Global Climate Change Science News

Post Reply
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Brian Peacock » Sun Feb 05, 2023 3:36 pm

macdoc wrote:
Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:55 am
You do this every time someone applies a critical eye to your future-centric utopianism. Get over yourself. I acknowledged the abundance of a key resource, sea water, but scaling has to account for all aspects of implementation and a closed or self-sustaining cycle has to account for all inputs and outputs - including construction, running, distribution, and decommissioning resourcing and costs. There's no account of how carbon or energy intensive this source of hydrogen might be, because that's not within the scope of the paper, so applying the Green tag seems more hype or hyperbole than accurately descriptive. Of course, the elephant in the room is the cobalt, it's abundance, performance and durability.
blather
there is lots of cobalt, I used to refine it at international nickel.
Did I say it was rare - though I probably should have talked about availability rather than abundance?

Still, scaling has to account for all the inputs and outputs - all resources, including human resources, costs and consequences. I see no reason to claim this as a Green technology yet.

How the race for cobalt risks turning it from miracle metal to deadly chemical
Cobalt Mining: The Dark Side of the Renewable Energy Transition

Cobalt is an important gamma-ray source used in radio therapy for cancer treatment, and emissions from its mining include radioactive cancer-causing particles and other elements which can cause vision problems, vomiting and nausea, heart, lung, skin, and thyroid damage. Can we claim a tech is Green if it relies on a resource like cobalt - one predominantly mined by hand by children? If we're serious about 'going Green' surely we have to look at the whole picture and avoid assuming that all we need to do is replace one kind of tech with another so we can carry on with business as usual? Sustainability isn't about maintaining deeply unjust and exploitative systems, just with lower carbon footprints.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 6937
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by macdoc » Sun Feb 05, 2023 9:36 pm

Your article is 4 years old - try something more current.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ ... ale-mining
Using child labour is a political issue not a technical one.

All technology carries risk and perhaps you can propose a current alternative that will get the world off fossil fuels with a lesser impact. I'm all ears.

ALL mining has some negative impacts. It's a matter of weighing benefit versus risk.

Taking your stance....it seems a hippie compound in Kuranda should be the ultimate aspirational goal for humans.
This is just up the road
https://www.woodyworldpacker.com/welcom ... ainforest/

Green hydrogen has a specific definition.
, green hydrogen is the one produced with no harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Green hydrogen is made by using clean electricity from surplus renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind power, to electrolyse water.
as for cobalt ....the search continues for less costly, more environmentally safe alternatives to precious metals ...there is always a tradeoff.....EV batteries are a work in progress as is the general attempt to create an industrial low carbon civilization.

How about sticking to the main point which is to get to carbon neutral....propose solutions instead offering up dated negatives. :bored:
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by rainbow » Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:25 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Sun Feb 05, 2023 3:36 pm


Cobalt is an important gamma-ray source used in radio therapy for cancer treatment, and emissions from its mining include radioactive cancer-causing particles and other elements which can cause vision problems, vomiting and nausea, heart, lung, skin, and thyroid damage. If we're serious about 'going Green' surely we have to look at the whole picture and avoid assuming that all we need to do is replace one kind of tech with another so we can carry on with business as usual? Sustainability isn't about maintaining deeply unjust and exploitative systems, just with lower carbon footprints.
Can we claim a tech is Green if it relies on a resource like cobalt - one predominantly mined by hand by children?
So you are wrong. 95% of cobalt is mined by large mining corporates that use highly mechanised mining techniques. They are not angels --> It is more cost effective than child labour.
The small amount of artisinal mining (which I've seen personally) exists because there are no other sources of income for the poorest people in the DRC.

Explain how taking that away from them would improve their lives?
:prof: Show your calculations :prof:
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:23 am

I bow to your greater knowledge. I'm not suggesting removing the incomes of those on poverty wages, and although I rather over-egged my pudding, the interests of corporate mining interests like Glencore etc are served by maintaining politically unstable regimes that foster human exploitation and environmental abuse. And lets not pretend that there isn't a human or environmental cost to DRC cobalt and other mining operatations. From macdocs link...
...Cobalt is an essential raw material used by large tech companies for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, electronic devices, and electric cars. However, the DRC’s valuable cobalt industry comes at a price: extraction of the mineral is linked to child labor, safety risks, environmental abuses, and corruption. If the DRC fails to adopt and enforce stricter regulations to protect small-scale miners, these trends will increase alongside the technology-driven surge in cobalt demand, projected to grow by 60% by 2025.

...Small-scale mining in the DRC involves people of all ages, including children, obligated to work under harsh conditions. Of the 255,000 Congolese mining for cobalt, 40,000 are children, some as young as six years. Much of the work is informal small-scale mining in which laborers earn less than $2 per day while using their own tools, primarily their hands.

...Growing global demand for cobalt implies that Congo’s environment will suffer, especially if precautions are not taken to ensure sustainability. The extraction of DRC mineral resources includes cutting down trees and building roads, negatively impacting the environment and biodiversity. Moreover, although cobalt is a crucial component in global greening and renewable energy, its quick extraction contributes to global warming. Cobalt mining operations generate incredibly high carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions and substantial electricity consumption.
So questions remain: Can we claim a tech is Green if it relies on a resources secured through systems of human exploitation and environmental abuse?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by rainbow » Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:39 am

macdoc wrote:
Sun Feb 05, 2023 9:36 pm


as for cobalt ....the search continues for less costly, more environmentally safe alternatives to precious metals ...there is always a tradeoff.....EV batteries are a work in progress as is the general attempt to create an industrial low carbon civilization.

How about sticking to the main point which is to get to carbon neutral....propose solutions instead offering up dated negatives. :bored:
From your link:
Out of fear of being associated with mining firms that access cobalt through child labor, some individual tech companies have decided to stop purchasing from small-scale miners altogether. This strategy threatens livelihoods in many DRC communities that depend heavily on small-scale mining for jobs and income.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Svartalf » Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:41 am

green means no pollution, if the only harm a mining concern does is to the mine workers, it's still green, though you can call it unethical
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by rainbow » Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:49 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:23 am
So questions remain: Can we claim a tech is Green if it relies on a resources secured through systems of human exploitation and environmental abuse?
Yes. The relative cost to the Smartphone consumer to make sure that the environment in the DRC is protected, and that children in the DRC are in schools that have feeding schemes, sponsored by the tech companies.

Would you pay an extra $25 dollars for your phone knowing that it would be spent on taking these children out of poverty?

Perhaps but most would rather get the cheaper one. No?
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:18 pm

macdoc wrote:
Sun Feb 05, 2023 9:36 pm
Your article is 4 years old - try something more current.
One was from Dec 2019, the other from Dec 2022. Dated by four years, but hardly out of date or irrelevant.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ ... ale-mining
Using child labour is a political issue not a technical one.
No shit Sherlock! And those political issues range from Congolese holes in the ground all the way to up the food chain to manufactures and consumers.
All technology carries risk and perhaps you can propose a current alternative that will get the world off fossil fuels with a lesser impact. I'm all ears.

ALL mining has some negative impacts. It's a matter of weighing benefit versus risk.
The question is who receives the gains and benefits, and who takes or is put at risk?
Taking your stance....it seems a hippie compound in Kuranda should be the ultimate aspirational goal for humans.
This is just up the road
https://www.woodyworldpacker.com/welcom ... ainforest/
Cast me as a Luddite if you wish, but I'm not opposing Green tech - I'm challenging assumptions that tech in itself is going to somehow mitigate Global Heating and magically address its human and environmental impact on all of us.
Green hydrogen has a specific definition.
, green hydrogen is the one produced with no harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Green hydrogen is made by using clean electricity from surplus renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind power, to electrolyse water.
It's not quite that straightforward. I refer you to the video I posted a few weeks ago.
as for cobalt ....the search continues for less costly, more environmentally safe alternatives to precious metals ...there is always a tradeoff.....EV batteries are a work in progress as is the general attempt to create an industrial low carbon civilization.
And so the issue is who actually gets to decide what an acceptable trade-off is, and on what grounds? Is ongoing child exploitation and environmental degradation an acceptable trade-off for us to have access cheap, and cheaper, resources? We can't ask the planet what it thinks about that, but we can certainly ask people at the shitty end of the deal whether they think it's an acceptable trade-off can't we? So why don't we?
How about sticking to the main point which is to get to carbon neutral....propose solutions instead offering up dated negatives. :bored:
The point was that you claimed "Green hydrogen is the perfect fuel" without really thinking what that meant or what it actually entailed. As I've already said, the development of a catalyst for producing hydrogen from sea water is interesting science, but it isn't Green in and of itself. Chiding me for not accepting a headline at face value is to miss the point.

I can understand why you become quickly bored with these kinds of challenging discussions - they're not something that can generally covered a couple of sentences. Finding effective solutions requires some serious thought about the nature of the problems, quite a bit of research, and some pretty tough self reflection. It's all too easy for us to dash off a couple of sentences with our thumbs and kid ourselves we've dealt with the issues, eh?

Let me be clear, green hydrogen isn't the solution to Global Heating, Climate Change, Mass Extinction, or the ongoing impacts, loss and damages that flow from it - just like hydrogen-based mass air transport isn't - although it may be a part of a solution to a specific aspect of the crisis. Similarly, in this context charging me here with providing solutions assumes i) there aren't already solutions we could implement today, and ii) that I'm somehow negating the role hydrogen might yet play in a sustainable renewable energy economy. There are, and I'm not.

Nonetheless, my solutions range from individuals trying to live as carbon light as they can, to developing new approaches to infrastructure, to a refocusing of education systems around climate and sustainability across discipline (even the arts and humanities), to securing human rights and particular the rights of women and children, to the democratisation of natural resources as a truly common good, to developing community-based approaches to local climate and sustainability issues as they play out on the ground, to reassessing our species relationship to the natural environment and our evolved place in it, to a serious examination of the concept of value and how it is disproportionately accrued and hoarded by a few to the detriment of everyone, to addressing Climate Change as primarily a justice issue rather than a technocratic puzzle, to governments implementing the rapid changes in the global economy they've already committed to as part of the Paris Agreement but have done very little to honour, and much more besides.

But you could sum it up in a slogan...

Image

I think the reason you so often get annoyed with me on these issues is simply because I actually take this shit very seriously, and yet I'm still surprised that any of that would be news to you - unless you haven't really been paying attention! We can talk about any of it whenever like - but you'll have to drop certain assumptions you have about 'my stance' in order for those discussions to be productive.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:34 pm

rainbow wrote:
Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:49 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:23 am
So questions remain: Can we claim a tech is Green if it relies on a resources secured through systems of human exploitation and environmental abuse?
Yes. The relative cost to the Smartphone consumer to make sure that the environment in the DRC is protected, and that children in the DRC are in schools that have feeding schemes, sponsored by the tech companies.

Would you pay an extra $25 dollars for your phone knowing that it would be spent on taking these children out of poverty?

Perhaps but most would rather get the cheaper one. No?
We can each do what we can, and when we can't we can support those that do. But we can only act within the broader political and economic context over which we have very little influence as individuals. Consumers can make better, greener choices, but I fear we won't consume our way to a cooler, more just planet because we only get to chose from what 'the market' makes available to us. I would pay an extra $25 for that, but why not take that $25 from the phone company as an environmental or green tax and redistribute it directly to the people upon whose labour and resources we rely? All my tech is secondhand, my clothes are from thrift stores, I shop vegan, only use public transport, etc, but that counts for little against the monolith of corporate capitalism and the prevalent lazy, reactionary politics.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 6937
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by macdoc » Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:34 pm

Glad this got revived....and by an Oz mob.
Australian startup Recharge wins bid for collapsed UK battery company Britishvolt
Recharge, which is also planning a factory in Victoria, revives goal to build £3.8bn ‘gigafactory’ in north England
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ritishvolt
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by rainbow » Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:14 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:34 pm
rainbow wrote:
Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:49 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:23 am
So questions remain: Can we claim a tech is Green if it relies on a resources secured through systems of human exploitation and environmental abuse?
Yes. The relative cost to the Smartphone consumer to make sure that the environment in the DRC is protected, and that children in the DRC are in schools that have feeding schemes, sponsored by the tech companies.

Would you pay an extra $25 dollars for your phone knowing that it would be spent on taking these children out of poverty?

Perhaps but most would rather get the cheaper one. No?
We can each do what we can, and when we can't we can support those that do. But we can only act within the broader political and economic context over which we have very little influence as individuals. Consumers can make better, greener choices, but I fear we won't consume our way to a cooler, more just planet because we only get to chose from what 'the market' makes available to us. I would pay an extra $25 for that, but why not take that $25 from the phone company as an environmental or green tax and redistribute it directly to the people upon whose labour and resources we rely? All my tech is secondhand, my clothes are from thrift stores, I shop vegan, only use public transport, etc, but that counts for little against the monolith of corporate capitalism and the prevalent lazy, reactionary politics.
As an individual, you can join with like-minded people and throw the Nasti Party out of power.
Then the Not-so Party can maybe put on the pressure to make the Corporates accountable.
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:18 am

rainbow wrote:
Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:14 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:34 pm
...
We can each do what we can, and when we can't we can support those that do. But we can only act within the broader political and economic context over which we have very little influence as individuals. Consumers can make better, greener choices, but I fear we won't consume our way to a cooler, more just planet because we only get to chose from what 'the market' makes available to us. I would pay an extra $25 for that, but why not take that $25 from the phone company as an environmental or green tax and redistribute it directly to the people upon whose labour and resources we rely? All my tech is secondhand, my clothes are from thrift stores, I shop vegan, only use public transport, etc, but that counts for little against the monolith of corporate capitalism and the prevalent lazy, reactionary politics.
As an individual, you can join with like-minded people and throw the Nasti Party out of power.
Then the Not-so Party can maybe put on the pressure to make the Corporates accountable.
Indeed. I do do that too, in a rather specific sense. But my general view is that we can't change things collectively if we're individually wedded to values and systems that facilitate environmental abuse. We're in the situation as the sugar addict who knows they have serious health issues and shouldn't eat the bag of doughnuts they're currently queuing up to purchase - and will eat; and will reason away with excuses and "next time" stories.

Just knowing, or being told that it's harmful isn't enough. If being aware of the facts was enough we wouldn't be where we are today, which suggests that unwrapping why we're collectively queuing up to continually harm ourselves is a far more complex thing than a simple choice for B-not-A. It also means that expecting a different set of technocrats to stop us harming ourselves is a false hope if they're essentially embedded in the same basic harmful values and systems - just with different ideas about how it could or should be administrated.

In other words, if we want to change the world we first have to want to change ourselves, and the people who need to change the most--and thus have the furthest distance to travel--are those most deeply embedded in the co-dependent abusive relationship with the values and systems that are harming them, and everybody else: the global North.

At the same time, we still have fundamental needs, so we need new ideas about how we can meet those needs which aren't as harmful to ourselves, and others...
What is community energy?

Communities all over the UK are leading the way to more sustainable generation and energy use.

‘Community energy’ is when citizens work together to build renewables or support households in reducing their consumption. It often refers to community-led generation projects, for example a wind farm or solar panel project which members of the community part or fully own.

The UK currently has over 120 community energy projects involved in everything from tackling fuel poverty to providing energy advice and community education.

Energy Gardens, for example, is building community-owned renewable generation and using the profits to create community gardens in railway stations across London. The group seeks shareholders to invest in solar panels, and uses extra money made from selling the energy to transform trackside space into food growing, educational and other green public spaces.

In most community-energy initiatives, members have a say in how the project is run, and what local or social benefits they’d like to see from it. For example, they may be able to decide where to put the profits, whether to pay them to shareholders, revive the local pub, or set up an electric car sharing scheme.

Why is community energy important?

Community energy moves us towards renewable and clean energy generation and use – supporting our transition away from fossil fuels and towards net zero. By giving citizens power and control over the energy system, it can build our resilience and energy sovereignty.

“Community power can help place citizens and communities at the centre of the low carbon transition,” according to ClientEarth.

“It involves them directly in energy decisions, and provides them with more control over possibilities to switch to a more sustainable lifestyle. It also focuses on cooperation and development of common goals between citizens, leading to stronger communities overall.”

Crucially, in the UK, these projects offer a way for citizens to drive the clean energy transition at a time when the government appears to have turned its back on the need to support renewables...

https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/energy/ ... ity-energy
ClientEarth: What is community energy?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 6937
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by macdoc » Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:53 am

Image
An infamous free market think-tank sent copies of climate denial textbooks to 8,000 middle and high school teachers across the country to provide them with “the data to show the earth is not experiencing a climate crisis.”
https://twitter.com/grist

reuse.... :roll:
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 6937
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: Planet Earth on slow boil
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by macdoc » Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:59 am

and

New misguided interpretations of the greenhouse effect from William Kininmonth
1 OCT 2022 BY RASMUS

I have a feeling that we are seeing the start of a new wave of climate change denial and misrepresentation of science. At the same time, CEOs of gas and oil companies express optimism for further exploitation of fossil energy in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, at least here in Norway.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a ... ininmonth/
Resident in Cairns Australia Australia> CB300F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Global Climate Change Science News

Post by rainbow » Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:18 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:18 am


Indeed. I do do that too, in a rather specific sense. But my general view is that we can't change things collectively if we're individually wedded to values and systems that facilitate environmental abuse.

:tup:
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests