Going back to the original thread, the basis of the Yale conference critique is that stoves are not the "silver bullet" for black carbon. Diesel is a more appropriate policy.
But did stoves ever claim to be the silver bullet? I ask this because it's something of a classic maneuver in policy circles to debunk a policy that is gaining traction by saying that it has taken on the mantle of the "silver bullet" for a particular issue. Then you say, look, there are other ways of reducing black carbon (for example) that don't require your policy. Because there are undoubtedly other ways to reach the objective, it's pretty easy to do. But I'd be surprised if anybody on this listserv is against better technology for diesel combustion. I'd doubt also anyone on this listserv would claim stoves are the silver bullet. What the Yale conference should have concluded is that more attention to black carbon resulting from diesel is required because it is also part of the solution to the black carbon issue. This highlight that we have another arrow in our quiver to address black carbon. Unfortunately, the temptation is there to denigrate the current approach via the "silver bullet" critique. It's just a clever way to draw attention to your policy, though at the expense of other approaches and ultimately the objective your trying to reach. Best, Mark _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org http://stoves.bioenergylists.org http://info.bioenergylists.org
