Last week I discussed the basic arithmetic associated with population and economic growth, which will make it impossible to dramatically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions without major improvements in technology. (Some commenters protested, saying that current technology is sufficient, but they are mistaking the ability to reduce emissions based on current levels of income and population and what emissions will be as countries grow and economies expand.)
Now I would like to turn to a short discussion of some of the policies that can help to promote technological innovation.
Getting the prices right
The fact that there is no price paid for emitting greenhouse gases acts as a passive subsidy for all carbon-based fuels (and other activities as well). A carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system are two different ways of attributing a price to carbon, although the carbon tax is the most direct. Economic logic dictates that if users of carbon-based fuels had to pay for the carbon pollution they would use less of it, especially relative to fuels without such emissions. As the demand for the former decreases, the demand for the latter will increase -- i.e., less oil, coal, and gas, and more solar, wind, and hydro. In a cap-and-trade scheme total carbon emissions are capped, but total emissions in the economy may still exceed this cap if the penalties are low relative to the benefits of burning additional carbon.
The key to maximizing the development of alternatives to carbon-based fuels, from a policy standpoint, is to steadily phase in these increasing costs of carbon and maintain political credibility. A tax that rises each year or a cap that decreases each year allows for a smoother transition, and less economic disruption, than raising the price of carbon all at once. In addition, economic actors must believe that the policy is going to last for the long term; if political winds can easily shift, there will be much less incentive to switch to alternatives.
Government sponsored R&D
There are many economists who believe that "getting the prices right" is sufficient to move us towards a low-carbon economy. They may be right. If the price is high enough and our politics stable, businesses and entrepreneurs will have plenty of incentive (because of the money to make) to help us switch away from carbon-based fuels. But there is no reason not to employ other methods in tandem in order to try to accelerate technological innovation toward cleaner energy and greater efficiency.
The first method is the least sexy and most long-term: increasing investment in basic science and R&D in energy technology. Government grants help advance science and technology in virtually all fields, and there is every reason to increase grants in the realm of energy.
In addition, major government-sponsored prizes for technological breakthroughs in energy demand serious consideration. Unlike the X Prize and other similar prizes, the government should think big and offer a sizable reward for something such as a commercially viable 200 mpg car or viable carbon sequestration technology. Even at a price tag of a few billion dollars or more, this would be a great investment (to put things in perspective, it's what we are spending in Iraq every week; Congress is set to send a new spending bill to the president with $60 billion in pork projects).
Technological dissemination and adoption
Any discussion of technological innovation is incomplete without a discussion of dissemination, especially from richer countries to poorer countries. And such a discussion revolves in large part around patents. Patents can help to encourage technological innovation because they grant medium-term monopoly rights and thereby reward R&D, but they can also stifle innovation by decreasing competition. They also lead to much higher prices for consumers, which decreases adoption.
Some of this can be avoided if governments sponsor research and retain the patents, which can then be made part of the public domain. Another option is for governments to negotiate the purchase of patents for privately-funded R&D if the technology has wide social benefits, thereby creating an incentive to make it cheaply available quickly. This is especially true in the developing world where, despite rising incomes, it will be difficult for consumers to switch to new low-carbon technologies if they are expensive. A combination of shorter-term patents, public domain R&D, and international aid may be required to help widely disseminate new energy technologies in the poorer regions.
While I do not share David's optimistic forecast that combating global warming will be a net positive for the economy, I am extremely confident that we are capable of making the necessary changes in our society while maintaining an extremely high standard of living. The key is not economic know-how or faith in the brilliance of our inventors, but political will, and here I am not so optimistic. While Robert Samuelson likes to unfairly chide environmentalists, his cynicism regarding environmental politics is not unwarranted. Anyone who thinks otherwise need only look at the current state of the 2007 Farm Bill. If ever there was a set of ridiculous programs that calls for bipartisan reform it is this. Instead, the bill being considered right now is so bad that the Bush administration is threatening a veto!
Virtually everything else on the climate change front -- from ethanol subsidies, to "clean coal," to nuclear power -- demonstrates that changing the political dynamics in this country is the most important thing we can do for the environment. The necessary policies aren't that complicated, but taking on the special interests and the general level of ignorance exhibited by our politicians is.
Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Flat
cfigallo Posted 10:15 am
30 Jul 2007
Absolutely. The dumb political dead end neutralizes so many other efforts. Talk about an offset...
Cliff Figallo
Climate Frog
climatefrog.blogspot.com
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:14 pm
30 Jul 2007
From my experiences there is nothing smart about money. And really smart people usually do not want to start a manufacturing business. Their joy is research and discovery - problem solving. Most new ideas fail at the capitalization barrier, sometimes because of who plays golf with whom.
The only stimuli I have experienced is when the "enemy cuts off energy" causing shortages and persistent high prices. And when President Carter supplied both leadership and substantial federal support for developing new energy technologies. In that environment, it was not who you knew but rather what you knew.
A carbon price will not solve current political inadequacies and politics will not solve the low price of carbon.
If existing viable technology is not adopted, then why would emerging technology be any different? We need the professionals, not more beauty contests humiliating 99 out 100 ideas.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/26/2783/
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:36 pm
30 Jul 2007
"Unlike the X Prize and other similar prizes, the government should think big and offer a sizable reward for something such as a commercially viable 200 mpg car or viable carbon sequestration technology."
I looked into the X Prize--not real impressed. I may go into detail on it in a later post.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:48 pm
30 Jul 2007
Jason wrote... "The key to maximizing the development of alternatives to carbon-based fuels, from a policy standpoint, is to steadily phase in these increasing costs of carbon and maintain political credibility."
One way to maintain political credibility is to create a fair system, which means covering ALL harmful emissions. Wish I knew where I saw the poll, but apparently Americans are not as upset about paying taxes as they are about feeling others are not paying their fair share. This goes all the way back to the Boston Tea Party.
The legislation I would like to see would include not only carbon dioxide emissions, but all harmful emissions. Air and water entering a facility should be as clean or cleaner when it leaves the facility. No exceptions. Thus, no industry would be favored or punished. No place for lobbyists. Everyone treated the same and the most efficient practices win.
But it is, I admit, pure fantasy. Not going to happen. Why? The strongest, most vocal, most powerful advocates of the free market do not really believe in free markets. And the American people, for some strange reason, are rejecting science even though all the crap they like to buy would not exist without it. And you can't internalize all costs without some respect for scientific evaluations of emissions and how they affect the environment and people.
Oh well. What's plan B?
Forward!
Permalink
nedruod Posted 3:02 pm
30 Jul 2007
http://ryan-technorabble.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-nationa ...
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:28 pm
30 Jul 2007
Gee, why not a big prize for a Bigfoot pelt, or for turning lead into gold, or perpetual motion?
I suppose it's the nature of the game for the economist-priests to think that the reason scientific breakthroughs are lacking is simply insufficient motivation. The suggestion that we simply buy more motivation is only slightly different from the methods used to promote science in the late USSR, where the missing motivation was supplied in less happy ways, but under the same paradigmatic misconception: the idea that nature, and the study of it (science) is like economics, where the political result desired determines the results obtained.
Hate to break it to you, but the critical constraint in our environmental crisis is not lack of interest in solutions among scientists. Rather, it's the pathological worship of economic growth and the delusion that there is this duex ex machina called "technology" that is just waiting to spring out of the box and leap onto the stage to save the day.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:39 am
31 Jul 2007
For example, in today's regulatory environment, I will go to jail if I make power and try to sell it to my neighbor (through a private wire), and am not a regulated monopoly utility. The utility will buy that power from me, but not at a fair price. (Yes, there are exceptions for solar via net metering provisions, but let's not kid ourselves: solar is so insignificant to utility revenues that they can tolerate those payments as a way to "greenwash" themselves without any real financial consequence. I can guarantee that if solar becomes a more significant part of our grid, those provisions will be rolled back). Today, this regulation prevents many viable technologies from coming to market, or else ensures that when they do, they are vastly undersized relative to their ideal load. Any new technology that comes to market will be blocked by these exact same regulations, unless the adoption is led by utilities, but this is an awfully inefficient way to get technological uptake. (We certainly wouldn't all be using cell phones if their adoption was limited to those that AT&T chose to deploy!)
This is but one example, but the list is quite long, and results from the fact that regulation necessarily evolves to support the status quo. Revolutions are possible, but not through the legislative process. But if we focus only on technology R&D and dissemination, we are failing to focus on the critical path that will actually let those technologies get to market.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:40 am
31 Jul 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31nuclear.ht ...
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:26 am
31 Jul 2007
There are, it must be noted, a tiny handful of economists who do not worship infinite growth in a finite planet and who are not oblivious to the physical laws and limits on use of resources, and these brave few are also valuable, because they are especially good at pointing out the foolishness of the religio-autism that passes as economics in grad schools worldwide.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 4:05 am
31 Jul 2007
I wonder how many economics classes he's ever had? I mean, surely he has a basis besides ideological rhetoric for his aversion? Surely he as an in-depth knowledge of the very thing he feels fit to criticize?
Right?
Permalink
naturescene Posted 4:08 am
31 Jul 2007
However, since then he has been sliding down a path toward complete delusion.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:25 am
31 Jul 2007
http://grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/30/obama/index.htm ...
As for not being impressed with the X prize, fine, let's wait and see, but I think much bigger prizes could yield incredible things.
As far as price not being a sufficient incentive for innovation there is a lot of evidence that there is serious inertia and path dependency that is hard to overcome but I don't think there's a question that a high price for carbon that was steadily increasing and persistent would lead to major economic changes in the predicted direction.
As to regulatory reform, absolutely. Natural monopolies are notoriously tough to regulate even from a theoretical perspective because of conflicting incentives between consumers and the environment and the lack of competition. Also, with California's disastrous experiment with deregulation there is understandable caution on this front. But making it so that small producers have greater access and flexibility to the grid is key.
Economic growth need not come from increased resource use- it can come from new efficient renewable technology- which is what this post was essentially about.
Thanks all.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
gmunger Posted 8:22 am
31 Jul 2007
For those of us who are dubious about the sustainability of economic "growth" under a Friedmanesque free-market capitalist model, especially r.e. environmental issues, can you recommend some background reading that makes the case for growth AND sustainability? Preferably a good book (or 2 or 3), relatively accessible to the non-economist who nevertheless has some background in economics?
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:37 am
31 Jul 2007
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:44 am
31 Jul 2007
Well, when I picture sustainable growth, I don't picture an infinite spiral of development, everyone expecting bigger and bigger houses, more and more cars, an additional television set every year, more and more clothing, more and more closet space, their own jet packs. There are limits to what a person can use, take care of, even want to spend money on. There is only so much time to actually use stuff.
Do critics of sustainable growth base their opinions on a exponential increase in consumption -- based on current trends -- for everyone for EVER and EVER? I mean, at some point, the curve HAS to level off.
Or do critics of sustainable growth assume once we reach a reasonable standard of living, quality of life, adequate health care, we'll stop demanding more?
Are they arguing that we cannot increase consumption indefinitely (which is rather obvious and I can't imagine anyone believes this) or that there is no way to grow economically and technologically to ensure the current or projected human population has a reasonable amount of food, shelter, clothing, medical care, et cetera (which is rather depressing)?
What are the terms of the debate? And is everyone on the same page?
Forward!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:21 am
31 Jul 2007
Things, yes, but rarely will any of these things have economic success. Fuel cells are an example of this. Patents are the same way. Only a tiny fraction of patents ever earn a penny.
I don't think incentive is missing. Researchers all get out of bed every morning hoping to one day find fame and glory by discovering something that will lead to a patent, tenure, wealth, status, a Nobel.
Funding to do the research is missing. Gambling your own money hoping to win a prize is not much different from an entrepreneur investing money in an idea or patent. Once you have invested the time and money to invent the thing, the next step is to invest more money testing it on the market. Will people buy it? Will I recoup my investment?
Essentially these prizes would be marketing seed money for ideas picked by a government bureaucracy instead of a private investor. We all know how well government is presently doing picking our environmental and economic winners for us. The government is just as likely to crush good ideas and pick bad ones.
These ideas would go head to head with other ideas that were developed without the government seed money, imparting a form of government subsidization to some simply because they filled out the prize forms (penalizing those who didn't bother).
The other main problem with government sponsored prizes is that the vast majority of them, if not all of them would fail in the market. The prizes would most likely be a diversion of tax money like the biofuel boondoggle.
Successes like the Prius can't be determined by scientists (and especially governments). The market takes technology and tests it by trial and error using the money of entrepreneurial gamblers.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Rune Posted 3:12 pm
31 Jul 2007
There is nothing intrinsic about economic growth and ever-increasing resource use per se, although of course they often go hand in hand. Also, as economies develop the energy/GDP ratio drops dramatically. Will we get to a point where innovation is so great that economic growth actually can come with less absolute resource use? That's the $64,000 question and I think the answer is affirmative in the sense of capability, but like I said, the politics is the biggest impediment right now.
I do believe this is just the sort of fanciful economic thinking JMG was properly criticizing. While it is true, there is no theoretical reason why people could not acquire such a strong preference for good ideas, good performances, and good meditations that they would grow the economy by creating and demanding more of such and refusing to accept, um, "goods" as a substitute, in truth, that is not what has happened. Ever. And there is no reason to believe that economic growth will somehow become magically decoupled from the growth in consumption of scarce physical stuff for the simple reasons that people like physical stuff and when people do lots of good thinking, quite often it results in ideas about how to make even more and better things out of physical resources, which results in greater wealth chasing more stuff.
Let's bear in mind that these more developed countries in which energy per unit of GDP declines are the same developed countries in which a vastly greater percentage of physical resources per capita are consumed than in those less developed, less efficient (and less consumptive) countries that are home to most of the people of the world. And as we are seeing in some of the biggest countries that are eagerly pursuing "economic development" as people become wealthier, they tend to spend their wealth on much more stuff, if not the land itself.
How does this work? Well, to give a canned example, once a society has gained a certain amount of intellectual capital, to say nothing of an impressive base of physical resources that tend to be supplied in great quantities from afar as well as domestically, they are able to make better, more valuable products. So, for example, instead of cranking out cheap cars that fall apart, they produce highly valued BMW's and Mercedes Benz that sell for ten times as much, yet don't require much more energy to build. And, there you have your increase in GDP per unit of energy. But you also have people getting much more wealthy by making such fine and highly desired goods, which, in turn, allows them to buy more stuff, as well as services (they tend to go together rather than be substituted for one another). So, not only does physical consumption continue to rise with such economic growth, but so does the level of "services" that lead to the political policies that continue to exploit the poorer people and places of the world to the detriment of ecosystems far and wide, to say nothing of the plight of billions of humans who hunger for their own shot at material well being the privileged hundreds of millions take for granted as their right. So, where exactly does this hope for a change in politics come from, when it is the very champions of conventional economic growth measures and methods that promote and pay for the politics that putting the planet in peril for the sake of extending an relatively brief and unprecedented surge in productivity as well as population? Sorry, but JMG is right, much pontificating about what could be (but never has been) notwithstanding.
Biodiversivist also makes a very good point. We are much better off investing in promising ventures that might not otherwise get off the ground than to merely dangle yet another reward from someone to grab if they manage to develop a product or process that would make them rich (thus contributing to the vicious cycle of consumption and self-perpetuating politics) even without a public handout after the fact. And if it is to be a public investment, perhaps some thought to seeing that the returns go to the public welfare, instead of yet another corporate welfare recipient, are in order.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:49 pm
31 Jul 2007
Exactly what does each person participating in this thread mean by "economic growth"? I know it sounds like a stupid question. But is it possible that you are actually discussing "quality of life" or "standard of living"? Those are probably technical terms and have official definitions.
Is it conceivable that everyone in the world could be brought up to a European standard of living -- say, modest home, small yard, no more than one automobile (more likely, no automobile) per family, decent health care, a few weeks vacation each year, et cetera -- via technological improvements that provide more goods and services but consume fewer resources? Could this be done without further harm to the environment? Does it REQUIRE substantial economic growth?
Imagine the results of a sudden and dramatic improvement in photovoltaic technology. Everyone purchases their own system and they are essentially set for life. Coal-fired power plants, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power... all relegated to the dustbin of history. An improvement in the average standard of living, but not the result of economic growth. And there is a chain reaction... reduced pollution and reduced healthcare costs... reduced competition for limited fossil fuel... reduced military spending... reduced international tension... resources can go toward protecting the environment and further improving our quality of life... more cooperation...
Forward!
Permalink
Rune Posted 1:05 am
01 Aug 2007
the capitalist perspective, individual consumerism of the privileged few, and conventional economic growth.
Simply put, most of the people of the world will not be able to afford their very own solar power plant and, if they could, it would be a result of conventional economic growth gone wild to the detriment of the environment. As it stands, corporations are plowing billions of public and private dollars into improving solar technology and expanding the manufacturing base because they are counting on the wealthiest companies and individuals on the planet continuing to participate in growing capitalist system that yields big bundles of cash to be spent on an every increasing consumption of scarce energy, which is critical to the ability to extract and transform other physical resources that are fundamental to economic growth. If conventional economic growth went into a long term reversal, with people making themselves happy with less stuff, there would not be much investment in improving and expanding energy development--unless there was a shift away from capitalism and individual consumerism as the basic framework for guiding and motivating economic activity. I'd like to say more about that, but at the moment I am busy getting rid of stuff and taking my personal and business life yet another step closer to the fun and freedom of the sort of community self sufficiency you have alluded to. Mo' later, fer sure, though.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:20 am
01 Aug 2007
I'll wait and see about the prizes- I think they have huge potential, but notice that I put investment in basic science ahead of that.
As to sustainable growth, I am firmly on planet Earth. Yes, we can grow forever and not necessarily use more resources through technological innovation. Will we achieve that? I don't know, but trying to get there is what these past posts are about. Will we eventually need a new paradigm for consumption and how we organize economies? Very likely. But for now the 3/4 of the world that are poor are going to do everything in their power to become rich and enjoy all of the consumption that we do- that means cars, tv's, restaurants, electricity, computers. We can wish away the "materialism" and "over-consumption" of the West all we want but that isn't going to change a thing. And if you look at many types of pollution rich countries are now much cleaner than they were 50 years ago. Not with respect to CO2 emissions and overall energy use, which is what this discussion was focused on.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:04 am
01 Aug 2007
There was an example described in Yoga and Joyful Living. Wish I could remember the details... I might have even commented on this already somewhere on the Grist site about a month ago. My memory is awful.
Anyway... I think someone who was aware of the fact that a lot of young people in Africa (parents killed by AIDS or civil war) did not have the information they needed to protect their health, grow food, sell their produce for a reasonable profit, et cetera, someone interested in radio broadcasting, and someone interested in designing a radio that could be recharged via a hand crank or foot pedal were brought together by chance, started talking with one another, and created two things... an educational radio network in Africa and a very durable inexpensive radio that did not require batteries and could be handed out to African women and children. Until then, men controlled information -- they were the only ones who could buy batteries -- and did not really use it for practical purposes.
Now, living conditions are slowly improving for the women and children who have access to information they need. I think they expanded on this idea and created a rechargeable battery -- again, using a hand crank or foot pedal -- that can run small power tools or charge cell phones. It is helping build local economies.
We need more connections like this.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:08 am
01 Aug 2007
I realize this is not happenig all across Africa. I just don't recall exactly where it is being done. It is obviously a very diverse continent. After I read my remark again, I was afraid someone might think my entire image of Africa is based on a few photos from Rawanda or Ethiopia. I hope my point is, however, clear.
PEACE!
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:21 am
01 Aug 2007
Click on the link to the magazine article. It takes you to a PDF.
Forward!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:47 am
01 Aug 2007
Same thing for solar/wind/geothermal/hydro, it might sound old-fashioned, but they simply need more money -- billions more. And the national science foundation isn't getting any richer either. So I think that technological innovation is going to need a real kick from the place that it has almost always come from, government-funded research.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:21 am
01 Aug 2007
For the best organization doing public sector R&D see OneWorldHealth.org- amazing stuff
Jon- I say explicitly in the post that we need more investment in basic R&D across many disciplines
Let me be precise- while energy and resource use has continued to increase with GDP growth it is the fact that many of these resources are non-renewable which is the problem. We could have economic growth with increasing energy use that wouldn't be problematic if this energy was from the sun or wind. This is the key, shifting the economy to renewable and low-impact resources.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:49 am
01 Aug 2007
And what special non-material material will the tools for harvesting all this wind and sun be made out of?
Let me be precise as well: you appear to have nothing but ideology to support your position. Against you is an absolutely uninterrupted and unvarying record of
growth = more materials & energy usage
Moreover, you seem to not understand that entropy is to energy usage what CO2 is to coal: a non-trivial product that can NOT be eliminated by simply wishing it away.
What do you think all the energy is used for if not manipulating and processing material things? It's actually quite hard to use energy without having it act on and through material things; and wherever that occurs, there is waste heat rejected, and there is waste in the making and usage of the material things, and material wastes created when the objects expire. Handling those wastes alone, even imperfectly, at the scale of the human enterprise requires additional huge supplies of energy and materials.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:02 am
01 Aug 2007
"And what special non-material material will the tools for harvesting all this wind and sun be made out of?"
Regarding harvesting sunlight, I would like to point out that efforts are underway to use biological molecules for creating films for collecting solar energy. It is quite likely that someone will, within a decade, find a way to grow films for collecting solar energy. And I'm pretty sure they are working toward a photovoltaic system. This should dramatically reduce the energy and mineral resources required for building new infrastructure for collecting solar energy.
Before you make any jokes about plants already doing this... the engineered films would be more versatile, compact, efficient, and direct than growing plants and then converting them to biofuel.
So JMG, there could be economic development without a substantial increase in the extraction of non-renewable resources from the Earth. We should be able to "grow" almost everything we need... until we run out of sunlight.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:04 am
01 Aug 2007
Forward!
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:33 am
01 Aug 2007
Regarding [ ], I would like to point out that efforts are underway to [ ] for collecting [ ]. It is quite likely that someone will, within a decade, find a way to [ ] for collecting [ ]. And I'm pretty sure they are working toward a [ ] system. This should dramatically reduce [ ] for [ ] for collecting [ ].
It's pretty much the standard template for every "technofix is just around the corner" story you see these days. No matter the subject, it's impossible to dispute that a miracle may occur -- we could get really really lucky and find X AND suddenly discover the wisdom not to reproduce until the supply of X is overtaxed every bit as much as our other supplies of critical resources (such as carbon sinks, oceans, etc.) are overtaxed now.
But it's not something to plan a future around.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:16 am
01 Aug 2007
Anyway...
My dream is more likely to come true than someone's dream that everyone on the planet will suddenly decide to give up their personal transportation, suburban homes, and all the crap they buy to make themselves feel better.
I prefer to plan and work for a future that takes into consideration basic human behavior.
Forward!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:46 am
02 Aug 2007
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:55 am
02 Aug 2007
Permalink