-. tic to <b>India</b> and ... to convince villagers to
adopt ''<b>smokeless chulhas</b>”and keep. flies away from ...</span></blockquote>
And simply putting chimneys onto plancha stoves (rocket or
otherwise) has not resolved the issues. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/20/2017 11:18 AM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MWHPR22MB0784BFFE5DF914FB33FA998EB1A70@MWHPR22MB0784.namprd22.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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";}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.m-7322523771368534226gmail-m2340582180696183075gmail-m3688357950913267804gmail-m-7742256053931530306gmail-il
{mso-style-name:m_-7322523771368534226gmail-m_2340582180696183075gmail-m_3688357950913267804gmail-m_-7742256053931530306gmail-il;}
span.m-7322523771368534226gmail-m2340582180696183075gmail-il
{mso-style-name:m_-7322523771368534226gmail-m_2340582180696183075gmail-il;}
span.m-7322523771368534226gmail-m2340582180696183075gmail-m1315196575576659705m-1351615364641759912hoenzb
{mso-style-name:m_-7322523771368534226gmail-m_2340582180696183075gmail-m_1315196575576659705m_-1351615364641759912hoenzb;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
mso-fareast-language:EN-CA;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear
Nikhil<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I
am once again disturbed by the fact that there appears
nowhere in the ‘plan’ for India, greatly improved chulhas.
How can the only choices be ‘LPG or traditional chulha’?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Is
the idea that no one should work on improving biomass stoves
so as to keep the baseline ‘bad’ in order to make LPG look
‘good’?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The
biggest improvement that can be made which reaches everyone
is to introduce effective chimney stoves. Get the smoke out
of the kitchen and share it with the whole community. It
already gets there now, filtered a little by the cook’s
lings, but in effect there is no difference between the
present situation and everyone having chimneys, except the
deletion of most exposure to high concentrations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Argue
as you might about exposure to outdoor air, it is nothing
compared with indoor air and it will always be so for
multiple reasons. It the purpose is to reduce exposure, put
it outdoors first then we will talk about better combustion.
It is so plainly obvious that hoods and chimneys solve the
largest % of the problem, the only remarkable thing is why
Berkeley et al are so resistant to pushing it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Stoves
that vent entirely indoor should be banned unless there is
some zero-risk assessment. My gas stove has a vent hood over
it to take out the PM from cooking, which far exceeds
anything from the combustion of fuel. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If
India put even $1m into chulha combustion and smoke
evacuation, they would get more total benefits at the BOP
than the LPG programme because it would continue
indefinitely thereafter at no cost.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Paul:
apply!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Paul: <br>
<br>
Thank you. I am surprised that within a few days of
declaring his <a
href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53856e1ee4b00c6f1fc1f602/t/590b78d49de4bb6e66c97095/1493924052510/ESD+editorial+on+biomas.pdf"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
challenge to the biomass stove community</a>, where he
said there will be 25 million Indian households not covered
by the LPG subsidy scheme even by 2025, Prof. Smith seems to
take away the market for "supplemental" biomass stoves for
the poor Indians who have just started using LPG but haven't
yet made a complete transition. <br>
<br>
I quote from his challenge, "<span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:#2E2E2E">Now <span
class="m-7322523771368534226gmail-m2340582180696183075gmail-il">the</span> bottom
line in terms of advanced <span
class="m-7322523771368534226gmail-m2340582180696183075gmail-il">biomass</span> stoves.
LPG (plus some natural gas and electricity) cooking for
90% of <span
class="m-7322523771368534226gmail-m2340582180696183075gmail-il">the</span> population,
even if achieved, still leaves some 150 million using
poorly functioning traditional chulhas next decade."<br>
</span><br>
Now he puts priority on ready refills because
"Finally, health and other benefits only fully occur with near 100% usage and thus near elimination of the
biomass chulha for cooking." <br>
<br>
He alone knows - or reserves the right to proclaim - what is
meant by "full" accrual of "health and other benefits". <br>
<br>
+++<br>
<br>
Arguendo, what he is suggesting is, "Forget those 150
million for now; make sure the extra few billion dollars
today go to guaranteeing reliable refills for those who have
signed up for the LPG connection, whether or not they want
the refills." <br>
<br>
To me, this is a haughty anti-poor agenda with only one
possible rationale -- with even some households making
complete, irreversible transition to LPG, computing aDALYs
as "health benefits of LPG" get some respectability as they
are measured "fully" (or fool-ly). Enough business potential
for a hundred PhDs and post-docs for the next 30 years of
whatever long it takes to achieve the Tier 4 nirvana. It's
not as if the Berkeley crowd can put a number on aDALYs in
India from 50+ years of LPG use. <br>
<br>
From the viewpoint of energy and budgeting policies, Prof.
Smith's argument to guarantee reliable refills - even seek
to mandate them - is academic fantasizing at best and
pernicious mania at worst.
<br>
<br>
What Prof Smith is advocating is a neat class division
between those who must completely get out of what he calls
"chulha trap" as soon as possible, on the one hand, and the
remainder marginalized, "left behind" population. <br>
<br>
It so turns out both these groups are about 250 million,
assuming average household size of 5 (it's slightly smaller
and getting smaller).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">i) the 50 million post-2014 household
connections in India (22 million so far, 28 million by
2019) that Prof Smith wants to make sure do not use
biomass chulhas unless he certifies them as "truly health
protective", and,<br>
ii) 50 million households that will be left behind in
2019. (With some growth in connections but also in
population, 2025 "have nots" will come down to 150 million
as he has projected. Currently, piped natural gas and
previous household LPG connections come to around 120
million. Commercial cooking is gas, LPG, electricity as
well as biomass and coal.) <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
A class division. California elitism, I might add. Prof.
Smith and Ajay Pillarisetti want to make sure
"no worry about running out Sat
night just before a big party". Yeah, right. At the
margin, we are talking about households with monthly cash
expenditures of $100 or less. Their big Saturday night
parties won't stop for lack of LPG. <br>
<br>
+++++++<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Then there are some 500 million others - whose subsidized
LPG connections were approved for the post-2014 scheme of
DBTL (Direct Benefits Transfer for LPG in bank accounts)
plus households that have LPG connections without subsidy,
after "ghost" connections had been eliminated. (I am
assuming that about 100-200 million people or equivalent
use only piped natural gas and electricity for cooking and
heating.) <br>
<br>
Nobody knows how many of these 500 million to date have
used LPG exclusively or along with "stacking". My
hypothesis is that the middle class urban folks who got
LPG back in the 1960s and 1970s "advanced" in all manners
-- education, income, diets -- and reduced their burden of
disease far much more than that can be attributed to
getting out of the "chulha trap". But heck, anything can
be attributed to anything so long as you get enough nods
in the audience. Attribution is not causality. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
While we wait for the cost of refills and purported
"social benefits", let me share some thoughts to
ponder. <br>
<br>
1. Stacking is consumer choice, not public health
professors' prerogative. Until all sources of PM2.5 -
natural and anthropogenic - are banned so as to keep
exposures within WHO "guidelines" (worthless until
adopted in national laws and effectively enforced),
there is no use even debating Kirk Smith's theology of
complete and permanent transition to LPG and electricity
by all poor people in India. Because if one household
must make such transition, each one must otherwise any
leakage will lead to premature deaths a la GBD
algorithms - emission to death. Dream on -- not just
"overnight" but a few decades. <br>
<br>
2. Behavioral change for improving health outcomes from
cooking is not just a problem of fuel/stove access and
affordability but also of food access and affordability.
A "clean cookstove" is not a pill and an LPG refill is
not a condom. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. The quantity of subsidized LPG
to household connections or the subsidy per refill -
or both - have to be kept in check. An argument can be
made that the productivity increase from quicker,
cleaner cooking (and outsourcing cooking) will
increase tax revenues to subsidize LPG in perpetuity
(or "steady state equilibrium"), but that requires a
million dollar research grant. <br>
<br>
Nikhil<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>