<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">List with ccs.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I may respond later to some of the following from Nikhil, but I still have to read the paper.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I have however just read a similar new-old (2014) paper that I hope others will disect/critique (I found it well done). Disect especially in terms that Nikhil calls my “fad" - making money while cooking. This second paper also doesn’t cover money making - but I like the seven main categories (31 subcategories) they have developed. Comments on how this might be modified if using a stove that made money for the user (and I still can’t think of anything besides charcoal in that category). Should governments take special (health, soil, climate, jobs, balance-of-trade, etc) efforts - different from past stove policy analyses (because of charcoal)?</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The paper is non-fee and it (and more) is at: <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.1306639" class="">https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.1306639</a>. </div></div></body></html>