Re: GAS-L: Cheap charcoal gasifiers

[VHarris001@aol.com]

In a message dated 04/15/2000 12:51:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
andrew.heggie@dtn.ntl.com writes:

> > (Doug Williams said) I'd like to suggest that it be kept in mind, that we 
cannot impose our
>  >ideals on rural populations in far away places.  Our choice of 
technologies
>  
>  This is the point Vernon made.
>  >is not simple or cheap, but it can be reliable if the gas making phenomena
>  >is understood.


Hi everyone,

Doug Williams' point about not imposing our ideals on rural populations in 
far away places is well taken.  While I'm unsure as to Doug's particular 
philosophy regarding technology as it relates to poor or low-tech 
civilizations, I generally have no philosophical inclination either way.  I 
live in the USA in an Amish community where high-tech and low-tech coexist 
"relatively" peacefully.  While I, like Tom Reed, appreciate all that 
technology has brought me, I respect that others have no such appreciation.  
I personally find no compelling reason to introduce technology -certainly not 
just for technology's sake, and I very much doubt that many do.

I, like Tom Reed, believe technology can be very beneficial, particularly at 
the large scale - IF it actually results in a low cost per delivered unit 
(more likely in urban than rural settings).  However, as I've noted below, I 
believe a technology can (and sometimes does) facilitate the transfer of 
wealth away from the poor.  This is particularly so when that technology is 
in the hands of a monopolist regulated by a corrupt regime (as one will note 
is frequently the case in poor communities).

My view on technology and third-world society is generally more practical 
than philosophical.  Even though I have little training in economics,  I try 
to view most situations from an economic point of view - I can at least 
understand some of the driving forces behind "needs" and "possessions" and 
trade.

Much of the world is so desperately poor that (I believe) interventions by 
the "haves" on behalf of the "have-nots," while well intended and temporarily 
helpful, are mostly futile and may in fact be detrimental - with one 
exception.  That one exception is that if the "haves" are willing to make the 
long term investment necessary to insure that their intervention is 
successful.  I suspect this frequently requires more commitment than the 
"haves" find themselves willing to give.

For example, giving a high-tech cookstove (or gasifier) to a poor community 
helps in both conserving fuel (thus reducing the overall cost of fuel) and 
reducing exposure to smoke.  However, as I mentioned to Andrew, when that 
poor community finds that there is no chicken to put in the pot, the stove is 
soon traded for a chicken.  The poor community is fed another day but now has 
no cookstove.

The overall economic condition of the very poor is such that they cannot 
afford to keep the cookstove.  I think that the very poor could never keep 
possession of the relatively high value cookstove until they are economically 
stable enough to have afforded the cookstove in the first place.  That is, of 
course, unless the "haves" are willing to intervene long enough (provide the 
chickens) that the community becomes financially stable enough that they are 
not forced to trade away the stove.

My considered opinion is that ANY item of value given to anyone becomes an 
item of trade or commerce (somewhat akin to giving them money).  If the item 
of value I gave was not the item most needed by the person I gave it to, then 
should the opportunity present itself and the need be great enough, the item 
will be traded away for that most needed.  Additionally, the poor are 
frequently so desperate for the item most needed that they have a poor 
bargaining position.  This in turn means that, in desperation, they trade the 
high value item they possess for a low value item they are more in need of.  
Thus, the rich get richer (trading up through bargaining position) and the 
poor get poorer (trading down out of necessity).

Even in urban settings where the electric grid powers most cook stoves (and 
thus there is no mass production wood stove making), the poor not only can't 
afford to purchase the electricity but wood stoves also aren't readily 
available, putting them out of economic reach as well.  Thus the poor find 
themselves trading their assets - again at a deep discount - to obtain needed 
electric power, an expensive stove or chicken.  The rich continue to get 
richer and the poor continue to get poorer.

I think the only way to stop this flow of assets away from the poor is to 
increase the wealth of the poor, in essence to make them permanently more 
wealthy.  I suspect that in order for someone to keep an item of value, they 
must already possess sufficient assets both to afford to purchase and 
maintain the item of value.  This permanent increase in wealth is the essence 
of what is required from the "haves" in order to sustain the "have nots."  
Lack of willingness to persevere with this long term commitment is why most 
projects are doomed to fail.  An unsupported high tech wood stove project is 
similarly likely to fail - because using less wood and a smoke-free 
environment are of little concern to those who have no chicken.

You realize of course that elevating the wealth of the poor is a monumental 
task.  Consider that - of the things the poor do have - it is the least or 
worst of EVERYTHING.  The poor have the least arable land, the least 
rainfall, the worst housing, the feeblest beast of burden, the most 
inappropriate tools, the least productive seed, the least nutritious food, 
the poorest health.  Everything they own is virtually incapable of enduring 
the more intense use needed to support even a modest increase in productivity 
or output.

To compound the problem even further, "the poor" is a moving target.  The 
reasonably affluent today can be poor tomorrow and slowly build back their 
affluence over time - even without third-party intervention.  Assisting the 
poor is an incredibly difficult and complex task.  Even one small aspect of 
helping may be problematic.  Consider that just the act of dumping high-tech 
cook stoves into any community - poor or otherwise - puts the existing stove 
makers out of business.

That is why Andrew and many others are "right on" in the quest for cheap 
charcoal gasifiers (and stoves).  If the item is cheap enough that it can be 
built or bought by the community, then when there is no chicken, the item has 
insufficient value to be traded away.  True, someone goes hungry, but at 
least the next time there is a chicken available there will still be an 
efficient stove to cook the chicken on, and dinner can be enjoyed without 
breathing all that smoke.

I don't consider myself a "do-gooder," but I respect those who are.  I 
suspect some have been trying to help the poorest of the poor since the dawn 
of man.  I don't yet see the light at the end of the tunnel.  Nevertheless, 
keep up the good work everyone - persevere.

Vernon Harris
VHarris001
The Gasification List is sponsored by
USDOE BioPower Program http://www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/
and PRM Energy Systems http://www.prmenergy.com
Other Sponsors, Archives and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/gasification-list-archive
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/carbon.shtml