<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear Ron: <br><br>Sorry for the misunderstanding. <br><br><b style="font-size:12.8px">[RWL2: Can you clarify - if not explained below? I take this to mean the you disagreed with everything I said about adding to Paul’s “Declaration”.]<br></b><br>ND: I meant the "<span style="font-size:12.8px">negative carbon-climate-related health aspects of LPG". What is the negative health aspect of LPG? Kirk Smith's computations for Relative Risks are with LPG use as the counter-factual, i.e., LPG is by definition the cleanest cooking alternative. Do you disagree with him? <br><br>Rest between ****. <br><br>Nikhil<br><br></span><div class="gmail_extra"> <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:44 PM, 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">See insert below.<div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-"><div>On Oct 23, 2017, at 5:24 PM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" target="_blank">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781Apple-interchange-newline"></span><div><div dir="ltr">Ron: <br><br>Curious - "<span style="font-size:12.8px">negative carbon-climate-related health aspects of LPG"??<br><br>You mean EPA’s endangerment finding for the US? or Obams’s EPA, No for Trump’s</span></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>RWL1. Yes for Obama’s EPA, no for Trump’s.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>*** There is only one EPA and only one endangerment finding. What does that have to do with LPG? *** </div><span class=""><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><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>You threw me in a spin. </span></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL2: Can you clarify - if not explained below? I take this to mean the you disagreed with everything I said about adding to Paul’s “Declaration”.</b></div><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">All things considered, the discounted present value of switching to LPG over the next ten years is much higher than due to anything else.</span></div></div></blockquote></span><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[RWL3 Y</b>es - higher in negative terms. I interpret your argument to be higher in positive terms. The negatives of LPG far outweigh the positives - in comparing with biochar. I don’t understand your last “due to anything else”. </div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-"><div><br></div></span></div></div></div></blockquote></span><div>*** Yes, the discounted PV of switch is positive, i.e., there are benefits of mass LPG switch. Do you disagree with Kirk Smith? He has said that the household cooking and heating problem is primarily health problem, and that renewability, climate, etc. are red herrings. I agree with him, though not with his methods of quantification of burden of disease or benefits of cooking interventions. If at all, I think the mental health burden of traditional cooking is entirely ignored but few people have bothered to ask the cook. <br><br>I disagree with Prof. Smith that solid fuels cannot be burned cleanly - say, to achieve 2 g/hr PM 2.5 emission limits. I think you too would agree with me. When I meant "due to anything else", I only meant that in the near-term, the integral of benefits from cooking fuel/technology interventions using LPG is higher than any other fuel/technology interventions. Ask Prof. Smith. Nothing else has a large enough potential in terms of market size multiplied with unit reductions in exposures, however modeled. *** </div><span class=""><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><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-"><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Whatever jugglery one does in unit terms, LPG simply has a higher market volume captured relatively quickly. Has been going on for at least 50 years in countries who had their own refinery LPG. Also applies to natural gas and LNG. </span></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span>[RWL4: I have no idea what these two sentences mean - except it seems to be a justification for everything fossil.</div><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-"><br></span></div></div></div></blockquote></span><div>*** Nothing to do with fossil. Looks like everything reminds you of fossil, while everything reminds me of life. Life on this planet in the last 50 years would have been unaimaginably poor without fossil fuels. Or for the next 50 years. *** </div><span class=""><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><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>And if you were to rate the marginal improvement in the welfare of the poor higher than that for the super-rich of the US, LPG, gas, electricity (from whatever means) win hands down as far as combustion fuel or equivalent are concerned. <br></span></div></div></blockquote></span><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>RWL5: </b>Yes for those energy forms that are carbon neutral (wind, PV, hydro geothermal, biomass and doubly so for those that are carbon negative - the best being biochar. ) </div></div><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>LPG is OK - only if you ignore atmospheric CO2 (which no-one should).</div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></span><div>*** Not every molecule of CO2 is a weapon or mass destruction, nor is every particle in the air. If one were to rank unit cost of carbon sequestration, perhaps biochar is a good project. Please leave poor people to burn charcoal or store or sell it. Climate policy is Western neoimperialism, a war against the poor. *** </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><div><span class=""><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">The argument in support of wood gas is simply that the WHO propaganda on solid fuels being dirty is utter nonsense, and that solid biomass can be burned cleanly at a much lower cost, given the right market incentives and innovation support. </span></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL6: </b><span style="font-size:14px">I</span><b style="font-size:14px"> do not consider anything (repeat - ANYTHING) from WHO to be “utter nonsense</b><b><span style="font-size:14px">”. I repeat (rom an earlier message to you) that your argument is the same as was given (decades ago) about health aspects of cigarettes. I have seen a lot of data comparing emissions from LPG stoves with biomass loves. I don’t ever remember seeing </span></b><b><span style="font-size:14px"> LPG losing. Your counter evidence? Do you feel the data showing cigarettes are unhealthy to be overwhelming or weak?</span></b></span><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">*** Oh, you then agree with WHO that solid fuels combustion is a surrogate for "dirty cooking", i.e., biomass is dirty by assumption. If you find a lot of sense in the argument that # of household claiming to rely primarily on solid fuels for cooking and heating is the indicator of household pollution exposure, or that the first-round SDG 3.9.1 metric - reduction in such % of households using solid fuels (which means biomass for the most part) - is the sign of sustainable development, I cannot argue with you. As far as I am concerned, WHO's claim that solid fuels are dirty is nonsense, won't you? *** </span> </div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><span class=""><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><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">That does not mean that other competing solid fuel combustion technologies rate any less respect if intellectual respect has any merit. - </span></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[RWL7: The only other solid fuel I can think of is coal - which should be immediately outlawed - for both short and long term health reasons and (not least) for economic damages due to ocean sea rise, acidification, etc.</b>.</div></div></div></blockquote></span><div><br>*** Dream on, sir. Why don't you begin with Colorado? I just found Colorado CO2 emissions from coal in 2015 were about the same as those in 1990 - 32 million tons. For the whole of US and from all fossil fuels, it was roughly the same - 5.2 billion tons vs. 5 billion tons. For less than a billion tons of CO2 from coal-fired electricity using the Best Available Control Technologies, about 5 billion tons of CO2 from biomass cookstoves can be eliminated. The anti-fossil zeal is Western neo-imperialism. <br><br>But rest assured, I did not have coal in mind. When I said "other competing solid fuel combustion technologies", I meant other biomass-based technologies other than wood gas. <br><br>I will sign on to worldwide outlawing of coal by 2100, unless it turns out that a little sulfur in coal would keep the earth cool, as James Hansen has argued in his "Faustian Bargain" paper. <br><br>Or tell me you even disagree with James Hansen.*** </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=""><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">(Not in my books.</span></div><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781Apple-tab-span" style="font-size:12.8px;white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b><span style="font-size:12.8px">[RWL8: Does this mean that intellectual respect has no merit? </span><font size="2">Weird.</font><span style="font-size:12.8px"> Can you state this without a negative?</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></b></div></span><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">*** Oh, these days I don't know. So much intellectual smoke being spewed that honest discussions of limitations and cautions are ignored. Just read Kirk Smith's assumptions in HAPIT or in his Millions Dead paper, and tell me what you disagree with. To state without a negative, "In my books, intellectual respect has merit. Therefore, fuel/stove fads that are found usable and used by the consumers deserve support." Even if they are solid fuels, and even coal. Please understand the compulsions of the poor, not the compulsions of bureaucrats and professors. **** </span></div></div></div></blockquote><span class=""><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><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"> I count money.) </span></div><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[RWL9: Almost everyone counts money. The key climate and health economics question is what discount rate? I favor zero or close to it. Your choice for discount rate?</b></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>*** The overnight moneylender rate without collateral in the villages of the Third World. Comes to 1-2%. Per day. For national governments, the local 10-year government bond rate plus 50-100% risk penalty. If you have a zero percent discount rate, please tell the youth that they should never save a dime. I think of discount rate in terms of the individual who is making the decision to consume or save or borrow or lend. *** </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><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Ron<br></b><div><div class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-h5"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br><br>Nikhil</span></div></div><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781gmail_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> </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 23, 2017 at 5:23 PM, 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, CC LIST AND NIKHIL:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781m_6296637981726251945Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I am handicapped as I write this - as I also am away from home. Please include me as a signee. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781m_6296637981726251945Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>But I feel you have left out several of the most important aspects of TLUDs. Foremost is that such stoves can earn (more than save) money for the users. Using the phrase “Terra Preta” can prove the out-year benefits of placing char in soil. And saving time while the stove is in operation. And being able to use leaves and very small biomass.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781m_6296637981726251945Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Your emphasizing the health benefits of TLUDs is very important- but we can also support solar cookers, which when combined with TLUDs (why should they not choose TLUDs as their needed backup?) would be the absolute cleanest of all fuel choices. And we can knock the negative carbon-climate-related health aspects of LPG (in a “whereas”).</div><div><br></div><div>Ron</div><div><div class="m_3398300057711853788gmail-m_-2112431815915421781h5"><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_extra"> </div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>