The Charcoal Project

OPINION

In forging ahead this week with our research to discover the cost to society of global biomass consumption using traditional technology (aka “three stones and a pot” or “open fire”), I spoke with Professor Lakshman Guruswamy at the University of Colorado. Guruswamy, a jovial Sri-Lankan native is Professor of International Environmental Law and Director of the University’s Center for Energy & Environmental Security (CEES).

Guruswamy is also one of the world’s leading experts in the field of Energy Justice in relation to the Energy Oppressed People (EOP) (his terms). Both concepts were, until recently, novel ideas to me.

In a recent white paper, Professor Guruswamny makes the point that, “between 2 and 2.5 billion people, amounting to nearly a third of the world, rely upon bio-mass generated fire as their principal source of energy. Unlike the rest of the world, they live without access to energy generated lighting, space heating, cooking, and mechanical power. The plight of these energy oppressed peoples (EOP), who face almost insuperable human, social, and economic development, cries out for energy justice. (My emphasis)

Unfortunately, world attention has almost exclusively been focused on problems of global warming arising from the use and misuse of fossil fuel energy. The world’s decision makers, demonstrated once again, at the climate change conference in Copenhagen, that they are almost obsessively concerned with the emissions of carbon dioxide. They remained oblivious to the lament of disease, problems of public health, lack of safe drinking water, non access to education, sickness, death, and economic deprivation, not attributable to carbon dioxide. In keeping with this approach, they continued to ignore the energy-based problems, afflicting a third of the world’s population, caused by the absence of modern sustainable energy. While some slight attention was paid to the poor who generated carbon dioxide emissions, the plight of the non carbon dioxide generating EOP was totally ignored.”

Whether or not you agree with the Professor, it’s clear that industrialized and emerging nations are poised to leap into the clean fuel and green technology era, leaving behind nearly a third of the world’s population who is destined to continue burning wood, charcoal, and animal dung using noxious technologies that have remained unevolved for the last 3000 years.

So, what gives?

In his paper, Guruswamy says that “the situation of the EOP is intolerable under any canon of justice, and cries out for redress.[4] Geopolitically, developing peoples[5] have the right to develop, and developed countries have a duty to help them do so. Energy is a prerequisite to sustainable development and to addressing issues of poverty, hunger, education, gender equality, child and maternal health, sanitation, and environmental protection.”

Regardless of any emotions elicited by the use of the terms “energy justice,” or “energy oppressed people,” Guruswamy makes an irrefutable and compelling philosophical and practical case for the urgent need to address this issue, and it boils down to this:

1. A developing country has a right to develop and to do so requires energy, and lots of it.

2. There are no plans in the horizon designed to solve the energy problems of developing countries that don’t involve massive investments in fossil fuels

3. The call for reduction in CO2 emissions by the climate change movement puts it at odds with the right of developing countries to build their economies and improve their people’s lot.

Happily, Professor Guruswamy provides us with important strategy to address this conundrum.

He calls it the ASETs program.

ASETs stands for Appropriate Sustainable Energy Technologies. Guruswamy describes “ASETs as low-cost, clean, non-hydrocarbon energy sources from mundane technologies, adapted to the culture of the users, to supply the unmet needs of the EOP. For example, cleaner burning cook-stoves and cooking fuels can alleviate indoor air pollution from black soot while also reducing global warming. (Yes!) Many other mundane technologies already exist to promote better agriculture and encourage women, now freed from illness and hours of fuel gathering, to start small local businesses.” (Yes! Yes!)

from The Need for Energy Justice by Lakshman Guruswamy, Director CEES

Under Guruswamy’s leadership, the Center for Energy and Environmental Security (CEES) at Colorado Law has launched a critical new initiative they call The World Energy Justice Project (WEJP). WEJP’s mission is to mainstream safe, clean, and efficient energy for the world’s Energy Oppressed Poor (EOP), the two and a half billion people living on less than $1-2 a day who have no access to modern energy services.

Starting this summer Guruswamy and his team will set up camp in the remote Andean hamlet of Ayaviri, just above the tree-line at 13,000 feet, where the people eek out the barest of existance. Their first step is to carry out a needs assessment based on careful listening and in close collaboration with the village leaders and its people. What is it they desire most? Clean water? Schools for the children? Better fuels? More nutritious food? Once completed, the needs assessment should point the way to the ASETs to be used that will best address the people’s need using low carbon technology.

If all goes well, The World Energy Justice Project will scale up and help bring energy relief to 2.5 billion of the world’s energy poor.

Low carbon + energy alleviation, now that’s something we can all get behind!

We will keep you posted on the progress of The World’s Energy Justice Project!

The road to Ayaviri, Peru

Call it a stove in every pot. Make that two stoves in every pot.

That’s because Peru could have bought every rural poor two energy efficient stoves in 2007 for the equivalent of what Indoor Air Pollution cost the country.

As we discussed last week, The Charcoal Project is leading a research on a global analysis that would put a price tag on the inefficient domestic combustion of biomass as practiced today in the vast majority of the developing world.

Our friends at the World Bank were kind enough to point us to their Country Environmental Analysis (CEAs) reports on their website.

We randomly selected the 2007 assessment for Peru. The dense 300+ page document does contain however some very valuable information, including this eye-popping table below:

Here’s the fine print to satisfy your inner development geek:

3.39 Total annual cost of indoor air pollution is estimated at 0.55-1.0 billion soles, with a mean estimate of 0.78 billion (Table 3.22). The cost of mortality for adults is based on the value of statistical life (VSL) as a high bound and HCA as a low bound, and on the human capital approach (HCA) for children. The cost of morbidity includes the cost of illness (medical treatment, and value of lost time for adults) and DALYs from morbidity valued at GDP per capita to reflect the cost of reduced well-being associated with illness. The value of time for adults is 75 percent of urban and rural average hourly wages, which are 3.8 SI. and 2.5 SI. respectively.

3.40 There is very little information about the frequency of doctor visits, emergency visits and hospitalization for COPD patients in any country in the world. Schulman et al. (2001) and Niederman et al. (1999) provide some information on this from the United States and Europe. Figures derived from these studies are applied to Peru in this chapter. Estimated lost work days per year is based on frequency of estimated medical treatment plus an additional 7 days for each hospitalization and one extra day for each doctor and emergency visit. These days were added to reflect time needed for recovery from illness.

3.41 To estimate the cost of a new case of COPD, the medical cost and value of time losses have been discounted over a 20-year duration of illness. An annual real increase of 2 percent in medical cost and value of time has been applied to reflect an average expected increase in annual labor productivity and real wages. The costs were discounted at 3 percent per year, a rate commonly applied by WHO for health effects.

A conversion shows that the high end cost of IAP (rounded to 1 billion Peruvian soles) in the table above is equivalent to 321,123,160 in 2007 US Dollar

Add to this sum the cost of labor lost, deterioration of environmental services, and CO2 emissions and I bet the amount is closer to 500,000 million USD.

This figure is purely speculative but we hope our pending global review will shed more light on the actual cost.

Oh, in case you were wondering, U$321,123,160 will buy you about 16 million rocket stoves at $20 a pop.

There were about six million rural poor in Peru in 2007.

Today’s NYT article titled Ecosystem in Peru Is Losing a Key Ally tells the familiar story of how poverty and cultural tastes are rapidly sealing the fate of the arid-dwelling huarango, a unique species of trees that can live more than one thousand years. According to the article, haurango rivals teak in hardness and its embers are prized for outlasting any other form of wood charcoal. It is also viewed by Peruvians “as the prime wood for charcoal to cook a signature chicken dish called ‘pollo broaster.’ ”

(Judging from the online recipes, comments, and images, the dish might make a good substitute for a bucket of KFC.)

In addition to its longevity, this species is critical to the water cycle in this parched coastal strip of the Atacama-Sechura Desert and is an important source of nutrition for the local community. “The huarango captures moisture coming from the west as sea mist. Its roots are among the longest of any tree, extending more than 150 feet to tap subterranean water channels.” According to the article, only about 1 percent of the original forest cover remains. It appears the impoverished communities that live in this unforgiving land depend on converting trees into charcoal for their survival. A kilo of huarango charcoal fetches about U$0.50.

Culture — but mostly poverty — seem to be at the greatest threats to this amazing tree species which grows nowhere else on the planet.

I looks like the huarango’s survival may well depend on the rapid implementation of a fuel-efficient stoves and alternative biofuel briquettes program. Let’s see what agency or NGO step up to the plate.