Andrew Parker and list : As in my last reply to Ronald H, I don't see that you are providing links that will help lead to better stoves. Lists like the three in your "P.S." have zero interest in what this list is about - and in fact I believe all three are doing a good job of making sure we are unsuccessful in bringing about better stoves.
Your motivation (first sentence) for getting into this topic is much like many on the list. I started personally with concern about the desertification disaster happening in Sudan - all because of charcoal production in that country's boondocks. Charcoal-making stoves can help a lot with desertification/deforestation, even if the char is used by others for cooking - because most present char production is so horrible. But many of us on this list have come to see the char as being better for everyone if placed in the ground. Carbon credits will be helpful in that regard. If done appropriately, they can also do a lot to prevent (not encourage) what you rightfully deplore. The issue for this list should be on any/every approach that will give developing country stove users better stoves. With charcoal-making stoves, stove users can even make money while cooking, while meeting your two concerns: saving forests and gaining better health. These topics, which seem important to you, should be on the table at Rio + 20 - and I can't see that they are. Because, in part, of the three sites listed below in your "P.S." Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew C. Parker" <[email protected]> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:35:47 AM Subject: Re: [Stoves] interesting link My interest in efficient stoves was spurred by deforestation and health concerns. Now the forests I was trying to protect are slated to be cleared to make way for palm oil plantations to feed the carbon credits farce. The people whose lives I hoped to improve are also being cleared and forced into refugee camps. An environment that supported upwards of 100,000 will support only a few hundred. For what? For whom? Invoking the Precautionary Principle, we force the very people we seek to protect with our policies into immediate devastation, misery and death, rather than position ourselves to assist in the event that something bad might, maybe, perhaps happen to them sometime in the next 100 to 100,000 years as a result of man caused CO2 release. This is Climate Justice? Its anthropogenic, but the suffering isn't because of climate change. Andrew Parker (not AJH) P.S. If you don't like Climate Depot, try wattsupwiththat.com, or for math heads, climateaudit.org (I try, but it gives me a migraine). _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/
