Blog

We realize that not every stove and briquette program is viable until some serious “ground-truthing” has occurred. But who, or what agency, does one turn to to carry out this work? What multi-lateral or development agency is spearheading the coordination of a global effort to ramp up the adoption of green technology and clean fuels […]

One thing we’ve learned is that stoves are a bit like dogs: they come in every shape, size, and specs.

From the scrappy mongrel that’s hardwired for survival, to the pedigreed hound that’s bred for speed, they all have traits their fans will swear by.

So, when a report evaluating the performance of various mass-produced stoves landed on our desk(top), we pounced on it!

We’ve been scratching our heads wondering why energy-efficient stoves have not caught on among the world’s 2.4 billion energy poor.

Stove prices are relatively affordable, the advantages seem fairly obvious, and the technology is simple, proven, and effective.

So what’s the hold up?

We recently announced The Charcoal Project’s intention to help quantify the cost to society of current levels and practices of biomass consumption in the developing world.

Once we discover the direct and indirect costs of “business as usual”, we can then figure out the cost-benefit of pushing for the large-scale adoption of energy efficiency technology and policies.

Starting today you will find a section titled Biomass in Numbers on the right-hand column. Here you will find blurbs and links to information that will help us better understand the true cost of energy poverty.

So, you’ve been wondering how decisions get made at The Charcoal Project? Is it just Kim and Nina and the elves?

Not always.

We receive invaluable input from individuals who voluntarily serve on our Advisory Board.

While much attention has been paid to the social and economic impact of Indoor Air Pollution (IAP), we feel strongly that compiling more comprehensive data on the environmental costs (including Climate Change, loss of ecosystem services, etc.), and impacts on labor productivity and poverty alleviation would help establish the baseline necessary from which to begin a comprehensive review of current policies and cost-benefit analysis of energy-efficiency promotion on a global scale.

It seems like (BC) (aka soot or particulate matter), is finally being recognized as one of the top worst greenhouse gas offenders.

Regardless of whether you think it contributes 20 or 50 percent of climate warming “radiative forcing,”  Congressional hearings held earlier this week in Washington have ensured that this byproduct of biomass and fossil fuel combustion will forever live in infamy.

This erstwhile symbol of the industrial revolution has been definitely declared gaseosa non-grata.

Black Carbon can refocus attention where it’s most needed

BC’s  new-found notoriety, may be one of the best things to happen to the biomass & bioenergy community.

That’s because international public opinion — especially those on the forefront of the fight against climate change — will hopefully now turn their attention on this villain — along with their principal emitters: the energy poor who depend on biomass as their primary source of energy.

In October 1998 I walked out of a Costa Rican jungle after narrowly escaping a disastrous film shoot with crocodiles.

The near fiasco had nothing to do with filming the animals up close in their natural habitat. Instead, what almost sunk the project was the relentless pounding of a tropical rain that soaked everything and everyone.

Back in our hotel in San Jose we discovered the cause of the rain was a major hurricane that had slowly swept across the Central American isthmus, causing massive death and destruction in Guatemala, Honduras, and in my home country, Nicaragua. Nearly 11,000 people were killed. The flooding caused extreme damage, estimated at over $5 billion (1998 USD, $6.5 billion 2008 USD).