>>6771072

>> 6770851

HA I was right – worthless pieces of crap

Summary:

they projected in 10 yrs would rollout 100 million stoves

half way thru they have only sold 28 million

only 28% meet WHO guidelines

break easily, expensive

but they want more money to keep ‘studying’

65% of funding is from US, UK, Norway

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-cheap-clean-stoves-were-supposed-to-save-millions-of-lives-what-happened/2015/10/29/c0b98f38-77fa-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html?noredirect=on

It hasn’t worked out that way, despite the best efforts of the alliance, which operates as a project of the U.N. Foundation in Washington.

The alliance has accomplished a great deal, attracted more than $413 million in government, foundation and corporate funding to the sector; and enlisted 1,300 partners, it says in a new five-year progress report. the alliance has helped drive more than 28 million cookstoves into the field, well on its way to the target set by Clinton: 100 million by 2020.

But “clean” is a nebulous term. Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised.

Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,”

That’s not the only problem with the stoves. Some perform well in the lab but not in the field. Others crack or break under constant heat. The best cookstoves burning clean fuels won’t protect poor families from disease if those who use them continue to cook over open fires as well — which many do. “They’re not the big solution, unfortunately, that we thought they were going to be,”

says Rema Hanna, a Harvard economist who led “Up in Smoke,” the most extensive field study to date on this subject. Perhaps more research could apprehend what actually works, but for now

it makes no sense to “push more stoves into the world that people aren’t going to use.”

The alliance agrees that more research is needed. It has commissioned more than 40 studies , including a handful of field trials designed to evaluate the health benefits of biomass stoves by looking at birth weights and incidence of respiratory disease.

“Three decades of efforts to promote both modern fuels and improved biomass stoves have seen only sporadic success,” says a 180-page World Bank report published last year. A notable exception was a government program in China that got more than 100 million cookstoves into people’s homes, according to another World Bank study.

“With their system of government, they can kind of dictate what happens,”

notes Jim Jetter, a senior research engineer who tests cookstoves for the EPA.

When journalist Meera Subramanian visited a village in northern India that had been declared “smoke-free” after a nonprofit distributed biomass cookstoves there, she found that women had stopped using the stoves because:

they didn’t like the design

because the stoves broke,

burned more wood (not less, as intended)

didn’t get foods hot enough.

“I couldn’t find a single stove operating in any condition resembling what its designers had intended,”

she writes in her new book, “A River Runs Again,” about India’s environmental crises. The Appropriate Rural Technology Institute, which gave away the stoves, took a survey two years later and found that only 20 percent were still in use.

“Why are they cheating us by giving us things that break so early?”

one woman complained to the agency. “Why don’t they give us something more substantial like LPG or toilets or jobs for children?”

Affordability also remains a fundamental challenge. Though dirtier biomass cookstoves sell for $25 or less, the more complex stoves that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels typically cost more and require access to a steady and cheap supply of fuel, which often isn’t available in rural villages.

“The affordable ones are inadequate, and the good ones are unaffordable.”

Radha Muthiah, a former executive at CARE International, has wrestled with these challenges since becoming chief executive of the cookstove alliance in 2011.

Governments, led by Britain, the United States and Norway, provide about 65 percent of its funding

, with the rest coming from foundations and businesses.

>>6772615

>>6770851

No one would begrudge corporations giving to a philanthropic effort, but we would probably feel differently about our own tax dollars going to the project Clinton is hawking—especially when the project is, by most accounts, an epic fail.

The Alliance’s fundraising success can be attributed to her influence as secretary of state. Before the 2010 announcement, Kris Balderston, who served as her special representative for global partnerships, on his

state.gov account pressured Norway to join.

They obliged with a commitment for a $600,000 “down payment.” Apparently, as emails revealed, the country wanted to be part of the launch: “They wanted to move quickly for the CGI announcement.” Once Norway signed on, while traveling the globe, on the taxpayers’ dime, Clinton recruited more partners.

These so-called “clean cookstoves,” even by the Alliance’s own literature, “may last for several years”—

yet only 20 percent, according to a survey cited in the Washington Post (WP), are still in use after two years.

While the Alliance has reportedly “helped drive more that 28 million stoves into the field,” most do not meet the World Health Organization’s guidelines for indoor emissions. The WP states: “The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste—and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised.”

Defending the Alliance’s effort, Radha Muthiah, CEO of the Alliance, says: “There may not be the greatest health benefit, but there’s certainly a good environmental benefit.”

If these cookstoves don’t achieve the stated goals, why is Clinton such a proponent? As Christine Lakatos, whom I have worked with on dozens of green-energy, crony-corruption reports and who alerted me to this dirty story, found in her Green Corruption File report that Alliance work was a high priority during Clinton’s time as secretary of state. The project spanned eleven federal agencies and, so far, totals more than $114 million.

The answer to Clinton’s involvement, and the possible conflict of interest with her role at the State Department and “aiding the family charity,” deserves further investigation. But a hint can be found on the Alliances’ own website: carbon credits

It states: “In addition to being one of the fastest growing offset types in the voluntary market, cookstoves credits are selling for some of the highest prices observed in the voluntary carbon market.”

If Clinton becomes president, her energy policies will likely enact a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax—which would suddenly make her cookstove project profitable. Rather than helping bring modern power to the world’s poor, she’s, as Kreutzer calls it, “prolonging energy poverty for millions upon millions in the developing world.”

And that is the dirty story behind Clinton’s clean cookstove campaign.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/03/29/the-dirty-story-behind-hillary-clintons-clean-cookstoves-campaign/

>>6772615

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails reveal how prominently the Clinton Foundation factored into her thinking as America’s top diplomat, raising questions about where she drew the line between official business and aiding the family charity run by her husband and daughter.

Another email shows Mrs. Clinton directing a State Department employee to handle solicitation of money from Norway

for a program she was about to announce in a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2010, and which was being run by the United Nations Foundation, another nonprofit created by Ted Turner that has close ties to her family’s operation.

As secretary, Mrs. Clinton also had to make special arrangements for how to handle business from the Clinton Foundation, which had interests in many of the same international projects the State Department did.

One of those was the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. Mrs. Clinton announced the public-private partnership in a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2010.

A week or so before the speech, she sent an email to Kris M. Balderston, who served as the secretary’s special representative for global partnerships and managed the departments’ Global Partnership Initiative, instructing him to pursue a contribution from Norway.

“The Norwegian FM told me Norway would join the Alliance and we should coordinate w his UN Rep. Will you pls follow up? Thx.,” wrote Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Balderston responded to the email three days later: “We spoke to the Norway’s Ambassador to the UN and they are joining the Alliance for Clean Cookstoves for $600,000 the first year. They noted that this is a down payment and would contribute a ‘substantial amount for this endeavor’ in the future. They wanted to move quickly for the CGI announcement and to see a business plan before they commit more.”

“Thnx for making this important call. Other countries including France and Finland were waiting for the Norway signal,” added Mr. Balderston.

The Alliance — a program that replaces wood-fired cookstoves in developing countries with cleaner and more efficient alternatives — is run by the U.N. Foundation, which has donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

The government of Norway also is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation, contributing between $10 million and $25 million

Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and an expert on ethics in government, said that having Mrs. Clinton make the announcement at CGI was enough to raise red flags.

“It needs some ethical vetting,” she said. “There are restrictions on government officials. You are not supposed to use governmental power to endorse a specific organization.”

She pointed to federal regulations that spell out potential conflicts of interest that government officials are required to avoid: “An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or a member.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/1/hillary-clinton-emails-show-foundation-shaped-poli/

>>6772615

Mrs. Clinton’s Convoluted Clean Crony Cookware Cooked up at State with Her Friends and Her Family Foundation Now Costing U.S. Taxpayers Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

[in-depth]

https://greencorruption.blogspot.com/2016/03/mrs-clintons-convoluted-clean-crony.html#.VvhY1nClofr

Enter in the United Nations (UN) Foundation that we can confirm is leading the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.

Keep in mind that UN Foundation, which has offices in New York as well as Washington DC, also happens to be a Clinton Foundation donor and a frequent participant at the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meetings (2010, 2013, and 2015 for starters).

So why was Hilary allowed to fire up the Alliance at her family foundation, along with many of the Alliance partners that are also Clinton Foundation donors (pals), especially Ted Turner's UN Foundation? What about the fact that the Turner Broadcasting is also a Clinton Foundation donor?

Would this require special Obama approval?

In case you are unaware, the UN Foundation that was "created in 1998 as a U.S. public charity by entrepreneur and philanthropist Ted Turner," which claims it "connects people, ideas, and resources to help the UN solve global problems."

Yep, the UN Foundation connects us with the "useless" United Nations that "was established to foster global peace, prosperity and justice…"

Moreover, the UN Foundation "links the UN’s work with others around the world, mobilizing the energy and expertise of business and non-governmental organizations to help the UN tackle issues including climate change, global health, peace and security, women's empowerment, poverty eradication, energy access, and U.S.-UN relations."

While the United Nations has its own set of looming corruption issues, the UN Foundation, like the Clinton Foundation, is highly suspect in its endeavors as a so-called humanitarian organization.