News on the climate and energy front continues to be bad--top scientists with impeccable credentials say human activity is causing a warming trend that will end 5,000 years of climatic stability, resulting in melting icecaps, rising oceans, and the deaths of millions of species and hundreds of thousands of people.
Sheesh. What can anyone do?
The answer: Lots. It's about all of us taking small and medium steps at home that will reduce the demand for energy--and the fossil fuels we burn so voraciously to create it. It's little things, and it's not hard. But multiplied by thousands of people or more, it's more than enough to stem the tide. And time's running out.
We've assembled nine solid ways for anyone in North Carolina to start solving the problem. Some don't cost anything at all. Some cost a little but do a lot. And some are more expensive, but will save you money in the long run (more and more as energy prices skyrocket).
So this Fourth of July week, here's the Independent Weekly's guide to proclaiming your energy independence.
1. Sign up for GreenPower
A growing number of North Carolina residents are financing increased production of energy from renewable sources, and it's easy to join them by signing up with N.C. GreenPower.
Launched three years ago, N.C. GreenPower is the first statewide green energy program in the nation supported by all the state's utilities--from big producers like Progress and Duke Energy to small, rural electrical cooperatives. We can sign up through our electric company, which adds a tax-deductible contribution to our monthly bill. The program is administered by Advanced Energy, a Raleigh-based nonprofit that the N.C. Utilities Commission founded in 1980 to implement new technologies for energy conservation and efficiency.
The typical residential N.C. GreenPower contribution of $4 per month adds one block of 100 kilowatt-hours of cleaner energy to North Carolina's power supply, thus helping reduce the need for polluting power from coal burning or nuclear fission. Large-volume energy users, usually from the corporate sector, may contribute toward 100 or more blocks at $2.50 per block.
N.C. GreenPower supports energy producers of all sizes throughout the state--from families with solar photovoltaic panels on their homes to municipal landfills and industrial animal farms that generate power from methane emissions. The program expects to add several wind producers this year. Solar producers currently receive about 4 cents per kilowatt-hour from their utility and another 18 cents from N.C. Greenpower, a financial incentive that helps make the costly technology more attractive.
Some environmentalists have criticized N.C. GreenPower's large-volume product for including hydroelectric dams, burning of waste wood products and direct combustion of animal waste, all of which have negative ecological impacts. Critics include the Canary Coalition, an Asheville-based clean air advocacy group. "But this is not a good reason to throw out the baby with the bath water," says Avram Friedman, the coalition's director. "The small-volume product provides us with a chance to make something very good happen."
N.C. GreenPower currently has about 7,800 residential subscribers and about a dozen corporate subscribers, says spokesperson Jeff Brooks. Those numbers are expected to grow this year as the program undertakes a big fall marketing campaign.
The program's customers subscribe to more than 14,000 blocks of renewable energy each month, the annual equivalent of about 17 million kilowatt-hours. That saves about 14 million pounds of coal from being burned and prevents the emissions of more than 35 million pounds of carbon dioxide. The amount of renewable energy a single residential subscriber supports over the course of a year offsets as much carbon dioxide as not driving a car 3,000 miles.
Besides promoting the production of cleaner energy, N.C. GreenPower also encourages energy conservation through simple, common-sense measures such as replacing ordinary light bulbs with compact fluorescents, installing programmable thermostats and replacing old energy-wasting appliances with more efficient Energy Star models.
"These are really great ways to save energy without disrupting your life," says Brooks. "Then you can use the money saved to support green energy."
2. Get a home energy audit
North Carolina's utilities are projecting an eye-popping 50 percent increase in electricity generation from polluting sources over the next 20 years--but their projections are based on the assumption that we will continue to squander energy through wasteful habits. It doesn't have to be like that. With a few simple and relatively inexpensive steps, we can dramatically reduce the amount of energy we use in our homes, workplaces and congregations.
Take the example set by Bob and Linda Rodriguez of Wake County. They have been living in their 30-year-old, two-story home north of Raleigh for 10 years now. Several years ago they began attending Raleigh's Pullen Memorial Baptist Church and taking classes there on earth care, where they learned about the devastating impacts of mountaintop coal mining in Appalachia and uranium mining on indigenous people's lands. Realizing that their demand for energy was destroying someone else's home, they resolved to become more responsible energy consumers.
Linda admits to feeling overwhelmed at first as they contemplated all they needed to do. "But if you just take a piece at a time, you can make a big difference," she says.
The Rodriguezes started with an energy audit from Southern Energy Management, a Raleigh-based company that helps homeowners and builders make their houses more energy-efficient. Many contractors and utility companies offer similar services, and there's even a do-it-yourself Home Energy Saver audit developed by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory online at hes.lbl.gov.
Southern Energy found several places where outside air was blowing into the Rodriguezes' home, so they sealed those spots with insulation. The couple switched to compact fluorescent light bulbs, which use 75 percent less electricity than incandescent bulbs. They also replaced leaky ductwork, sealed the crawl space, insulated electrical outlets and doors, installed door sweeps, got a solar hot water heater and insulated the hot water line, switched to energy-efficient appliances, and installed automatic thermostats.
The Rodriguezes estimate they spent a total of $11,000 on the project, but they recouped $2,000 immediately thanks to a state tax credit for the solar hot water system. In return, they're not only using less energy but will also enjoy cost savings over time, as their monthly electric bill has dropped by about 20 percent. And their home is even more comfortable since they've eliminated drafts. Their next step will be to start generating their own electric power with solar photovoltaic panels.
"For the price of a flat-panel television, we've helped reduce the need for mountaintop removal," Bob says. "We're doing our part to make somebody else's community a better place to live."
3. Design sustainable new homes
In far too many cases, our homes are energy hogs. Poorly insulated and inefficiently heated and cooled, they are major contributors to energy waste and greenhouse gas pollution. Fortunately, a growing number of Triangle-area architects and builders are taking steps to make our homes part of the energy solution rather than the energy problem.
One of the most hopeful initiatives in terms of sheer scope is under way on an upscale cul-de-sac off Blue Ridge Road in northwest Raleigh, where Cherokee Investment Partners is constructing the first Mainstream GreenHome built in a typical suburban subdivision.
Founded in 1993, Cherokee is a Raleigh-based private equity firm that acquires environmentally contaminated "brownfield" properties for remediation and redevelopment, in many cases as housing subdivisions. Cherokee currently holds about $1 billion in real estate and expects to build tens of thousands of new houses on the properties it's currently rehabilitating.
"We woke up about two years ago and realized we are in a position of controlling more and more real estate around Europe and North America," says Cherokee Senior Director Jonathan Philips. "We're doing a good job cleaning up contaminated sites and revitalizing communities, but we hadn't focused on what we were putting on those sites. So we decided we needed to get smarter about green building."
Concluding the best way to learn was by doing, the company looked for someone who was building a new home so they could, as Philips puts it, "hijack" the process. Because Philips and his wife were about to build a house, they volunteered.
Corban Homes is constructing the Philips' house according to the National Association of Home Builders' Model Green Home Building Guidelines--one of only three homes in the nation known to meet those guidelines. (The others are non-subdivision homes in Albuquerque, N.M., and State College, Pa.) The house also will be certified with the Energy Star program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy, and with the N.C. Healthy Built Homes Program, a collaboration involving the N.C. Solar Center, State Energy Office and local building professional organizations.
When it's completed later this year, the house will look like a typical suburban home. However, it will incorporate numerous sustainable energy features: high-tech insulation, reflective roofing, a sealed attic and crawl space, skylights, automatic window blinds, ground source heat pump, a solar hot water system that runs beneath the shingles, electricity-generating photovoltaic cells integrated into those shingles, and a lighting system that uses energy efficient LEDs and compact fluorescents. The N.C. Botanical Garden is designing the landscape to minimize energy use by mitigating the effects of sunlight and wind. Piedmont Biofuels (see below) is even providing an onsite biodiesel tank to fuel construction vehicles.
Because it pulls out all the sustainability stops, Raleigh's Mainstream GreenHome costs more than a conventional home or even a home incorporating basic green features, though Philips expects to recoup the costs through utility savings and appreciation. But to him, the extra expense is worth it since the home will serve as a model to challenge misconceptions that green building is ugly or hard to live with. And in the future, Cherokee will enjoy volume discounts as it begins applying sustainability principles to entire subdivisions.
"As a country, we haven't spent enough time thinking about sustainable design on a large-scale basis," Philips says. "We're signaling to the marketplace that green building is important."
4. Build smarter schools
Like many other fast-growing communities across North Carolina and the nation, Wake County is struggling to fund adequate classroom space to keep up with its burgeoning student population. The debate over how to meet the need for new schools has focused largely on how much to raise property taxes to pay for new construction. Largely missing from the discussion has been any consideration of the enormous energy costs involved in powering conventional school buildings--and the ongoing savings available if the structures are designed in an energy-smart way.
Mike Nicklas is working to change that. An N.C. State-trained architect and founder of the 29-year-old Raleigh-based firm Innovative Design, he has helped plan more than 90 schools across the nation, incorporating elements to make the buildings more energy efficient. His work has won numerous awards. Last year, for example, the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council in Washington named Wake County's Nicklas-designed Heritage Middle School as the nation's most exemplary sustainable building.
At first glance, the sprawling brick structure near downtown Wake Forest looks like a typical modern school. But a closer look reveals a roof-mounted solar hot water system supplying the cafeteria, photovoltaic panels that reduce the building's demand for outside power, and extensive classroom daylighting that provides soft illumination for learning without the glare and heat of conventional fixtures. Besides energy efficient elements, the building also offers other sustainable features: nontoxicpaint, recycled carpeting affixed with nontoxic glue, formaldehyde-free cabinetry, and rainwater collection systems for flushing toilets and irrigating playing fields. A one-acre wetland pond collects and purifies water flowing off parking lots and other paved surfaces, with a windmill-powered pump providing bubbles to discourage mosquitoes.
While such sustainably designed schools cost anywhere from $1 to $2 more per square foot to build than conventional schools, the system recoups the extra expense in about two years through energy savings. Heritage, for example, saves $40,000 per year in electric bills alone. And it's not the only Nicklas design saving Wake County money: His firm also designed Dillard Drive Elementary, Millbrook Elementary and Durant Road Middle School, which the American Institute of Architects in 1997 named one of the nation's 10 most environmentally friendly buildings. In nearby Johnston County, Nicklas and his colleagues designed Four Oaks Elementary, Clayton Middle and Selma Middle schools, which have proven to be among the lowest energy-consuming schools in the Southeast.
Innovative Design's schools don't benefit just the environment and taxpayer, either: They're also healthier for students. Studies have found that children who attend daylit schools have better attendance and improved mood as well as less tooth decay and faster growth due to higher levels of vitamin D. Research conducted by Nicklas and his colleague Gary Bailey also found that children who attended their daylit schools in Johnston County showed greater improvement on achievement tests than peers who attended conventional schools.
"It's so logical and simple to do," Nicklas says. "It just takes the right skills."
5. Help transform energy policy
While it's important for us to take steps as individuals and families and households to lessen our dependence on dirty energy, we also need to take collective action as citizens to help shape wiser energy policy--especially at the state level.
"Our state laws have an overwhelming impact on the energy choices available to us," says Grady McCallie, a policy analyst with the Raleigh-based N.C. Conservation Network. "In practical terms, we won't be free to choose clean energy if state rules drive the utilities to meet all future demand through more expensive and polluting coal and nuclear plants."
North Carolina is tied for last in the nation in energy efficiency investment per unit of utility sales, according to McCallie. That's because under state law, our utilities get to pass on to consumers the cost of fuel and new power plants, so there's no incentive to tap low-cost energy efficiency rather than building costly new plants. In addition, our utilities make a profit on the total volume of energy sold rather than on how well each unit of energy is used, so there's no incentive to encourage efficiency.
"Until we change state policies to require energy efficiency to reward utilities for how intensively their power is used rather than how much they sell, economic incentives for utilities to sell more and more power will tend to overwhelm individual decisions to consume less," McCallie says.
Fortunately, state lawmakers are considering legislation that puts North Carolina on the path to greater energy efficiency. The Energy Independence Act (S. 2051)--sponsored by Sen. Charles Albertson (D-Duplin) and co-sponsored by Janet Cowell (D-Wake), Ellie Kinnaird (D-Orange) and Clark Jenkins (D-Edgecombe)--requires North Carolina to reduce petroleum use in state vehicles by 20 percent by 2010 through expanding the use of hybrids and alternative fuels. It creates tax credits to reduce the price of alternative fuels and to encourage the purchase of hybrid vehicles. The measure also requires state agencies to reduce energy consumption and offers tax credits for energy efficient homes. The bill is expected to come up for a vote within the next few weeks, McCallie says, so now would be a good time to weigh in with your representatives.
For more information about the Energy Independence Act and other key legislation promoting energy sustainability, download a copy of the "2006 North Carolina Sustainable Energy Legislative Guide" from the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association's Web site at www.ncsustainableenergy.org. Another good way for North Carolina citizens to stay informed about legislation promoting energy efficiency and other environmental matters is to sign up for the Conservation Network's public alerts at the group's Web site at www.ncconservationnetwork.org.
6. Drive cleaner
Here in the United States, transportation accounts for nearly a third of our greenhouse gas emissions, second only to electrical generation. There are simple, free steps we can take immediately to reduce the pollution from our cars and trucks, such as driving less aggressively, keeping our tires properly inflated, reducing idling, cutting back on the number of short trips we make by vehicle, and walking or riding a bike instead. We can also give up our gas guzzlers and switch to more fuel-efficient models.
Another option is to end our dependence on fossil-fuel-powered vehicles altogether by running a diesel car or truck on biodiesel.
One of the leading promoters of biodiesel technology in the Triangle is the Piedmont Biofuels Cooperative in Chatham County, one of the largest biofuels co-ops in the nation with about 300 members. Located on an old farmstead inside a formerly abandoned doublewide trailer, the co-op produces biodiesel from used vegetable oil--in their case, fryer oil from eateries in Durham's Southpoint Mall--in a chemical process whereby glycerin is separated from fat. The beauty of purified biodiesel is that it runs in an ordinary diesel engine, with few or no modifications necessary. (Biodiesel does have a solvent effect, however, and can loosen filter-clogging deposits and degrade rubber components in older engines.)
A 1998 federal study concluded that biodiesel reduces net carbon dioxide emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel due to biodiesel's closed carbon cycle. That is, the CO2 released into the atmosphere when biodiesel burns is recycled by growing plants, which are later processed into fuel. Burning biodiesel also releases less toxic pollutants and particulate matter than burning petroleum diesel, and it has a high energy balance, meaning it produces far more energy than it takes to make it.
That's especially true at the co-op, where the production process is ingeniously designed for maximum sustainability. The used oil is initially warmed with passive solar heat. The building where processing takes place is heated with solar-warmed hot water. Donated solar roof panels provide electricity. The glycerin extracted in the purification process is composted and used to fertilize the co-op's oil-crop research farm, which in turn is watered with process wastewater cleaned via an artificial wetlands system built from old bathtubs. During Sunday afternoon open houses, the co-op sells T-shirts, coffee cups and co-founder Lyle Estill's book Biodiesel Power from a one-room shop constructed of straw bales, and the tank from which the co-op sells biodiesel to the public is housed in a passive solar shed constructed of cob, a blend of straw and local red clay. (At $3.50 a gallon, biodiesel costs more than petroleum diesel, but that's because it doesn't yet enjoy the same government subsidies.)
At the moment, the fuel the co-op sells to the public is store-bought rather than homemade because of strict federal rules governing quality control. However, the co-op is currently finishing construction of a commercial production plant in nearby Pittsboro that will produce about 1 million gallons of biodiesel annually that will meet public-sale standards. Nevertheless, Estill cautions against thinking biodiesel is a magic bullet for fossil-fuel woes.
"A 1 million gallon operation is basically like a small country gas station--it can't even begin to meet the fuel needs of Americans," says Estill. "We've simply got to start driving less."
7. Get the fuel out of our food
We Americans tend to be calorie-obsessed--but how many of us have contemplated the fossil-fuel calories in the food we eat?
It takes about 10 fossil-fuel calories to produce and transport each food calorie in the average American diet. So if our daily food intake is 2,000 calories, it took 20,000 calories to grow that food and get it to us. Overall, about 15 percent of U.S. energy use goes toward supplying food, divided about evenly between producing crops and livestock, and food processing and packaging. David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University, has estimated that if the whole world ate the way Americans eat, we would exhaust all known fossil fuel reserves in seven years.
There are easy steps we can take to reduce our consumption of fossil-fuel calories, such as buying less processed food and more local products, shopping at local farmers' markets, or joining a community-supported agriculture farm. (For information on farmers' markets in North Carolina, go to the N.C. Farm Fresh Web site at www.ncfarmfresh.com, and for list of CSAs visit the Chatham County Cooperative Extension's Growing Small Farms Web site at www.ces.ncsu.edu/chatham/ag/SustAg/csafarms.html.)
Another option is to grow more of our own food at home. An experiment to do just that is taking place in West Raleigh, where N.C. State horticultural science professor Will Hooker and his wife, soil scientist Jeana Myers, grow about 20 percent of the food they and their son, Eli, eat--all on an ordinary fifth-acre urban lot.
The couple gardens according to the principles of permaculture, a system for designing and maintaining ecologically sustainable human environments developed in the 1970s by Australian ecologists Bill Mollison and David Holmgren. Permaculture is an organic response to industrial agriculture practices that reduce biodiversity and require large inputs of petroleum-based pesticides and other toxic chemicals.
Hooker and Myers' home garden got under way in earnest in 2000, after the family returned from a 10-month trip around the world to visit permaculture projects and other organic gardens. Following permaculture teachings, the first thing they did was observe the land to understand shifting patterns of wind and light. Once they determined a suitably sunny spot for vegetables, they laid down a thick layer of mulch, let it decompose over the winter, and began planting the following spring. Next, they brought in chickens for eggs and manure, then gradually began adding plants.
Today the couple grow more than a dozen different fruits, including apples, blueberries, grapes, peaches and plums. A shady backyard nook shelters a row of neatly stacked oak logs bearing shiitake mushrooms. For nine months of the year, they grow all of their salad greens, and they accomplish this with about 10 hours of labor a week. They eventually hope to grow half of all their food.
Hooker and Myers believe that our energy-intensive way of life is coming to an end, and humanity faces a choice between a sudden crash or what they hope will be a "graceful descent" into a less energy-intensive paradigm. In working toward the graceful descent, they find inspiration in places like Hong Kong: Though it's one of the most densely populated places on earth, about 45 percent of all the fruits and vegetables consumed by residents are grown inside the city limits.
"If in our urban centers we can grow 45 percent of our fruits and vegetables," says Hooker, "we would save an amazing amount of energy."
8. Connect energy and spirit
Most spiritual traditions have an ethic of caring for creation, yet many of our religious institutions engage in wasteful and environmentally harmful energy-use practices. N.C. Council of Churches' Climate Connection initiative is working to repair that disconnect while at the same time moving the discussion on climate change from the realm of earthly politics to a higher plane.
Climate Connection was first convened in 2000 by the late Sister Evelyn Mattern, a Triangle area activist and member of the Sisters for Christian Community who passed away in 2003. The meeting was a response to an initiative led by the National Council of Churches' Eco-Justice Working Group to bring awareness of global warming to faith communities and to draw connections between the spiritual imperative of creation care and the devastating impact of climate change.
Since then, Climate Connection--now directed by Alice Loyd of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church--has undertaken numerous efforts to promote awareness of climate change among North Carolina's faith communities. Last year the group became an affiliate of Interfaith Power & Light, a national campaign mobilizing a religious response to global warming while promoting renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation.
Here in North Carolina, Climate Connection provides educational outreach, holding workshops offering scientific information on global warming and strategies for taking action at the individual, congregational and public policy levels. It also conducts workshops with other groups such as Clean Energy Durham, and it's helping low-income faith congregations reduce energy consumption in practical, affordable ways.
Loyd reports an upsurge in interest in her group lately, which she attributes at least in part to mainstream media finally beginning to publish information explaining the impact of climate change. Through Climate Connection, concerned people can get involved in solving the problem while avoiding the ugly politics that sometimes cloud the issue.
"For us, climate change is a moral issue because human suffering is involved," Loyd explains. "We're losing something valuable that present and future generations should be able to count on having--a safe place to live. We like to use the language 'care of creation' because it expresses the idea of caring for something that's a treasure, something that's sacred. It's so unrelated to politics."
9. Educate yourself
By now you may have seen An Inconvenient Truth, the powerful documentary about Al Gore's efforts to warn the world about the reality and consequences of global warming. The film has won the praise of eminent scientists such as Dean William Schlesinger of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, who've lauded its accurate portrayal of the crisis we face.
Now there's another must-see movie about global warming coming to the Triangle. On Tuesday, July 18, there will be a free showing of the award-winning film Kilowatt Ours: A Plan to Re-Energize America (www.kilowattours.org). The event will include a discussion with filmmaker Jeff Barrie as well as an exhibit of products, services and information related to clean energy in North Carolina. It takes place at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences at 11 W. Jones St. in Raleigh at 7 p.m.
The showing is part of a statewide tour of the film sponsored by an alliance of environmental and health advocacy groups promoting energy sustainability in North Carolina. The alliance includes the American Lung Association, Carolinas Clean Air Coalition, Environmental Defense, N.C. Conservation Network, N.C. Council of Churches, N.C. Solar Center, N.C. Sustainable Energy Association, N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
The film opens with a speech by Vice President Dick Cheney in which he claims that America needs nearly 1,900 new power plants in the next 20 years to meet projected electricity demands. From there, Barrie takes viewers on a journey from the coal mines of West Virginia to the solar panel fields of Florida as he looks for solutions to America's dirty energy addiction.
The film also documents Barrie and his wife's efforts to eliminate their use of coal and nuclear power in their own home by employing energy conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. Through the Barries' experience, viewers will discover how we can save hundreds of dollars annually on our energy bills--and use the savings to support renewable energy.
Correction (Jul 12, 2006): This article incorrectly described research on the health advantages of daylit schools. The findings were in children who attended schools with artificial full-spectrum lighting, not natural daylighting.
|
The cold, hard facts As the Triangle dries out from the wettest June on record, a month that saw local folks rescued from flooded homes in rowboats, there's more worrisome news blowing in from the global climate front. The results of a federally funded study published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that Earth appears to be undergoing an abrupt warming, bringing an end to a cooler period that began 5,000 years ago and coincided--perhaps not so coincidentally--with the rise of cities. The authors expect that the planet's temperature will continue to climb, glaciers to melt, and sea levels to rise. Those revelations came on the heels of other studies indicating the Northern Hemisphere's recent warming is of a magnitude unmatched for the past 400 to 1,000 years, and that the warming is occurring more rapidly than scientists originally anticipated. While it's true Earth undergoes natural cycles of warming and cooling, scientists say the dramatic warming trend we find ourselves in now is anything but natural. It's caused by pollution from heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that we humans are releasing to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as coal and gas, and it's worsened by our clearing of carbon-absorbing forests. The warming is already wreaking havoc. In the past 30 years, the number of severe hurricanes has almost doubled, partly as the result of warmer ocean water. Mosquito-borne malaria is spreading to ever-higher altitudes. Hundreds of species of plants and animals have shifted habitat, moving closer to the planet's poles. If the warming continues, we can expect human deaths from global warming to double in the next quarter-century to 300,000 lives lost each year. Global sea levels could rise by as much as 20 feet, with devastating consequences for North Carolina's coastal communities. From the Arctic come reports of polar bears drowning in a futile search for vanishing ice. By 2050, more than a million species could face extinction. That's why it's so critical for us to take action immediately to rein in our carbon emissions--and stave off the worst of global warming's effects. |
To learn more For more information about the initiatives profiled here as well as other efforts to build a more sustainable energy future for North Carolina, visit the following Web sites: | |
|
Advanced Energy: www.advancedenergy.org American Lung Association of North Carolina: www.lungnc.org Appalachian State University Energy Center: www.energy.appstate.edu Canary Coalition: www.canarycoalition.org Carolina Electric Vehicle Coalition: www.evchallenge.org/about/cevc.html Carolinas Clean Air Coalition: www.clean-air-coalition.org Cherokee Investment Partners: www.cherokeefund.com Clean Energy Durham: www.cleanenergydurham.org Conservation Council of North Carolina: www.serve.com/ccnc Energy Star program: www.energystar.gov Environmental Defense: www.environmentaldefense.org Environment North Carolina: www.environmentnorthcarolina.org Innovative Design: www.innovativedesign.net Interfaith Power & Light: www.theregenerationproject.org National Association of Home Builders' Model Green Home Building Guidelines: www.nahb.org/gbg National Council of Churches' Eco-Justice Working Group: www.nccecojustice.org N.C. Climate Action Plan Advisory Group: www.ncclimatechange.us N.C. Conservation Network: www.ncconservationnetwork.org |
N.C. Council of Churches' Climate Connection: www.nccouncilofchurches.org/areasofwork/committees/climate_connection/climate_connection.html N.C. Division of Air Quality: www.ncair.org N.C. GreenPower: www.ncgreenpower.org N.C. Healthy Built Homes Program: healthybuilthomes.org N.C. Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change: www.ncleg.net/Committees/legislativecomm_/default.htm N.C. Sierra Club: www.sierraclub.org/nc N.C. Solar Center: www.ncsc.ncsu.edu N.C. Sustainable Energy Association: www.ncsustainableenergy.org N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network: www.ncwarn.org Piedmont Biofuels: www.biofuels.coop Southern Alliance for Clean Energy: www.cleanenergy.org Southern Energy Management: www.southern-energy.com Southern Environmental Law Center: www.selcnc.org State Energy Office of North Carolina: www.energync.net Students United for a Responsible Global Environment: www.surgenetwork.org Sustainable Buildings Industry Council: www.sbicouncil.org Sustainable North Carolina: www.sustainnc.org Triangle Clean Cities Coalition: www.trianglecleancities.org UNC Sustainability Office: sustainability.unc.edu |
Showing 1-2 of 2
Flawed Foundation Regardless of your current position on global warming, please consider one simple mental exercise that will allow you to put this political and financial issue into proper perspective. Determine how you would achieve an average global temperature. Would you require six thousand absolutely accurate temperature readings from points around the globe? Whatever your number is, I accept it. But for an average global temperature, those precise readings must be taken from mountains and valleys, deserts and jungles, oceans and lakes, cities and farms. Whatever you decide, I accept it. Al Gore & Co. maintains that earth's average temperature has risen during this past century by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. They apparently consider it possible to arrive at an accurate average global temperature for the year 2009. The question is, how did they find those very same accurate temperature readings, taken with the same accurate instruments, from the very same points on the globe, at the same hour of the same day, in the year 1909? Joseph Pasulka Southport NC 910-457-9336
Global Warming - Man Made or Natures Cycle R1 The debate: Is the observed global warming natural or man made? Global Warming or natural climatic rhythm? Global Warming Man made or natural cycle? There are numerous pros and cons as to the cause of Global Warming. After some study and research I share with you the various opinions. This consensus in this on-line article represents the views of some researchers and forecasters, but does not necessarily represent the views of all scientists. It was not the intention of this article to discount the presence of a human-induced global warming element or to attempt to claim that such an element is not present. There is a robust, on-going discussion on climate change within the scientific community. One degree. On a thermometer, it doesn't seem like much at all. But that degree has sparked intense debate among experts who monitor the temperature on Earth. In a new report issued by a leading group of scientists and meteorologists, research shows the planet has warmed one degree during the last 100 years. That report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts that Earth will continue to warm between 2 and 10 degrees during the next century. Those researchers believe that global warming could be boosting the planet's temperature. Global warming is a phenomenon of temperatures rising on Earth. Scientists have said that some human activities cause gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide to build up in the atmosphere. Those gases trap heat closer to Earth's surface giving the planet a worldwide fever. Many experts say two chemicals -- carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide -- are most responsible for global warming. Cars, trucks and factories around the world emit those chemicals everyday. Once in the atmosphere, those chemicals act as big reflectors, bouncing back sun rays to the Earth and warming the planet. But there are scientists, climatologists and weather watchers who believe that the warming trend is not an aberrant threat, but part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling on Earth. "We just haven't been around long enough to know if it's a fact," said CNN weather anchor Orelon Sidney. "The Earth is more than 4 billion years old and humans haven't been around that long. So this could just be a part of cycle." The scientists who believe the Earth is warming say years of research are needed to determine why. Dr. Lonnie Thompson, a researcher at the Byrd Polar Research Center located at Ohio State University, is among those attempting to discover the causes of global warming. He spends many months away from his home in search of answers. Thompson's latest trek to the Andes Mountains showed substantial changes in a glacier. "The glacier we have been studying has been melting at an unbelievable rate," Thompson said. "Where there was once ice, there is now a lake." Thompson photographed the new lake and glacier to show "obvious changes in our world because of temperature increase," he said. Thompson said a warmer earth could lead to more erratic weather. "If energy in the system -- the heat on the Earth's climate system --increases, then you're going to have more water vapor. More water vapor feeds more storms -- larger hurricanes, maybe larger snowstorms too." As a meteorology student at the University of Maryland, Antony Chen is among those who would watch for those weather changes. He is part of the next generation of researchers who will have to figure out what's behind the cause of the temperature bump. Chen says we have to look at the big picture then determine what changes people should make on the local level. "We need to know what's going on in the atmosphere, the magnitude of changes we are making to our climate system," Chen said. "Then we can start coming up with solutions." Professor Bruce Doddridge is one of Chen's professors and is encouraged by the caliber of young people he's seen entering the earth sciences. "I'm impressed with the variety of smart and intelligent people coming through that can do this work," he said. Doddridge concedes that there are many potential causes of global warming, but said he believes the new technology could help assess and solve the problem. "The issues are becoming more complicated," Doddridge said, "but I think the tools we have to work with are becoming more sophisticated." Many experts say two chemicals -- carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide -- are most responsible for global warming. Cars, trucks and factories around the world emit those chemicals everyday. Once in the atmosphere, those chemicals act as big reflectors, bouncing back sun rays to the Earth and warming the planet. But there are scientists, climatologists and weather watchers who believe that the warming trend is not an aberrant threat, but part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling on Earth. "We just haven't been around long enough to know if it's a fact," said CNN weather anchor Orelon Sidney. "The Earth is more than 4 billion years old and humans haven't been around that long. So this could just be a part of cycle." The scientists who believe the Earth is warming say years of research are needed to determine why. Dr. Lonnie Thompson, a researcher at the Byrd Polar Research Center located at Ohio State University, is among those attempting to discover the causes of global warming. He spends many months away from his home in search of answers. 1. The authors of Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years, say that history, ice core studies and stalagmites all agree on a natural cycle at roughly that interval that is superimposed on the longer, stronger ice ages and interglacial phases. They point as evidence of this natural cycle to the "Climate Optimum" - a period of warmer and wetter weather than the present Earth's climate, which took place 9,000 years ago to 5,000 years ago, and a cooling event 2,600 years ago. During the Roman warming period from 200 BC to around AD 600 North Africa and the Sahara were wetter and supported crops. In more recent times they point to the medieval warming of 900 to 1300, when Eric the Red's descendant's colonized Greenland and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1850 which saw the Norse dairy farmers on Greenland grow short from malnutrition and eventually die out. Mr. Avery, a former US agriculture official whose celebrated earlier book was Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High Yield Farming suggests that the natural cycle of warming and cooling may come from variations in cosmic rays which have been linked to cloud formation. This theory was validated in a recent paper in a Royal Society journal by scientists from the Danish National Space Centre who showed that sub-atomic particles - cosmic rays from exploding stars - play a major role in making clouds. During the past century cosmic rays became scarcer as vigorous activity by the sun forced them away. So there was less cloud cover to reflect away sunlight and a warmer world, according to the Danish scientists. 2. Policymakers have been arguing for nearly a decade over what to do about global warming. Noticeably missing from this debate has been any mention of the fact that natural fluctuations in the Earth's temperature, not Man, are the likely explanation for any recent warming. Proponents of the global warming theory repeatedly cite a 1.5 F temperature increase over the last 150 years as evidence that man-made CO2 is dangerously heating up the planet and will cause huge flooding, severe storms, disease and a mass exodus of environmental refugees. Based on this, the Clinton Administration and its environmental allies want Congress to ratify a treaty that will hike consumer prices 40 percent and cost the American economy $3.3 trillion over 20 years. But the apocalyptic predictions on which they justify these drastic steps are totally unsubstantiated and ignore some fundamental truths about the Earth's climatic behavior. The fact is, the planet's temperature is constantly rising and falling. To put the current warming trend in perspective, it's important to understand the Earth's geological behavior. Over the last 700,000 years, the climate has operated on a relatively predictable schedule of 100,000-year glaciations cycles. Each glaciations cycle is typically characterized by 90,000 years of cooling, an ice age, followed by an abrupt warming period, called an interglacial, which lasts 10,000-12,000 years. The last ice age reached its coolest point 18,000 to 20,000 years ago when the average temperature was 9-12.6 F cooler than present. Earth is currently in a warm interglacial called the Holocene that began 10,700 years ago. Although precise temperature readings over the entire period of geologic history are not available, enough is known to establish climatic trends. During the Holocene, there have been about seven major warming and cooling trends, some lasting as long as 3000 years, others as short as 650. Most interesting of all, however, is that the temperature variation in many of these periods averaged as much as 1.8 F, .3 F more than the temperature increase of the last 150 years. Furthermore, of the six major temperature variations occurring prior to the current era, three produced temperatures warmer than the present average temperature of 59 F while three produced cooler temperatures. For example, when the Holocene began as the Earth was coming out of the last Ice Age around 8700 B.C., the average global temperature was about 6 F cooler than it is today. By 7500 B.C., the climate had warmed to 60 F, 1 F warmer than the current average temperature. However, the temperature fell again by nearly 2 F over the next 1,000 years, settling at an average of 1 F cooler than the current climate. Between 6500 and 3500 B.C., the temperature increased from 58 F to 62 F. This is the warmest the Earth has been during the Holocene, which is why scientists refer to the period as the Holocene Maximum. Since the temperature of the Holocene Maximum is close to what global warming models project for the Earth by 2100, how Mankind faired during the era is instructive. The most striking fact is that it was during this period that the Agricultural Revolution began in the Middle East, laying the foundation for civilization. Yet, Greenhouse theory proponents claim the planet will experience severe environmental distress if the climate is that warm again. Since the Holocene Maximum, the planet has continued to experience temperature fluctuations. In 900 A.D. the planet's temperature roughly approximated today's temperature. Then, between 900 and 1100 the climate dramatically warmed. Known as the Medieval Warm Period, the temperature rose by more than 1 F to an average of 60 or 61 F, as much as 2 F warmer than today. Again, the temperature during this period is similar to Greenhouse predictions for 2100, a prospect global warming theory proponents insist should be viewed with alarm. But judging by how Europe prospered during this era, there is little to be alarmed about. The warming that occurred between 1000 and 1350 caused the ice in the North Atlantic to retreat and permitted Norsemen to colonize Iceland and Greenland. Back then, Greenland was actually green. Europe emerged from the Dark Ages in a period that was characterized by bountiful harvests and great economic prosperity. So mild was the climate that wine grapes were grown in England and Nova Scotia. The major climate change that followed the Medieval Warm Period is especially critical as it bears directly on how to assess our current warming period. Between 1200 and 1450, the temperature plunged to 58 F. After briefly warming, the climate continued to dramatically get colder after 1500. By 1650, the temperature hit a low of 57 F. This is regarded as the coldest point in the 10,000-year Holocene geological epoch. That is why the era between 1650 and 1850 is known as the Little Ice Age. It was during this time that mountain glaciers advanced in Switzerland and Scandinavia, forcing the abandonment of farms and villages. Rivers in London, St. Petersburg and Moscow froze over so thoroughly that people held winter fairs on the ice. There were serious crop failures, famines and disease due to the cooler climate. In America, New England had no summer in 1816. It wasn't until 1860 that the temperature sufficiently warmed to cause the glaciers to retreat. The significance of the Little Ice Age cannot be overestimated. The 1.5 F temperature increase over the last 150 years, so often cited as evidence of man-made warming, most likely represents a return to normal temperatures following a 400-year period of unusually cold weather. Even the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the chief proponent of the Kyoto Protocol global warming treaty signed in December 1997, concludes that: "The Little Ice Age came to an end only in the nineteenth century. Thus, some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities." Leading climate scientist Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory says we may be in for an additional 1.8 F of warming over the next few centuries, regardless of Man's activities. The result would be warmer nighttime and winter temperatures, fewer frosts and longer growing seasons. Since CO2 stimulates plant growth and lessens the need for water, we could also expect more bountiful harvests over the next couple of centuries. This is certainly not bad news to the developing nations of the world struggling to feed their populations. Thus, far from being a self-induced disaster, global warming is the result of natural changes in the Earth's climate that promises to yield humanity positive benefits. In the geological scheme of things, the warming is not even that dramatic compared to the more pronounced warming trends that occurred during the Agricultural Revolution and the early Middle Ages. Moreover, there is strong evidence that this long-needed warming is moderating. All things considered, global warming should be viewed for what it is: A gift from the often fickle force of Nature. Enjoy it while you can. 3. Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher. The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says. Essenhigh explains his position in a "viewpoint" article in the current issue of the journal Chemical Innovation, published by the American Chemical Society. Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as automobiles and power plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and vegetation. "Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer." How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information, as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the pattern of that report. For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources, including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years. He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere. Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said. "At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does." 4. Is human activity warming the Earth or do recent signs of climate change signal natural variations? In this feature article, scientists discuss the vexing ambiguities of our planet's complex and unwieldy climate Newspaper headlines trumpet record-breaking temperatures, dwindling sea ice, and retreating glaciers around the world. Concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases responsible for scalding temperatures on Venus and at least 33 degrees C of normal warming here on Earth, are on the rise. Our planet seems destined for a hot future! But is it really? Or are we simply experiencing a natural variation in Earth's climate cycles that will return to "normal" in time? Correlations between rising CO2 levels and global surface temperatures suggest that our planet is on a one-way warming trend triggered by human activity. Indeed, studies by paleoclimatologists reveal that natural variability caused by changes in the Sun and volcanic eruptions can largely explain deviations in global temperature from 1000 AD until 1850 AD, near the beginning of the Industrial Era. After that, the best models require a human-induced greenhouse effect. In spite of what may seem persuasive evidence, many scientists are nonetheless skeptical. They argue that natural variations in climate are considerable and not well understood. The Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence, they note. And not all of the evidence supports global warming. Air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably, according to satellite data, and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the last 20 years. It may surprise many people that science -- the de facto source of dependable knowledge about the natural world -- cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change. Why is the question so thorny? The reason, say experts, is that Earth's climate is complex and chaotic. It's so unwieldy that researchers simply can't conduct experiments to check their ideas in the usual way of science. They often rely, instead, on computer models. But such models are only as good as their inputs and programming, and today's computer models are known to be imperfect. Most scientists agree that no single piece of data will likely resolve the global warming debate. In the end, the best we can expect is a scientific consensus based on a preponderance of evidence. 5. 30 Natural Global Warming Episodes Have Occurred During the Past 5,000 Years. David Dilley of GWO has discovered a powerful natural forcing mechanism that controls global warming cycle, hurricane track landfalls, El Nino cycles and many other climate weather cycles. David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations Inc., Ocala Florida, has completed groundbreaking research on Global Warming. This research found that the current global warming episode is a "Natural Recurring Cycle", and that this current cycle will begin to diminish as early as 2015, and no later than 2040. Mr. Dilley's 15-years of ongoing climate research has uncovered a very powerful external forcing mechanism that causes shifts in regional weather cycles, and the world's climate. This forcing mechanism is called "the Primary Forcing Trigger Mechanism", or PFM. The PFM is a cyclical forcing mechanism that can be forecast years in advance, or even traced back through the earth's climate history. The major influence of the PFM on the earth's climate is that it causes the world's dominating regional high-pressure systems to shift position, or become displaced from their normal seasonal position. Because the PFM is cyclical, the earth's weather and climate is likewise cyclical. As an example of an induced PFM climate cycle, the subtropical high-pressure system in the central South Pacific normally causes the ocean's water temperature to stay relatively cool in this region. Dilley's El Nio research (see link) explains that the PFM cycle induces a shift in the position of the high-pressure system where El Nios form. The resulting wind shift then triggers the formation of an El Nio by inducing a rapid warming of sea surface temperatures. Dilley says that research going back to 1915 showed 24 such PFM cycles and 24 El Nio occurrences. This research is currently under peer review and will go to a leading climate journal this summer. Further research by Dilley and Global Weather Oscillations, indicates that this same PFM forcing mechanism displaces high-pressure centers in such a way to control the tracks of hurricanes from one year to the next. (See hurricane link) Knowing how and why this forcing mechanism controls weather cycles opened the door to the ground breaking global warming research. Mr. Dilley states that the current global warming cycle is without a doubt the result of a known external "natural" forcing cycle. According to Dilley, most government officials, climatologists and meteorologists are looking only at the increase in temperatures and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels over the past 50 to 100 years. These correlations and findings are only representative during global warming episodes. When you take into account nearly 30 other global warming episodes over the past 5 thousand years, it becomes very apparent that CO2 levels cannot be the forcing mechanism that has caused global warming, but rather Long-term PFM climate forcing cycles. These cycles likely displace high-pressure systems and the polar jet stream northward during an approximate 200-year recurring PFM forcing cycle. the years 1050 to 1205 AD. The peak warming of this cycle lasted 90 years from 1090 to 1180 AD, as delineated by the red box. The second global warming cycle was from 1285 to 1415 AD, with a 65-year peak from 1315 to 1380. The third global warming episode was from 1440 to 1590 with a 50-year peak from 1520 to 1570. The fourth was from 1700 to 1845 with a 45-year peak from 1740 to 1785. Finally, the current global warming episode began about 1910 and the peak about 1950, or about 57 years ago. The graph and research indicates that each global warming cycle has duration of 130 to 160 years, and the peak of each cycle has duration of 50 to 90 years. Analyses of the 5 warming cycles and the history of PFM cycles, indicates that the current cycle is about the same duration as the one that occurred about 900-years ago. Therefore, the current global warming cycle will run from 1910 to 2060, with the duration of the peak warming occurring between 1950 and 2015. The peak warming will level off around 2015 and then begin diminishing rapidly by no later than the year 2030 to 2040. Once cooling begins it will only take 20 to 30 years to cool to the lowest part of the cooling cycle, temperatures much like what was recorded in the 1800s. In addition to the 5 global warming cycles found during the past 1000-years, it should be noted here that a total of approximately 30 global warming cycles have occurred during the past 5000 years, with the warmest cycle occurring approximately every 1000-years, and the peak of the warmest cycle having a duration of 60 to 90 years. Referring to the 5000-year graph, the present long-term warming cycle can be seen on the right hand side of the graph, and 4 other long-term warm cycles date back 5000-years on the left side of the graph. Analyses of the 5000-year graph indicates that long-term warming cycles have durations as short as 500-years as seen in the 2 cycles labeled A, to as long as 1000-years as seen in cycle C nearly 4500-years ago. Further analyses of cycle durations indicates that if the current long-term warming cycle which began in the year 1500 AD was of the same duration as cycle A, the peak of the current warming would of ended back in the year 1750, and it did not. In addition, if the current cycle was the same duration as cycle B, the peak warming of our current global warming cycle would have ended in the year 1900, and it did not. Now let's take a look at cycle C. in the next paragraph.. Further research by Research by Global Weather Oscillations indicates that the PFM climate forcing cycle normally occurs in cycles of 5. Therefore looking back 5 warming cycles and 5 PFM cycles, we find cycle C that occurred 4,500 years ago and had a 1000 - year duration of the entire warm cycle. Using the mid-point of this cycle (500-years), the current long-term warming that began around the year 1500 AD will peak around the year 2000 AD, and end by 2500 AD. Reconstructed Carbon Dioxide CO2 and Temperature Proxies Past 400,000 Years. The graph below shows reconstructed Ice Core temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations over the Antartica from near present time back 400,000 years. Of particular importance is that this graph shows 5 Natural Cycles during the past 400,000 years and as temperatures rise the carbon dioxide concentrations also naturally rise, thus mirroring the cyclical temperatures. It is well known throughout the scientific community that warmer temperatures can hold more water vapor, and water vapor absorbs and holds carbon dioxide. Thus these 5 Natural Cycles during the past 400,000 years mirror the 200-year global warming cycles shown early. Therefore, it is likely that the peak of all 30 global warming cycles during the past 4,000 years likewise had carbon dioxide concentrations very similar to the values found today. Thus, carbon dioxide levels are not the cause of global warming....all global warming cycles are "Natural". Natural Global Warming Cycles .. Putting it all together The current long-term 1000-year warming cycle began about the year 1500 AD and will continue to near 2500 AD. This current long-term cycle will consist of 5 cyclical short-term global warming and cooling episodes. The world is now in the third of the 5 short-term cycles, and the warmest of the 5. The first short-term global warming episode peaked between 1520 and 1570 AD, followed by a cooling period until the next global warming episode peaked between 1740 and 1785. Temperatures remained cool throughout the 1800s to early 1900s, and then the third short-term global warming episode began. The peak of this current global warming episode began in earnest around 1950 and will level off as early as 2015, and no later than 2030-40. Then within 20 years temperatures will cool rapidly to the same levels as seen in the 1800s. The global warming cycles are approximate 200-year cycles, so the next global warming cycle will peak about 150-years after the end of the current cycle, or about the year 2200. This will be the 4th of 5 cycles within the current 1000-year primary warm cycle, and it will not be as warm as the current episode. Global warming research has found 5 natural global warming cycles during the past 1000-years, and approximately 30 global warming cycles during the past 5 thousand years. In conclusion - let the reader make up his own conclusions. Data compiled by Yehuda Draiman, Energy Analyst 6/11/2007
Comments (2) RSS