<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
To all, especially Anil, Ron, Nikhil, Andrew, and Jock,<br>
<br>
Andrew, Porject Drawdown certainly has a strong cookstoves component
(and char-producing TLUD stoves solidly links the stove and biochar
components that are being discussed.).<br>
<br>
Anil, please enlist your daughter into this discussion. She has
very valuable first-hand info about how the calculations were
made. I am sure that she will be interested in these
discussions. Are there other contributing authors who can be
contacted? Can Jock help with this, please? <br>
<br>
Ron and Nikhil, we are interested in ALL the assumptions of the 100
technologies (reduced to 80), BUT we need to do our focused and
strongest work about the fields that we best understand: cookstoves
and biochar.<br>
<br>
WHY??? Cookstoves are in position number 21 (just behind nuclear),
and biochar is number 72 (I think). We need to re-assess the input
data and see if the GigaTonne numbers (and rank numbers) should be
changed. Hawkin clearly emphasized that the caluculations were
intentionally favoring CONSERVATIVE results. We are not trying to
recalculate in favorable term. We want to be conservative and
still show that cookstoves and biochar have been UNDERESTIMATED by
significant amounts.<br>
<br>
Cookstoves: Just the TLUD realistic potential should move stoves
from position #21 to perhaps #12 or higher. AND factor in the IN
ADDITION TO THE GT REDUCTIONS, there are so many ADDITIONAL
benefits. ALSO, the cost of accomplishing the cookstove goals is
far less than the costs of many of the other technologies!!! We
want to see a $ per GT number for cookstoves. Stoves could rank in
the top 5 easiest and most cost effective technologies for the
desired Drawdown!!!!<br>
<br>
Biochar: Similar statements as above.<br>
Also, Ron wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre;"> </span>As
an example, why did they assume that biochar would only be
associated with food (and not energy nor materials nor water
quality nor fertilizer and irrigation savings - much less CDR
[carbon dioxide removal] or simply improving land values)? All
are taking place today - with favorable economics.</div>
</blockquote>
Okay. Said well. Now substantiate each one of those (and other)
"claims". <br>
<br>
Project Drawdown has provided us with two opportunities to reply:
stoves and biochar. If we do not develop this situation into an
opportunity to press our points of view to the larger world-wide
community, we will be missing a golden opportunity. <br>
<br>
We want our info to be into the news. We want to be at the panel
discussions of Drawdown technologies.<br>
<br>
1st, do you agree with this approach?<br>
<br>
2nd, if there is sufficient "yes", then we need to get started.
And that means getting more info about how the calculations have
been made.<br>
<br>
Suggestion: the key word is Drawdown. Please use that word in
your subject lines IF you are writing about this topic, and then and
a few words to describe you subject better. Examples: Drawdown -
stoves - general or Drawdown - Biochar - data<br>
<br>
In some ways, this is a test of our abilities to use the Listservs
for advancement beyond talking to ourselves.<br>
<br>
Paul<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>
-<br>
</body>
</html>