Although it was not in the required reading, I read the Introduction prior to Chapters 1 and 2. I'm not very well-versed in public policy or energy or sustainability, but I feel like the introduction gave me enough understanding and gave itself enough credibility to allow me to read it without feeling worn down or confused.
The most striking part of the reading, I found, was in the introduction.
“Further, the people who have the least access to energy are
reflected least in the limited data that are collected. Their voices and
experiences are lost – and thus the expression of their needs, desires, and preferred
solutions.” (p. vii)
This statement reminds me of the relatively recent political
debate and scandal of the Congressional Panel on birth control, where there were
no women on the panel despite the fact that the results of the eventual congressional
and presidential decision would be affecting almost exclusively women. Similarly,
we need to listen to the people that we are trying to help, and fully
comprehend what they need, and include them in the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m surprised that “globally, deaths from the use of solid
fuels are second only to tobacco smoke as an environment risk, and represent
the tenth largest risk overall” (p. 9). The fact that cooking your food and
warming your body so you don’t die can kill you, and does so on an alarmingly
regular and steady basis, is atrocious and should be preventable. This part of the article also widens the sphere of
influence to the entire globe when it states “burning solid fuels in open areas
and traditional stoves cause global warming” (p. 10). Anyone who thinks that
whatever is happening in parts away from them is not their problem is a)
probably a terrible person, and b) not considering all the implications, such
as global warming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The zeer pot industry and development (p. 22) intrigues me.
I like how the product is made from materials found in that area, which
eliminates or drastically reduces the time, materials, and cost accumulated
from importing. More importantly, it fulfills the need that “funding should aim
to support the creation of markets” (p. 45). That market isn’t a result of a
foreign entity that could be stopped should the funding run dry; it has been
incorporated into their economy, which makes the product more accessible and brings
the jobs and business that comes with any local economy.
I love the part about the Zeer pots too! It seems so simple, yet is really effective. I also like that it could possibly be made using materials that someone might already have, or that they could find for a low cost (sand is free, right?).
ReplyDeleteI also found the high death rate (especially among children) from indoor air pollution due to cooking really disturbing. I think a lack of alternative fuel sources as well as a lack of stoves/low tech stoves puts women in developing nations in a very difficult situation where they want to sustain their families, but they are simultaneously endangering their family's health every time they cook a meal.
ReplyDeleteThe immediate risks associated with cooking really are horrifying and infuriating. And the broader ones as fascinating. One of the reasons I like this reading is because of the incorporation of voices of the end users, which is unfortunately far too rare in this realm of work, to this day. I'm glad you caught it!
ReplyDelete