As part of the ongoing effort to clean up the air at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, truckers are being required to get rid of older, dirty diesel tractors and replace them with clean diesel or cleaner natural gas models.
Quite a few are opting for natural gas - which has far fewer particulate pollutants and a lot less carbon content that diesel - and to to serve the growing demand for the fuel, Clean Energy Corp. has just opened what it claims to be the world's largest natural gas truck fueling station
The company, one of the world's largest natural gas retailers, said the station, which is open 'round the clock, seven days a week, can store up to 50,000 gallons of liquefied natural gas (LNG), has eight pumps and can deliver the fuel as a liquid (right) in six of the pumps or as compressed natural gas (CNG) from two pumps, depending on the type of the fuel a truck is set up to use.
Clean Energy expects the station to provide fuel for several hundred trucks a day right now and plans to double the fuel storage capacity as demand increases with the number of natural gas trucks operating at he ports.
An older port-area station also operated by Clean Energy is presently pumping about 10,000 gallons of LNG a day.----------
Monday, July 6, 2009
Americans are driving less, and that's a good thing
Marylanders who took to their cars over the long July 4th weekend likely noticed the trend -- fewer fellow travelers on the roads. The dip in holiday traffic was a revealing reflection of the bigger picture: On a year-to-year average, Americans are driving about 4 percent less, the biggest drop since the invention of the automobile.A year ago that shift might have been blamed on high gasoline prices, but today a gallon of gas is about $1.45 cheaper than in 2008. The economic downturn and job losses have no doubt been a factor as well, but the U.S. has weathered recessions before -- and oil shortages in the late 1970s that forced rationing at the pump -- with less impact on American's driving habits.Admittedly, there are parts of the U.S. where traffic has been picking up in recent months (at least according to the most recent federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics report), but the shift appears to be a relatively minor blip on the radar compared to the two-year
One of the most immediate effects of the drop in driving has been a corresponding reduction in highway deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last week that about 7,689 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the first three months of the year, a 9 percent decline from one year ago.At the current pace, U.S. highway fatalities could reach their lowest levels in a half-century.Both trends suggest that something noteworthy is going on. Spurred by last year's high gasoline prices, people are economizing. They are combining trips, car-pooling, shopping closer to home, telecommuting and taking alternative forms of transportation when available. The reduction in fatalities suggests they may even be slowing down on the roads, a fuel saving tactic that can also save lives.This is a trend that ought to be cultivated. Fewer vehicle miles traveled translates into less greenhouse gases and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere, less dependence on foreign oil, improved productivity and economic savings, and countless lives and serious injuries spared.Such an approach requires not only a much larger investment in public transit so that alternative modes of transportation are available to all who would choose them. But it also requires public policies that encourage people not to drive so much. That includes a more serious approach to smart growth that directs development (and redevelopment) to cities and towns rather than sprawl that chews up rural greenscape.America's love of the automobile is well-documented, but people have also shown a willingness to change when circumstances require it. Public policy needs to catch up with the transformation in attitudes and behavior that's already so clearly in evidence.
One of the most immediate effects of the drop in driving has been a corresponding reduction in highway deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported last week that about 7,689 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the first three months of the year, a 9 percent decline from one year ago.At the current pace, U.S. highway fatalities could reach their lowest levels in a half-century.Both trends suggest that something noteworthy is going on. Spurred by last year's high gasoline prices, people are economizing. They are combining trips, car-pooling, shopping closer to home, telecommuting and taking alternative forms of transportation when available. The reduction in fatalities suggests they may even be slowing down on the roads, a fuel saving tactic that can also save lives.This is a trend that ought to be cultivated. Fewer vehicle miles traveled translates into less greenhouse gases and other pollutants pumped into the atmosphere, less dependence on foreign oil, improved productivity and economic savings, and countless lives and serious injuries spared.Such an approach requires not only a much larger investment in public transit so that alternative modes of transportation are available to all who would choose them. But it also requires public policies that encourage people not to drive so much. That includes a more serious approach to smart growth that directs development (and redevelopment) to cities and towns rather than sprawl that chews up rural greenscape.America's love of the automobile is well-documented, but people have also shown a willingness to change when circumstances require it. Public policy needs to catch up with the transformation in attitudes and behavior that's already so clearly in evidence.
Top UN climate official to AP: G-8 should help poor countries now with global warming
Developing countries need money now to grapple with global warming, and the Group of Eight summit this week could energize troubled climate negotiations if it decided to make "significant" funds available, the top U.N. climate official said Monday.The focus of U.N. climate talks over the past 18 months has been on an agreement to control greenhouse gases after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, including cash for developing countries.But Yvo de Boer, who oversees the talks among 192 nations, says bumping up existing climate funds now would be a "practical, useful, tangible" signal to developing countries that the rich countries are serious about a deal. The accord is due to be completed in Copenhagen in December.De Boer declined to mention figures, but studies by the World Bank and other institutions suggest between $5 billion and $10 billion a year are needed to help countries deal with changing weather patterns affecting agriculture, fishing and the effects of severe storms and drought. That figure could grow to $100 billion annually by 2020.
Accounts in the World Bank and special U.N. facilities now contain a few hundred million dollars.Putting money on the table at the G-8 conference in Italy would allow poor countries "to prepare plans to limit the growth of their emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change," De Boer told The Associated Press from his office in Bonn, Germany.More than 100 countries — many of them among the world's poorest — will suffer severely from climate change, he said."If I look at the magnitude of challenge, I think a significant amount would be important," he added.For many of the poorest countries, climate change will mean more erratic and expensive food supplies, Oxfam International said in a report released Monday as a briefing paper for the G-8 leaders.The British-based charity said chronic hunger may be "the defining human tragedy of this century," as climate change causes growing seasons to shift, crops to fail, and storms and droughts to ravage fields.It predicted that as weather patterns change, farmers will be forced to abandon traditional crops. Water and food scarcity could lead to mass migration and conflict, it said in a study that found striking similarities across geographic zones.More than 1 billion people, or about one in six people on earth, go hungry today. Without action, Oxfam said, most of the gains of fighting poverty in the world's poorest countries over the past 50 years will be wiped out, "irrecoverable for the foreseeable future."Scientists warn that of potentially catastrophic climate change if average global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels. To prevent that, greenhouse gas emissions should peak within the next few years and then rapidly decline by mid-century, according to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.The U.N. climate talks are stuck over demands that the industrial countries commit to specific pollution targets, while the wealthy nations insist that everyone must help limit greenhouse gases. Developing countries have agreed to shift toward low-carbon growth, if the receive technology and funding to help them.Leaders of other major economies such as China, India and Brazil will join the G-8 leaders when climate change comes up on the agenda during the three-day summit at L'Aquila, Italy.De Boer said he hoped the session would deal with "big picture" issues. Besides financing, those might include fixing a firm pollution target for 2050 and setting an objective for 2020."These are the leaders who can make a difference, and this is the time to make a difference," De Boer said.The 1997 Kyoto Protocol required 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. But it made no demands on developing countries, which was one reason the United States rejected the accord.Since then, China has overtaken the United States as the world's largest polluter, and India is rapidly approaching their league. The U.S., in a major policy shift under President Barack Obama, says it wants to be part of the Copenhagen deal.As part of the negotiations, the industrial countries have been asked to say how much further they will reduce emissions by 2020. Russia became the latest to put up numbers, pledging last week to be 10 percent to 15 percent below 1990 levels.Environmentalists denounced that target, since Russia's pollution fell dramatically after the fall of communism and the collapse of its economy in 1989. The World Wide Fund for Nature said it would amount to a "significant acceleration" of Russian emissions over the next decade of 2 to 2.5 percent a year.With the Russian proposal, De Boer said all rich countries except New Zealand have now pledged figures for 2020, and it was time for hard bargaining to begin."Countries will begin examining each other's numbers, comparing them with each other, and seeing how they can show the maximum ambition in Copenhagen," he said.
Accounts in the World Bank and special U.N. facilities now contain a few hundred million dollars.Putting money on the table at the G-8 conference in Italy would allow poor countries "to prepare plans to limit the growth of their emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change," De Boer told The Associated Press from his office in Bonn, Germany.More than 100 countries — many of them among the world's poorest — will suffer severely from climate change, he said."If I look at the magnitude of challenge, I think a significant amount would be important," he added.For many of the poorest countries, climate change will mean more erratic and expensive food supplies, Oxfam International said in a report released Monday as a briefing paper for the G-8 leaders.The British-based charity said chronic hunger may be "the defining human tragedy of this century," as climate change causes growing seasons to shift, crops to fail, and storms and droughts to ravage fields.It predicted that as weather patterns change, farmers will be forced to abandon traditional crops. Water and food scarcity could lead to mass migration and conflict, it said in a study that found striking similarities across geographic zones.More than 1 billion people, or about one in six people on earth, go hungry today. Without action, Oxfam said, most of the gains of fighting poverty in the world's poorest countries over the past 50 years will be wiped out, "irrecoverable for the foreseeable future."Scientists warn that of potentially catastrophic climate change if average global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels. To prevent that, greenhouse gas emissions should peak within the next few years and then rapidly decline by mid-century, according to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.The U.N. climate talks are stuck over demands that the industrial countries commit to specific pollution targets, while the wealthy nations insist that everyone must help limit greenhouse gases. Developing countries have agreed to shift toward low-carbon growth, if the receive technology and funding to help them.Leaders of other major economies such as China, India and Brazil will join the G-8 leaders when climate change comes up on the agenda during the three-day summit at L'Aquila, Italy.De Boer said he hoped the session would deal with "big picture" issues. Besides financing, those might include fixing a firm pollution target for 2050 and setting an objective for 2020."These are the leaders who can make a difference, and this is the time to make a difference," De Boer said.The 1997 Kyoto Protocol required 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. But it made no demands on developing countries, which was one reason the United States rejected the accord.Since then, China has overtaken the United States as the world's largest polluter, and India is rapidly approaching their league. The U.S., in a major policy shift under President Barack Obama, says it wants to be part of the Copenhagen deal.As part of the negotiations, the industrial countries have been asked to say how much further they will reduce emissions by 2020. Russia became the latest to put up numbers, pledging last week to be 10 percent to 15 percent below 1990 levels.Environmentalists denounced that target, since Russia's pollution fell dramatically after the fall of communism and the collapse of its economy in 1989. The World Wide Fund for Nature said it would amount to a "significant acceleration" of Russian emissions over the next decade of 2 to 2.5 percent a year.With the Russian proposal, De Boer said all rich countries except New Zealand have now pledged figures for 2020, and it was time for hard bargaining to begin."Countries will begin examining each other's numbers, comparing them with each other, and seeing how they can show the maximum ambition in Copenhagen," he said.
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WHO works on aspects of water, sanitation and hygiene where the health burden is high, where interventions could make a major difference and where the present state of knowledge is poor: :: Drinking-water quality :: Bathing waters :: Water resources :: Water supply and sanitation monitoring :: Water, sanitation and hygiene development :: Wastewater use :: Water-related disease :: Healthcare waste :: Emerging issues in water and infectious disease
Our work on water sanitation and hygiene includes the six core functions of WHO:
articulating consistent, ethical and evidence-based policy and advocacy positions;
managing information by assessing trends and comparing performance; setting the agenda for, and stimulating, research and development;
catalysing change through technical and policy support, in ways that stimulate cooperation and action and help to build sustainable national and intercountry capacity;
negotiating and sustaining national and global partnerships;
setting, validating, monitoring and pursuing the proper implementation of norms and standards;
stimulating the development and testing of new technologies, tools and guidelines.
All current information on water, sanitation and health is available on the internet. :: Browse the WSH catalogue of information products [pdf 4.17Mb] :: Browse the alphabetical list of documents available online
In addition, information is available here on: :: Our aim and objectives :: Our present plan of work :: Our collaborating centres :: Water-related work of WHO Regional Offices
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to the WATERSANITATION mailing list
EVENTS
Household Water Treatment & Safe Storage Network [pdf 147kb]Technical Meeting21–23 September 2009
International Year of Sanitation 2008
HIGHLIGHTS
Health and Environment LexiconLink to the database
List of publications in alphabetical orderFull text
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Second Addendum to the 3rd Edition Volume 1 - Recommendations
Our work on water sanitation and hygiene includes the six core functions of WHO:
articulating consistent, ethical and evidence-based policy and advocacy positions;
managing information by assessing trends and comparing performance; setting the agenda for, and stimulating, research and development;
catalysing change through technical and policy support, in ways that stimulate cooperation and action and help to build sustainable national and intercountry capacity;
negotiating and sustaining national and global partnerships;
setting, validating, monitoring and pursuing the proper implementation of norms and standards;
stimulating the development and testing of new technologies, tools and guidelines.
All current information on water, sanitation and health is available on the internet. :: Browse the WSH catalogue of information products [pdf 4.17Mb] :: Browse the alphabetical list of documents available online
In addition, information is available here on: :: Our aim and objectives :: Our present plan of work :: Our collaborating centres :: Water-related work of WHO Regional Offices
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to the WATERSANITATION mailing list
EVENTS
Household Water Treatment & Safe Storage Network [pdf 147kb]Technical Meeting21–23 September 2009
International Year of Sanitation 2008
HIGHLIGHTS
Health and Environment LexiconLink to the database
List of publications in alphabetical orderFull text
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Calcium and Magnesium in Drinking-water: Public health significance
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Second Addendum to the 3rd Edition Volume 1 - Recommendations
Indoor air pollution
More than three billion people worldwide continue to depend on solid fuels, including biomass fuels (wood, dung, agricultural residues) and coal, for their energy needs.
Cooking and heating with solid fuels on open fires or traditional stoves results in high levels of indoor air pollution. Indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging pollutants, such as small particles and carbon monoxide, and particulate pollution levels may be 20 times higher than accepted guideline values.
According to The world health report 2002 indoor air pollution is responsible for 2.7% of the global burden of disease.
WHO’s Programme on Indoor Air Pollution
To combat this substantial and growing burden of disease, WHO has developed a comprehensive programme to support developing countries. WHO's Programme on Indoor Air Pollution focuses on:- Research and evaluation - Capacity building - Evidence for policy-makers
Cooking and heating with solid fuels on open fires or traditional stoves results in high levels of indoor air pollution. Indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging pollutants, such as small particles and carbon monoxide, and particulate pollution levels may be 20 times higher than accepted guideline values.
According to The world health report 2002 indoor air pollution is responsible for 2.7% of the global burden of disease.
WHO’s Programme on Indoor Air Pollution
To combat this substantial and growing burden of disease, WHO has developed a comprehensive programme to support developing countries. WHO's Programme on Indoor Air Pollution focuses on:- Research and evaluation - Capacity building - Evidence for policy-makers
Meat vs. Climate: The Debate Continues
At least since a 2006 United Nations report asserted that livestock is responsible for a full 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions — a higher percentage than that caused by transportation — a debate over meat consumption and climate change has been cooking.
The latest round involves a recent editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. In it, Mr. Popkin revisits several studies linking meat not just with heart disease and other health issues, but also with worldwide consumption of energy and water resources — and global warming.
Water use, Mr. Popkin writes, is two to five times greater worldwide for animal-source food than for basic crops such as legumes and grains. He further argues that livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process in the United States and is also responsible for one-third of the total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous to surface water.
He also cites the 2006 U.N. study.
“Overall, scholars first question the sustainability of modern agriculture in general,” Mr. Popkin writes, “and second, they question the much higher energy use of producing animal foods.”
Not surprisingly, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, issued a press release this week disputing Mr. Popkin’s editorial.
“It is beyond dispute that any connection between meat production and global warming is a false one,” said David Martosko, the group’s director of research, in a phone interview.
The C.C.F. said the United Nations’ conclusion that 18 percent of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture was also exaggerated. The group instead points to an Environmental Protection Agency report that puts the figure for all agriculture production — including meat — at just 6 percent.
Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is “stretching the truth beyond recognition.”
“Eating less meat isn’t going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It’s not gonna make a difference,” he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s assertions, said he stood by his claims.
“This is what the food industry always does — just like the tobacco industry,” he said. “They obfuscate without ever looking at facts
The latest round involves a recent editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Barry M. Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. In it, Mr. Popkin revisits several studies linking meat not just with heart disease and other health issues, but also with worldwide consumption of energy and water resources — and global warming.
Water use, Mr. Popkin writes, is two to five times greater worldwide for animal-source food than for basic crops such as legumes and grains. He further argues that livestock production accounts for 55 percent of the erosion process in the United States and is also responsible for one-third of the total discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous to surface water.
He also cites the 2006 U.N. study.
“Overall, scholars first question the sustainability of modern agriculture in general,” Mr. Popkin writes, “and second, they question the much higher energy use of producing animal foods.”
Not surprisingly, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers, issued a press release this week disputing Mr. Popkin’s editorial.
“It is beyond dispute that any connection between meat production and global warming is a false one,” said David Martosko, the group’s director of research, in a phone interview.
The C.C.F. said the United Nations’ conclusion that 18 percent of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture was also exaggerated. The group instead points to an Environmental Protection Agency report that puts the figure for all agriculture production — including meat — at just 6 percent.
Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is “stretching the truth beyond recognition.”
“Eating less meat isn’t going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It’s not gonna make a difference,” he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s assertions, said he stood by his claims.
“This is what the food industry always does — just like the tobacco industry,” he said. “They obfuscate without ever looking at facts
Marketing Solar Panels to Fifth-Graders
Employees of the Sharp Electronics Corporation were at Joyce Kilmer Elementary School in Mahwah, N.J., recently to teach a lesson on climate change and renewable energy. The cartoon image of an ailing Earth — a thermometer sticking out of its mouth — was the opening slide in their presentation.
Climate change and energy are complex issues, so I was interested to observe how they would be distilled by the Japanese electronics giant — and one of the world’s largest makers of solar panels — to an audience of 10- and 11-year-olds. I recently sat in the back of a fifth-grade class and listened in.
Martha Harvey, an associate manager in Sharp’s strategic marketing division, started the class by asking, “Who knows what climate change is?” She called on a few raised hands and received guesses of “A change of weather?” and “A change of climate?” before offering her own answer:
“It turns out that the temperature of the Earth is actually rising,” she said.
Ms. Harvey then asked if anyone knew what C02 is.
“Carbon dioxide,” a student answered.
Ms. Harvey explained that carbon dioxide is actually a good thing, because it helps keep the Earth’s atmosphere warm, but the problem is that there’s now too much of it.
Sharp began its Solar Academy program in the United States in October 2008 (PDF) and so far has presented it at a handful of elementary schools in California (near the company’s solar division in Huntington Beach), and in New York and New Jersey (Sharp’s corporate headquarters in the United States are in Mahwah).
The initiative is based on a similar program in Japan that, since 2007, has been presented at 700 schools and to 50,000 students.
It makes business sense, according to Stewart Mitchell, the chief strategy officer for Sharp, who started the American version of the program.
“The big picture is, you really want to try to tie your focus on social responsibility as a company into your business model,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The more that students learn about climate change, and the more they learn about the importance of renewable energy — it ties back to feeding into our business model of being in the solar business.”
The renewable energy portion of the presentation mentions several technologies –- including hydro, wind, and ocean power –- but solar quickly becomes the focus. The students watched a short video about how solar panels work, and then tried a hands-on activity in which they discovered how much work is required to power a 60-watt light bulb with hand cranks, compared with using a small solar panel.
At the end of the class, the students were given workbooks and Sharp-brand solar-powered calculators to take home with them.
Bill Howe, a fifth-grade science teacher, told the Sharp instructors afterward that they should make the curriculum available to teachers everywhere and that he would be happy to help in any way possible. “I think my students are excited by the idea that there’s a huge change going on,” Mr. Howe said. “I think they’re intrigued by the new technology.”
Don Chiossi, another fifth-grade science teacher, also gave the program a thumbs-up. “We cover forms of energy in our classroom, but to have people come in from the community to talk about it helps even more,” he said. “Plus, the kids like the calculators.”
The students, for their part, did seem to enjoy the class — though they were not without questions for the Sharp team: “If you used only solar power,” asked one student, “wouldn’t you not be able to use it at nighttime?”
Climate change and energy are complex issues, so I was interested to observe how they would be distilled by the Japanese electronics giant — and one of the world’s largest makers of solar panels — to an audience of 10- and 11-year-olds. I recently sat in the back of a fifth-grade class and listened in.
Martha Harvey, an associate manager in Sharp’s strategic marketing division, started the class by asking, “Who knows what climate change is?” She called on a few raised hands and received guesses of “A change of weather?” and “A change of climate?” before offering her own answer:
“It turns out that the temperature of the Earth is actually rising,” she said.
Ms. Harvey then asked if anyone knew what C02 is.
“Carbon dioxide,” a student answered.
Ms. Harvey explained that carbon dioxide is actually a good thing, because it helps keep the Earth’s atmosphere warm, but the problem is that there’s now too much of it.
Sharp began its Solar Academy program in the United States in October 2008 (PDF) and so far has presented it at a handful of elementary schools in California (near the company’s solar division in Huntington Beach), and in New York and New Jersey (Sharp’s corporate headquarters in the United States are in Mahwah).
The initiative is based on a similar program in Japan that, since 2007, has been presented at 700 schools and to 50,000 students.
It makes business sense, according to Stewart Mitchell, the chief strategy officer for Sharp, who started the American version of the program.
“The big picture is, you really want to try to tie your focus on social responsibility as a company into your business model,” Mr. Mitchell said. “The more that students learn about climate change, and the more they learn about the importance of renewable energy — it ties back to feeding into our business model of being in the solar business.”
The renewable energy portion of the presentation mentions several technologies –- including hydro, wind, and ocean power –- but solar quickly becomes the focus. The students watched a short video about how solar panels work, and then tried a hands-on activity in which they discovered how much work is required to power a 60-watt light bulb with hand cranks, compared with using a small solar panel.
At the end of the class, the students were given workbooks and Sharp-brand solar-powered calculators to take home with them.
Bill Howe, a fifth-grade science teacher, told the Sharp instructors afterward that they should make the curriculum available to teachers everywhere and that he would be happy to help in any way possible. “I think my students are excited by the idea that there’s a huge change going on,” Mr. Howe said. “I think they’re intrigued by the new technology.”
Don Chiossi, another fifth-grade science teacher, also gave the program a thumbs-up. “We cover forms of energy in our classroom, but to have people come in from the community to talk about it helps even more,” he said. “Plus, the kids like the calculators.”
The students, for their part, did seem to enjoy the class — though they were not without questions for the Sharp team: “If you used only solar power,” asked one student, “wouldn’t you not be able to use it at nighttime?”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)