<div dir="ltr">Paul:<div><br></div><div>On Ron's comments, I suggest avoiding "<b style="font-size:12.8px">multi-variable analysis</b>" except to recognize that biomass systems are "linked" on the supply and demand side to multiple sources and multiple markets, the links being context-specific. <br><br>There is no point reciting climate, health, women's empowerment, etc. etc. to this crowd. GACC and Kirk Smith would do all of that, though perhaps for LPG. It's not a game biomass advocates can win based on the evidence to date. <br><br>Keeping the message simple -- that market opportunities are being lost, and that even in India, LPG and electricity will not capture even 50% of the total cooking and heating market any time soon - will be ideal. Let your audience raise quibbles about all the red herrings like health. What matters is that users find stoves usable, just that. <br><br>You want a "<b>a message to the world"</b>? Keep the world in mind, not sideshows like ISO, ETHOS, GACC, or GBD. Influencing academics is not necessarily the best route, unless you can get Kirk Smith to backtrack on his "truly health productive" and press on "when gas is not available". By 2030, the theoretical potential for solid fuels - for three billion today and likely to remain at least half that, if LPG and electricity even take care of population growth (considering gross new household formation rate at some 50 million couples a year.) <br><br>WHO will keep on assigning risk factors to the roughly 600 million people who would pass between 2015 and 2030. Not credible players. <br><br>Nikhil</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="georgia, serif"> <br></font><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">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>Paul and list</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Thank you for repeating your important message request below. See inserts below.</div><div><br></div><br><div><span class="gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Oct 8, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Paul Anderson <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Stovers,<br>
<br>
Over a week ago I sent a message (attached as a Word document) with
this title and first paragraph:
<blockquote type="cite"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:center" align="center"><b><span style="font-size:16pt;line-height:107%">Recognize Clean
Cooking with
Renewable Solid Fuels 2017-09-29</span></b></p>
<span><br>
We need to deliver <b>a
message to the
world</b> that any discussion of access to clean fuel sources
for cooking MUST
include recognition that renewable solid fuels (mainly wood /
pellet / chips,
but including some forms of agro-refuse) are also highly clean
burning in
modern advanced cookstoves. So, the topic is correctly stated
as
"clean cookstoves and fuels", but it is often reduced to be only
"clean fuels," which is very misleading. <br>
</span></blockquote>
Is this not one of the top five issues of this Stoves Listserv????<br></div></div></blockquote></span><div><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[RWL1: yes - but what are your other four? Maybe this is also the most important of your five. I have a few other topics in [RWL13.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I am ready to concede that there are cleaner fuels than solid biomass (electricity from solar is one example). The issue is one you have mentioned many times - the economics of cleaner options must come into play for those with a very limited income. TLUDs have properties that need to balanced against one type of health issue. Climate change is bringing a huge array of heath issues that should be in the dialog.</b></div><span class="gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Well, the response has been totally UNDERwelming. TWO. Yes, a
total of 2 people sent comments directly to me (without wanting to
become involved) and ZERO comments on the Stoves Listserv.<br></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL2: Apologies for not saying more earlier.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
Does that tell us something about ourselves? Maybe:<br>
1. People do not read the Stoves List messages.<br></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL3: No- I know there are many more readers than responders.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
2. My message content is not clear, or maybe too long, or maybe
something else.<br></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL4. No - you are doing an admirable job.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
3. The topic is really not of interest to biomass Stovers.<br></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL5: No - Most on this list are here to promote improved biomass-based cook stoves. That is the stated purpose of the list (for more than 21 years.]</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
4. Biomass Stovers have given up and now accept biomass being
regarded as a “dirty fuel".<br></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL6: No - not “Biomass Stovers”. Certainly other types of “Stovers”. Those are not apt to have any interest in this or any biomass-oriented list.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
5. Readers are in such total agreement with what I wrote that they
feel no need to comment.<br></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL7: Yes - a partial answer.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
6. Something else: ________ fill in the blank _________________<br></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL8: We are all busy people - and it is sometimes downright unpleasant to respond (not to you). Obviously not your 7th suggestion . </b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
7. All of the above.<br>
<br>
So, I am writing again. (Stupid Anderson, he will never learn.) <br>
<br>
I conclude with what is at the end of my document from last week:
<blockquote type="cite"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>7. What
next???? <br>
a. Discussion will be at the Stoves Listserv. (If comments
are sent
directly to me at <a class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a> , I might post them
with your name attached.)<br></span></p></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL9: I don’t see a better alternative than this list - but please keep summarizing at your website.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>b. Who
will help carry this
message forward? Please speak up. Some assistance is
needed.<br></span></p></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL10: I see a great deal of help coming from the ISO process - which is linked considerably to GACC. I will keep trying to help - and can report I am nearing finishing something on the “denominator equation” - which is mislabeled. This has been a major hinderance to TLUD acceptance - with zero logic behind the objection.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>c. To
whom should this message
be sent (as is or improved): One person is </span><a href="https://www.devex.com/news/authors/1253453" target="_blank"><span>Sophie Edwards</span></a><span> the journalist who wrote the </span><span>18 September 2017 item about
Rachel
Kyte.. And also send to Rachel Kyte.</span><span> </span></p></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL11. Ms Edwards seems an honest reporter - with a limited background (as for most reporters on almost any subject). I am not worried about Ms Kyte - based on what she has recommended as a funding increase for stoves.</b></div><div><b><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I suggest the attendees soon in Delhi are your best target right now.</b><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite">
<span>d. Perhaps
a "Declaration
of Clean Cooking with Wood" could be prepared, and presented for
endorsement / adoption by organizations and persons. (Suggest a
better
name??)</span><br></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL12: Hmm. Maybe. I guess I see a need more for economic, social, and ethical analyses. Kirk Smith well recognizes the (climate and economic) down sides of LPG</b>;<b> he values one type of health issue higher (and we can be supportive of that) I guess we need multi-variable analysis more than declaration. But I am willing to participate on the analytical side of your declaration.</b></div><div><span class="gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite"><span>e. Whatever is next, we need to
utilize
the format and facilities of the GACC, including the Forum in
Delhi. This
is what the GACC is all about:<span>
</span>With emphasis on the word CLEAN, we are all seeking to
have clean
cookstoves reaching even those people who only have biomass
fuels for daily
cooking. And this can be done with existing methods, etc., that
will
be further improved with the feedback from the woodgas stove
users.</span></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><span class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL13: Agreed with all. But more than the word “CLEAN” needs to be involved. If one can achieve a certain degree of cleanliness, then other parameters can/must come into play. Specifically I am thinking climate change, soil improvement, and increased rural income and health (improved nutrition). Stoves are not THE way to get these benefits from biochar. They could be the best early way - as cooks can make money rather than spend it. TLUDs are an investment opportunity and everyone prefers investments over expenses. And they suffer not at all on health, time-savings, costs, etc.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Ron</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><br></b><blockquote type="cite"><div><span class="gmail-"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite"><span> <br>
</span></blockquote>
Paul<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_5816331076898800784moz-signature" cols="72">-- </pre></div></span></div></blockquote></div></div>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>