AAAS Panel on Health and Climate Impacts of Cooking with Biomass

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science was this past week here in Vancouver.  On Friday, my colleague here at UBC, Michael Brauer, and I co-organized a three hour symposium on the impacts of cooking with solid fuels, and biomass more specifically.  Here is the abstract of the symposium:

Roughly 3 billion people worldwide rely on solid fuels, primarily biomass such as wood or dung for their primary cooking fuel. This has implications for human health (about 2 million attributable deaths per year, which is comparable to deaths from malaria), climate change (from combustion and land-use effects), local environmental change, and gender equity. However, there are major gaps in our knowledge of the emissions and health effects of biomass combustion, the efficacy of improved biomass stoves and fuels, the complex relationship between biomass fuels and land-use change, and the climate effects of changing cooking technologies and fuels. This issue will continue to be a major problem for the global poor in coming decades, as biomass fuel is usually more available and less expensive than alternatives. Sustainable solutions have proved elusive because of the challenges associated with diffusing energy technologies to mainly rural households. This symposium focuses on the climate and health impacts of cooking with biomass that will cover both the science and policy of this energy poverty problem. This multifaceted and complex problem encompasses domains ranging from combustion engineering and climate science to the economics of household decision-making. Experts on household energy, health, climate change, and emissions will discuss the state of knowledge in their respective fields and policy options for accelerating the move toward cleaner stoves and fuels.

The speakers were:
Kirk R. Smith, University of California, Berkeley Small, Smart, Fast, and Cheap: Monitors for Household Energy Interventions

Andrew Grieshop, North Carolina State University Clean Cookstove Emissions: How Are They Now and How Low Do They Need To Go?

Julian Marshall, University of Minnesota Verifying Health and Emission Improvements from Stove Change-Outs

Rob Bailis, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Biomass Energy, Land Cover, and Climate-Change Mitigation: How Much Do We Know?

Hisham Zerriffi, University of British Columbia Biomass-Based Cooking and the Energy Transition Process

Plus two discussants:

Jennifer Peel, Colorado State University

Ranyee Chiang, U.S. Department of Energy

The assembled group was working on various aspects of the problem and it was great to be able to chat with them informally over the couple of days we saw each other and to hear about their ongoing work.  I certainly learned a few new things that I need to incorporate into my thinking on the issue.

I would have liked a larger audience (who wouldn’t).  We were scheduled into a decent sized room and given a three hour slot, which I took to be an indication that the program committee thought this an important topic to cover but the room was not nearly as full as it could have been.  Not that I fault the attendees at the AAAS meeting, there were lots of interesting talks to go to, but it confirms my feeling that this remains an under-reported and under-considered issue across various segments of society, including the scientific community.  As part of the event we held a news briefing (decently attended) and I did some interviews (see below).  When they learned the scale and scope of the problem, the universal reaction from the reporters was shock that more people, themselves included, did not know about it and that more was not being done.  In fact, that was the one consistent question I got, why isn’t more being done?  I wish I could answer that question.  There are some major new initiatives, but as I said, more attention clearly needs to be drawn to the issue.

News Coverage:  We also held a news briefing on this issue the day before the panel (webcast). Articles ran in English in The Hindu, Zee News, Truth Dive, Science a Go-Go, Environment and Energy.  There was also coverage in Swedish, Spanish and Polish media.  You can hear a CBC radio interview I did here: CBC Zerriffi Feb 2012.  Andy did a podcast (Science Update) that can be found here. A piece also ran on The Link, a Radio Canada International Program about a week later. There may be one or more news items over the next week and I’ll post an update if those pan out.

How not to engage in scientific debate

As my colleague, Simon Donner, reported on his blog, he and I have both received an envelope in the mail from someone who is clearly a climate change skeptic.  The thick envelope consisted mainly of newspaper clippings with marginal notes questioning statements about the human influence on the climate.  As Simon says in his post, nothing unusual about getting pushback on the issue.  However, two things stand out here:

1) The package was sent in the mail, not electronically, and was sent without a name on the return address nor any indication of the name of the person in the materials they sent.

2) The package was sent from One Physics Ellipse in College Park, MD.  You’d be forgiven for thinking this is just a made up address, but it is actually the address of a professional organization, namely the American Institute of Physics (i.e. the professional organization of physicists).

So, what we have is a physicist who disputes human influence on climate change sending materials anonymously but trying to implicitly bolster their credibility by using the AIP address (i.e. “I won’t tell you who I am but you should listen to me because I work for the association of physicists).  The other possibility, of course, is that someone just wrote the AIP address on the package but that they don’t actually work there.

This bothers me.  I’m happy to debate an issue, but sending anonymous mailings is not the way to conduct a scientific discussion. Plus, to use the address of a well-respected professional organization in this manner is a rather cheap way of trying to say you have the credentials to be listened to.  I would hope and assume this is not the kind of activity the AIP expects of its employees.

Post-Doc Position in Energy Security

Tags

, , ,

The Liu Institute for Global Issues (my home unit) is hiring a post-doctoral fellow in energy security.  As noted in the ad:

“The Institute regards global energy security as a multi-dimensional problem, incorporating science and technology on the one hand and the social sciences on the other. We are particularly interested in scholars that are researching energy aspects of nuclear security. Possible areas of research could include: proliferation risks of current and proposed nuclear fuel cycles, nuclear power and other alternate low-carbon technology solutions to deal with climate change (including application of energy models), and risk assessment as applied to nuclear fuel cycles and nuclear power plant operations.”

I highly encourage applicants to look at the roster of folks here (myself included) that do energy work and consider applying.  We provide an excellent work and intellectual environment.

Science Policy Forum: Preparing to Manage Climate Change Financing

Tags

, , ,

UPDATE: As my colleague Simon Donner notes on his blog, this article is starting to get some press (Canadian Press, carried by CBC News and others, Vancouver Sun, Agence France Presse).  While the coverage is mostly good, there is one issue that does need clarification.  Our commentary is not based on just the history of United Nations programs or even the Green Climate Fund for that matter. Rather we look at the overall international aid system to derive recommendations for climate financing.

ORIGINAL STORY:

Simon Donner, Milind Kandlikar and I have a Policy Forum in the latest issue of Science on climate change financing.  Here is the UBC Press Release:

In advance of a major United Nations climate conference, University of British Columbia researchers are recommending how to manage a $100 billion annual commitment made by the international community last year to help the developing world respond to climate change – a funding promise almost equal to all existing official development aid from major donor countries today.

In today’s issue of Science, three UBC professors – Simon Donner, Milind Kandlikar and Hisham Zerriffi – argue that the aid commitment made by developed nations at last year’s United Nations climate conference is unprecedented and that the world must learn from the troubled history of international development to ensure that countries meet the commitment and provide real actions on the ground.

“Climate change is expected to have a much greater impact on people in the developing world, even though they are least responsible for the problem,” says Donner, an assistant professor in the Department of Geography and faculty associate in the Liu Institute for Global Issues at UBC. “This funding is critically important. We need to make sure the money is provided and supports real action.”

The international community’s pledge to mobilize $100 billion in “new” and “additional” funding annually by 2020 was an agreement made at last year’s United Nations climate meeting, the 2010 Cancun Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The international community will review proposals for the management and operation of this program at a meeting in Durban, South Africa, beginning on November 28.

“The Cancun aid commitment represents a large influx of money into an international aid system already fraught with problems,” says Zerriffi, an assistant professor and the Ivan Head South/North Research Chair at Liu Institute for Global Issues. “To be effective, mechanisms must be established to ensure that the funding is administered wisely so that it can be sustained through political changes and economic constraints.”

Donner, Kandlikar and Zerriffi provide specific recommendations for ensuring that countries meet the funding commitment, that waste and misappropriation are minimized and that money is directed to the most effective programs. These guidelines include instituting an “adaptive” regulatory system to close funding loopholes, employing a decentralized network of third-party auditors and adopting a scientific approach to evaluating program effectiveness.

“Randomized control trials – a form of scientific experiment – are being increasingly used to improve outcomes in a wide range of development initiatives, from local governance to child education and infectious disease prevention,” says Kandlikar, an associate professor at the Liu Institute for Global Issues and the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at UBC. “The use of such trials could be very beneficial in improving climate change outcomes.”

The climate change funding, which amounts to more than twice the annual lending by the World Bank, is expected to flow through various channels, including a new Green Climate Fund (GCF) being discussed at the upcoming Durban climate summit. The UBC researchers say that careful stewardship of the initial “fast-track” funding to the GCF is critical.

“We can’t afford to make mistakes in the next few years,” says Donner. “That will sap the public and political will to support this incredibly important long-term initiative.”

Special Issue of Energy Policy on Cooking Fuels

Tags

, , , , ,

The December 2011 issue of Energy Policy features a special section on cooking fuels and technologies in developing countries.  The issue was guest edited by myself along with Shonali Pachauri, Wesley Foell and Daniel Spreng and can be found here.  The Special Issue comes out of a workshop the four of us organized back in 2008 as part of the International Association for Energy Economics Annual Conference in Istanbul.  We had brought together a great group of folks representing academia, practitioners, donors, and industry to discuss issues related to the diffusion of cleaner cooking fuels and technologies.  As many readers already know, over 2.5 billion people rely on traditional burning of biomass for their primary cooking.  This has all sorts of associated social and environmental outcomes including lost time due to fuel collection, contributions to deforestation and, very importantly, acute health effects due to indoor air pollution (resulting in more annual deaths than malaria).  It’s been a long process but we’ve finally been able to publish some of those papers along with some other papers that we solicited from experts in the field to produce a journal issue that covers a number of the major topics in this area.  It includes papers on benefit-cost analysis, household decision-making, air quality and climate impacts of cookstoves, energy indicators, etc.  We hope you find it interesting and useful.

UPDATE:  IIASA (where my co-editor Shonali Pachauri works) has released a press release on the special issue.

High Level Group on Sustainable Energy Announced

Tags

, , , , , ,

2012 has been designated by the United Nations as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All (or SE4ALL as some abbreviate it).  I’m going to set aside for the moment what “sustainable” energy means, especially in the context of solving the energy poverty problem where the simple equation between sustainability and renewables glosses over a number of factors.  What I did want to highlight is the attention this issue has been getting recently, with the formation of the new Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves and now a whole set of activities around this SE4All year.  While various groups, firms, individuals, scholars, etc. have been working in this space for years, arguably the fact that it is getting a lot more attention at the highest levels of government and international governance bodies should help catalyze some action.

Most recently, the U.N. Secretary General released a vision statement for SE4ALL and announced a high-level working group and technical group for the initiative.  Those of you working in this space will, of course, recognized a number of the names.  I’m heartened to see a few folks on there that I know will bring some excellent knowledge and intellectual force to the groups.  Of course, being ever careful (and slightly cynical), I do worry about these various “Year of XXX.”  What does this mean for 2013 when it is no longer the year for sustainable energy.  How will any efforts undertaken this year get the long-term support necessary to address energy poverty in a more comprehensive way?  After all, the ~1.3 billion without electricity and the ~2.6 billion relying on traditional biomass for cooking are not going to be served in just one year.  This is a multi-year and multi-decade issue.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.