The political economy of international policy

The New York Times *suggested* we would 'like' this article today, "Developing Nations to Get Clean-Burning Cookstoves." (Also, the ghost title, "A Move to Replace Soot-Spewing Stoves in the Third World.") Thanks, Grey Lady, but no thanks.

And here's why. We don't doubt that stove efficiency will improve the lives of the people they are distributed to.

The World Health Organization says that indoor air pollution caused by such cooking methods is the fourth greatest health risk factor in developing countries, after unclean water and sanitation, unsafe sex and undernourishment. The gathering of fuel is mainly done by women and children, millions of whom are exposed daily to dangers in conflict-torn regions. The need to forage for fuel also keeps millions of children out of school.

To give them an alternative is humane, considerate and important. So far, so good, yes?

Except this is the part we dislike:

The [current] stoves also contribute to global warming as a result of the millions of tons of soot they spew into the atmosphere and the deforestation caused by cutting down trees to fuel them....
Although the toxic smoke from the primitive stoves is one of the leading environmental causes of death and disease, and perhaps the second biggest contributor to global warming, after the industrial use of fossil fuels, it has long been neglected by governments and private aid organizations.

Now, lest you think we're objecting to a strategy that might combat carbon levels, let us ask rhetorically: Why is it so much easier to impose our political will on the brown people?

Don't get us wrong. We're into the benefits for the families involved, at least the temporary benefits:

The idea is how to create a thriving global industry in cookstoves, driven by consumers’ desire to have these products at a price they can afford,” Mr. Detchon said.

“These stoves don’t have a long lifetime,” he said. “To produce low cost and high volume, you’ll have to replace them relatively frequently, perhaps every two, three or five years. You’ll need a supply chain and business model that delivers them, not on a one-time basis, but as a continuing enterprise.”

Oh, great. That's exactly what we need. Another opportunity to export our model of disposable crap propping up an economy. Did anyone consider using the money to teach people how to use solar ovens, plant fast growing regionally-appropriate fuels, or, heck, maybe even ask Americans to stop using the behemoths we've grown so fond of?

Despite the fact that the lifestyles of people in the First World has and will contribute to profound health effects on millions of people, no one has asked us (nor mandated) that we change anything about our behavior.

And thank goodness, because we want to be able to bake two double-sheet cakes in half the time so we can load up the SUV and drive on down to the party with the jumping castle and the BBQ! Because our time is valuable!

And cake is delicious!