<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=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">List:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I don’t recall previously reading (or discussing on this list) this 2013 (non-fee) paper at <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es304942e" class="">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es304942e</a>.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Title: <b class=""><u class="">"Cleaner Cooking Solutions to Achieve Health, Climate, and Economic
Cobenefits"</u></b></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Jim Jetter, perhaps my favorite stove expert (head of a big part of the recent ISO exercise) is one of the co-authors. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> What most interests me are Tables 2 and 3 - which cover ALL three of the title topics - not just health. Note “Cobenefits”. These need not be separate stove topics.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>They are NOT endorsing here what I have been suggesting - funding for char-making stoves to accomplish carbon climate goals. But they are not far from it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ron</div></div></div></body></html>