Tuesday, January 29, 2008

The Cure is Worse Than the Disease: Can We Afford a Build Out?

I'm sure people are getting sick of me responding to Stuart Staniford all the time - "Does she read anything else?!?" you all must be thinking, but if you'll bear with me one more time, the reason I do it is because even when Staniford annoys me, he's usually a little bit right, or at least pointing in an interesting direction. In this case, Staniford has offered me a tool to try and analyze something that I've intuitively suspected was true for a long time. In Staniford's latest post, he tries to come up with a unified energy plan for how to fix the world's environmental problems. My own take on the post is that his postulates, including unending growth as the earth is depleted, simply don't hold up. But that's not what interests me.

What I've been wondering for a while is whether, in fact, we actually can build out renewable energies and create other large scale industrial solutions, without tipping the planet over into a climate disaster. That is, one of the questions that has been bugging is this - do those who postulate our going on based on a massive build out of our infrastructure risk destroying more than they create? Is, in fact, relocalization the only remaining viable option?

Now I'm biased in favor of relocalizing, as we all know. That is, my bias stems from the sense that I believe for a host of moral as well as empirical reasons, that relocalization would improve our society. But it is hard for me to determine whether my bias is a chicken or an egg thing - that is, I have long believed, without doing the math carefully, that the odds were good that another layer of complexity and build out is not feasible and would be destructive. That is, I believe relocalization is a good thing, but part of the reason I believe it is because I believe it may be the only choice that prevents a climate disaster.

These are, I think, important questions to ask. Joseph Tainter, in _The Collapse of Complex Societies_ observes that collapses come precisely because we keep layering on new, more complex, more energy and resource intensive solutions to the problems that our old solutions created. At some point, the sheer weight overturns the edifice, and things come tumbling dow. Staniford's post, with its proposition of a global energy grid - or really any other worldwide techno-fix, is a heavy weight of complexity. If it worked, if it actually reduced emissions and gave us nearly unlimited, cheap energy that could be equally distributed, that would be great. The problem, of course, is that that's unlikely, and ahistorical. That is, most of the problems we have now are *caused* by our technological solutions to other problems - and the problems we're creating are generally worse than the things they were fixing. Trying to forsee whether any solution is actually going to create a greater problem than it fixes is, I think a basic necessity to avoid making more of the same mistakes.

Now to figure this out, we need some kind of metric, and Staniford has thoughtfully provided me with one in his article http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3540#more. Most importantly, he's provided me with useful parameters - a model for a global transition off of fossil fuels, the cost of doing so, and the time frame. While I personally find the likelihood of global solar grid very, very tiny, this is a useful set of parameters for the purposes of this discussion. We will imagine things go just as Staniford describes in his highly optimized scenario - although it is worth noting that
Staniford's scenario is probably most valuable because it isn't totally out of scale with other proposed scenarios, including world wide nuclear, or Monbiot's retrofit described in _Heat_ to which he does not seem to give a monetary cost figure.

First the time frame - Staniford imagines that a global renewable grid could be online by 2025. The nature of a global grid means that renewables and nuclear grow reasonably quickly, but most of the major gains are seen at the end of the project in the 2020s as the project comes online. Now I grew up around the Big Dig in Boston, which came in years and billions over budget, so I admit to some skepticism on this point, as well as on the technical feasibility, the economics, the political will and just about every other point, but again, for the sake of argument, we'll put the global solar electric grid online 2025, and able to meet all our energy needs worldwide.

Next, Staniford helpfully provides a cost. He estimates 400 trillion dollars. Again, I restrain my skepticism on the economy required to make this possible and the likelihood that the cost would come in so low, and accept his terms. This cost estimate makes it possible to figure out the carbon implications of such a project. Professor Charles Hall, of Syracuse University calculates that every dollar spent produces about 1/2 lb of carbon. Now this is an older study, and the Union of Concerned Scientists has actually estimated this higher, saying that a dollar produces more carbon than that, but in the interest of giving Staniford the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to choose the more conservative figure. Which means that Staniford's project is going to produce 100 billon tonnes of carbon over a bit under years. I think if anything, I'm estimating low - remember, this is an average, consolidating numbers of low carbon activities like spending a dollar on a book and high emission ones. The process of building a global grid, including the mining of materials, placement of underground lines, etc... is likely to run on the high side of the emissions spectrum, but again, we'll give Staniford the benefit of the doubt. So 100 billion tons over 17 years - oh, let's call it 20 and imagine that Staniford manages to completely absorb the last couple of years of production energy into his solar grid before it is finalized. Again, let's make it easy for Staniford.

That means an average production of 5 billion tonnes of carbon per year. That's on top of (at first at least, this will ge a little more complicated shortly) the 8 billion tons of carbon we are expected to emit this year. So this project will nearly double worldwide emissions, until the grid comes online. And while we'll see some benefits initially, the nature of a worldwide grid is that most of the power gets tranmitted to far away places, and to make it work on a world scale, the whole project has to be up and running. You could imagine this working a number of ways, with local regions connected first, so we'll need to figure out a way to amortize the rising value of renewables over time, but I think it is reasonable to say that most of the reduction in carbon production will happen at the very end of the project.

Staniford imagines that until 2015, fossil fuel use will remain more or less flat. That is, growth in renewables and economic troubles will keep us from producing any more fossil fuels than we do now. Now Staniford knows this is inadequate to deal with global warming, but presumably believes that getting to a world in which we have all the energy we want with no carbon is worth it.

I'm actually going to back up and reduce Staniford's parameters here, and argue that we cut 25% of worldwide emissions - the maximum I think any of us can imagine happening while maintaining an economy that could support the capital needs of such a mammoth project. Again, one of the parameters is that we have to assume this is feasible, that economic constraints, war, etc... are not factors.But again, I'm going to give Staniford an additional 25% of leeway, claiming that we cut our emissions back to 6 billion tons of carbon each year. *And* I'm going to give him a 25% across the board cut in emissions for the amortized benefit of the big renewable system as it comes online - that is, I'm going to say that over the years between 2015 and 2025, the growing solar grid is able to take on 1/4 of the total emissions produced by the world right now, before it gets them all. This is not quite accurate - a better model would be a percentage growth, but when I set that, it comes out to roughly the same thing. And I'm going to buy Staniford's assumption that when the grid comes on, we'll have all the energy we want, and won't use fossil fuels for anything or make any more greenhouse gasses, other than the occasional animal fart ;-). Again, that's ridiculous, but we'll accept the claim, because I want to show how problematic this is even under the best of scenarios.

So until 2015, we produce 6 billion tons of carbon ourselves per year, and another 5 billion building out the new system - that is, we nearly double our emissions. And from 2015 to 2025, when all our emissions magically disappear in the new system, we produce 5 billion in new infrastructure production and 4 billion, because the new system is picking up a significant percentage. So from now to 2015, we average 11 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere, and until 2025, we average 9 billion. After that, human emissions magically disappear, and the atmosphere begins to right itself. How does that correspond with the science about what we need to do.

After all, we talk a lot about critical numbers - 50% or 80% of emissions by 2050 or some other date. What does the science suggest? Well, some of the most cutting edge science suggests that we need to make cuts of more than 90% *within this decade* - that is, James Hansen, for example, suggests a 90% cut within 10 years, and argues that our increasing knowledge of climate sensitivity requires us to keep emissions at the carbon equivalent level of 350ppm - that is, a level we passed somewhere in the 1980s. The present carbon equivalent levels are at 469, according to the latest IPCC report. That is, we're already way past our limits, and we have to make dramatic cuts to get back within them as fast as possible. But although this is my own view, and seems to be reinforced by data coming in about sea level rise and arctic melt, perhaps we're being unfair to Staniford.

That said, however, the speed at which we do this is undoubtably an important element of our calculations. For example, the British Meteorological Office estimates that by 2030, the earth's ability to absorb carbon will drop by 1/3. Right now, the biosphere can absorb about 4 billion tons of carbon and caronb equivalents annually. By 2030, the warming planet and feedback loops will drop this to 2.7 billion, and the drop continues as long as the world warms, the ocean acidifies, etc... So the longer we wait to make dramatic carbon reductions, the greater those reductions would have to be. A recent study in _Geophysical Research Letters_ showed that in fact, even with a 90% reduction by 2050, the 2 degree threshold was broken - the only scenario in which the tipping point was not reached was with a 100% reduction in industrial emissions. (Andrew J. Weaver et al, 6th October 2007. "Long term climate implications of 2050 emission reduction targets." Geophysical Research Letters).

So what's a more conservative approach? Well, the IPCC is fairly conservative, perhaps even absurdly so. So let's take their figures, even though the 2007 IPCC report has been shown repeatedly to have badly underestimated the severity of global warming - for example, the arctic ice melt is 70 years ahead of its estimates. But let's use the IPCC numbers, in the interest of accomodating Staniford, despite the growing consensus (including the self-assessment of IPCC members) that the IPCC figures are too conservative: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2719627.ece.

A recent IPCC table http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdfshow different temperatures linked to different emissions levels. It shows that avoiding the critical 2 degree threshold (which actually is by no means a certain avoidance of disaster) requires us to limit total emissions by 2030 to 15% of 2000 levels. With a growing population, that means a 93% cut for the US, an 85% cut for Europe, etc... But in a footnote to the same paragraph, the IPCC notes that it has not taken into account the reduced ability of the planet to absorb carbon as the planet warms, or any of the feedback cycles mentioned above. So this is very likely too low a number. One paper recently argued that 18% of all warming at present is attributable to feedback loops, and that that number is rising rapidly. But what does that mean in tons of carbon?

Regardless, in Staniford's scenario, we finally hit targets for cuts around the early 2020s, having put an addition 100 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, while making fairly significant inroads (again, inroads I postulate, Staniford does not) into carbon emissions in general.

Is that enough to fix the planet? As Fred Pearce notes in _With Speed and Violence_, the critical point in billions of tons of atmospheric carbon seems to be about 935 billion tons, equaivalent to 450 ppm. That means 55 billion tons of carbon are left to us. We put 8 billion into the atmosphere each year, and 40% is now absorbed, although that number is declining annually. But with the growth created by a massive build out, we reach that number well before 2020 - pushing us past the 2 degree threshold, and holding us there long enough for it to be really scary.

So here we have a puzzle - what happens if you raise global emissions levels radically with the goal of eventually essentially eliminating them - that is, can we do that - do a massive build out and then let the earth heal itself? Do we have time for just one more carbon binge?This is a hard question to answer, but the odds are excellent that the answer is no. For example, Australian scientist Wenju Cai estimates that if we stopped making emissions right now, it would take 600 years to get the planet back to where it once was. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44719/story.htm.

Once the feedback loop cycle gets ahold of us (and it is not clear that it hasn't already), we can't stop it simply by reducing emissions. Because the warming we do now is something we'll pay the price for for centuries, we have to be more careful, sooner.

But the returns are so great, some would argue! Even if we push past 2 degrees, into a tipping point, we'll still get no carbon emissions in the future and all the free energy we want. We can fix all the problems then, or at least mitigate them, keep economic growth going steadily. Wouldn't that be worth it?

Well, it depends on what price you are willing to pay. Here are the consequences we're dealing with. In the Sahel, food production will drop by half by 2020, while population doubles. Rice production, the staple grain of 2/3 of the world begins to fall as temperatures rise, reaching a 40% decline by the middle of the century, as population rises to 9 billion. That means half the population ends up under water stress: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900967_pf.html, and the amount of irrigated farmland (which presently produces almost 1/3 of the world's grain) that can no longer be irrigated is likely drop from 17% to 2%, according to Monbiot's _Heat_.

The Stern review estimates half a billion permanent refugees, including residents of major US coastal cities. But UN estimates have suggested that up to 1.5 billion refugees could be an outcome. And, of course, a whole host of wars. The present conflict in the Sudan is already connnected to climate change - a whole host of additional wars are a likely consequence. All of this has an enormous effect, not only on the misery level of the world, but on its economic activity.

Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the costs of climate change estimates that the total cost of unchecked global warming to be greater than the combined costs of all 20th century wars and the Great Depression combined, a literally unprecedented economic burden. How much of that would be mitigated by a late-term reduction in emissions is not clear, however, all evidence is that the climate is more, rather than less sensitive than we expect. It is not possible to know what the consequences would be, but the science suggests "mostly bad."

So would it be worth it? All the energy we want, but war, drought, thirst, hunger, refugeeism, and the destruction of much of the world (I have not included the loss of biodiversity or anything related to it, although that has costs, and many of them for us), all to get the energy we want, so we can keep lifestyles roughly the same in the west.

\But what are our choices? Well, this option would probably be better than any business as usual scenario, in which we face peak oil by converting to coal. So if we postulate, as people often do (Monbiot does this too) that the only choices are "blow the limits" or "do nothing" - that radical change in our way of life is impossible, that people will "never" agree to lower their standard of living, this probably looks comparatively good.

But, of course, assertions about what the populace will tolerate are always offered in the absence of the real choices. That is, it is very unlikely that our general populace will ever choose voluntary self-limitation instead of, say, going on happily as usual. But if Staniford can imagine that he gets to be emporer of the world, we can also imagine a group of political leaders who are compelled by the evidence and by grassroots people pointing out their lies, to offer up the real choices - that is either we cut emissions radically and fast, or we accept that we lose Miami and most of the Southwest, the one to sea level rises and the other to drought, that we can expect to spend an endless depression, because we will have to spend an increasing quantity of our GDP to mitigate costs. That is, people can be asked to choose between real options, not hypotheticals.And that is when relocalization rears its head again.

Here is where carbon rationing leads us back to a mixed local and agrarian society, more or less inevitably. Because everyone trying to live in this society, as we have it, without a massive energy build out is in for hell. On the other hand, a smaller scale, heavily adapted society with lower energy requirements, and a number of cultural returns, including "rituals of non-consumption" described by historian Timothy Breen, small scale agricultural, more meaningful work and stronger social ties does offer something in return.

In order for relocalization to be feasible, we would have to also imagine that it could meet some basic requirements. That is, it would have to provide a decent standard of living, feed the population, and alot energy to high value things like health care and education. Those are big parameters, but ones that I think relocalization can meet, without destroying the planet. Againm the case for relocalization, when we play out all the implications, must be better than the case for any other model. Fortunately, this does not seem to be hard.

Now it is perhaps unfair of me to not do a similar calculation of the energy costs of relocalization. This is a difficult exercise, because it is a highly fungible exercise. That is, a relocalized, low energy strategy for dealing with the cold can be the reinsulation of a whole house in a cosmetically pleasing way, complete with new windows and passive solar energy, at extremely high cost, or it can be the moving of a woodstove into one room of a cold house, the practice of hauling water from outside rather than using indoor pipes which would then freeze, and everyone dressing warmly and hanging out by the stove. That said, however, I'll attempt to do so in a later post - and to demonstrate that we could still feed, clothe and shelter the population. I'll also at some point try and figure out what amount of energy we probably can produce from renewables without causing a disaster - because relocalization does not necessarily mean us all going back to living in mud huts, as we know.

More soon,

Sharon

36 comments:

Greenpa said...

Or the cure IS the disease, perhaps.

I very rarely bother to talk with or about anyone who advocates the use of nuclear power.

To me, it is clear evidence that you are not dealing with a mentally competent person.

The risks - mining pollution/deaths, leaks, meltdowns, terrorism, waste- all have two factors in common which must never be allowed in the same room if you are sane.

Truly catastrophic consequences in the event of failure.
And human beings.

Do/will humans screw up? Yes, we do/will. I don't care WHAT safety measures you build in. This is a universal given on the order of "will the sun come up tomorrow?"

This cute little event totally missed the big news last year - a US Navy nuclear submarine - skipped its safety inspections; then the crew faked records to cover it up- then the skipper covered up the crew coverup.

Nuke Fake

If the US Navy can't keep nuclear power straight- nobody can. Theoretically, military discipline would be the best for a nuclear plant- and it fails.

Nuclear power? He's apparently never known or worked with humans. Ergo, the rest of his theories are highly suspect.

Greenpa said...

My apologies, that URL doesn't work - it was to a Washington Post article - no longer available. This one works -

CNN Nuke story

Anonymous said...

Greenpa is right. Thank you Sharon for unmasking this fellow. He certainly is a true technocrat.

~Vegan

jewishfarmer said...

Now, I'm no fan of nuclear power but Staniford actually explicitly does *NOT* advocate nuclear power -in fact, he picks the harder option because of the reasons you propose.

So that's not a fair critique of him at all IMHO - his statement that he expects nuclear to grow at present rates does not constitute an endorsement, and he goes out of his way to avoid nuclear power.

So no, that's not a fair critique - and I'd rather see anyone I take on critiqued fairly.

Sharon

void_genesis said...

Stuart's projection of a way to get all the renewable energy we could "need" as we were conditioned to expect under fossil fuels does seem a bit fanciful to me. But the other pure extreme of many of us going back to the land for a purely agrarian future is also too simplistic (though I am not accusing Sharon of taking so one dimensional a view).

Reality will probably be a mixture of the two. A portion of us will return to smaller scale agriculture. A renewable energy industry of some kind will spark up, and may reach self sustaining levels. My own prediction is a long period of the decline and upheaval of the old food/energy system with a simultaneous return to the land and initiation of a new energy harvesting infrastructure.

Techno-utopia, if it is going to happen, will probably come a generation or two too late for those of us alive today.

The other big unknown is genetic modification. Agriculture could be reborn in a nearly unrecognisable form, if we could only get a handle on how multicellular organisms really tick. Imagine what something like an edible mangrove tree would do (water and nutrients on tap, vast coastal area to exploit).

Greenpa said...

Sharon- sorry if I missed something there- but. If he is not a nuclear proponent- he is definitely a nuclear "enabler" - your statement: " Staniford imagines that a global renewable grid could be online by 2025. The nature of a global grid means that renewables and nuclear grow reasonably quickly, "

Looks to me like he accepts nuclear as "necessary" or "reality" - both of which are nice ways to pat people on the head and say "this is just they way it is, you know."

It isn't acceptable to me, and it's very much a matter of social momentum. If more and more people say "well, it just IS" - then nuke plants will be built. For a long time now, the momentum was in the other direction- too dangerous, and not necessary- and plants have NOT been built.

Personally - an enabler is more dangerous than a fanatic advocate- they try to sound reasonable; and get much more mileage, coverage, and conversation that way. And some may be advocates, posing as "reasonable" enablers-

No question. Nuclear scares the heck out of me, and I'm not reasonable about it. Almost died from the 1966 near meltdown of Fermi 1- and didn't even know it- and no one mentioned it publicly until many years later. I was living within the radius of 80% mortality -if it had actually breached containment- and it was dumb luck that it didn't. There's also a book "We Almost Lost Detroit" - and we did. Very few know.

JW said...

The world isn't going to stop tomorrow. People will still demand energy. We have to get that energy from somewhere.
Don't forget that burning wood and growing things have a carbon impact.
There has to be some kind of compromise. I think solar has to play into it somehow. And nuclear, scary as it is, can provide a lot of energy with little global warming impact. Maybe it's the bridge...

Myrto Ashe said...

Sharon and all,
I read Staniford yesterday and was looking forward to your response today...I am new to this debate but I had the same reaction: this is another technological fix in the same vein as the one that isn't working now. There is a sense of despair in trying to imagine 90% o 100% reduction in carbon emissions - but public opinion could turn fast - maybe some world event could galvanize well-educated influential people. Meanwhile I'm with you on community-building and making drastic changes in our lives. Automobile use would be at the top of the Union of Concerned Scientists' list.

Anonymous said...

Hey Greenpa - Wow, congratulations - you're an idiot. Nuclear power is the solution, only you seem to be to fscking stupid to realize it. To even entertain the notion. I weep for your ignorance.

jewishfarmer said...

I don't think Staniford is "enabling" nuclear power either - I think he's articulating that growth in nuclear power is coming and that it will be extremely difficult to oppose it if the alternative is actual energy shortage. In that, I rather agree with him - I think the reason it was possible to opppose nuclear was all these fossil fuels we were burning.

I also think the sheer cost and energy investment in nuclear will be effectively prohibitive.

But for me, the larger question is whether we can do *any* kind of build out on the scale that most techno-optimists imagine, or whether we really have a choice but to relocalize.

I think (assuming we made rational choices we don't seem to be making now) we couuld use multiple renewable sources to get a certain percentage of existing energy, if things don't fall apart first - maybe 20%, and that will be sufficient to power public infrastructure, and a small amount of private energy, probably mostly owned by the rich. But while we won't be purely agrarian, we cannot afford a build out.

The truth is that we need to come up with some model of living that doesn't involve devouring our own grandchildren and their hope for survival. Right now, we eat our kid's food, we wear their clothes, and we're sticking our fork over at our grandkids' share. The buck has to stop here.

Sharon

helwen said...

Agreed that relocalization would be a huge help.

As far as build outs go, the most cost effective one would probably to to insulate everyone's house to about 1' thick (yeah, I know, not likely to happen). The end result would be that even people who like keeping their thermostats at 72 would be using less energy.

Only speaking for the U.S. here, but cut energy use to even just 50% below what the average American uses, and that would eliminate the need to build additional plants.

Heather G
(whose thermostat is set to 62 for the elderly cat in the apt., and was too warm last night with the comforter on the bed)

jewishfarmer said...

Anonymous, if you can't make your points without name calling, get off the blog. Any more of this crap and I'll delete anything you write.

Sharon

/thehangedman/ said...

Staniford's little Techie Plan for World Salvation is no more demented than the presumption that everyone in the developed world will start using cotton cloths for toilet duties.

If you like taking baths in idealism, I recommend Richard Heinberg. Hot tubs for all!

Anonymous said...

Surely the carbon emissions caused by a $400 trillion worldwide solar power project would not be added on top of the emissions already predicted for the years of the near future. If ten trillion dollars per year was being spent, that would be an enormous chunk of funds suddenly made unavailable for spending on other things. For example, if it was extracted as tax revenue above the current taxation levels, many more taxpayers would then be unable to afford consumer goods such as new SUVs, and thus the emissions from producing and driving those SUVs would never be produced.

You would have some net increase in emissions initially, because you would be "growing the economy" (giving green manufacturing jobs to previously unemployed people, who would then want to purchase more food and consumer goods). In the long run, though, you would see a sharp decline. Since much of the impact of CO2 happens at a time scale of 500 years or longer, continuing for millennia, in the long run it will matter much more what our total emissions are than in exactly what year they were produced. I agree that Staniford's plan is utopian for a number of reasons and won't happen, but we can't afford to reject any solution that involves manufacturing things out of hand. After all, production of that cloth some people are now using in place of TP required CO2 emissions too.

Dewey

jewishfarmer said...

Well, Dewey, that's using the parameters given - but even then, I postulated a 50% emissions reduction and we still can't afford it.

The truth is that immediate emissions are at least as essential as the long term - the ability of the biosphere both to absorb carbon and to regulate itself is teetering. Many of the consequences we care most about are actually not 500 years out, but 10 or 20 or 50.

I do not claim we can't build renewables - and a growing number of them. But such growth will have to be very, very gradual, and be accompanied by much less gradual cuts in consumption. That is, any ramp up that takes emissions into a account is going to have to be limited by those emissions. We have absolute limits, no matter how little we like them (and trust me, I don't much like this).

There is enough raw old cloth going into landfills, I'd bet, to ensure a lifetime supply of cloth toilet paper, so I think that's kind of a strawman. It is true that everything requires emissions - but the rate of emissions has to take into account the climate.

Otherwise, again, we're playing dice with the future of the next generations and we don't have that right.

Sharon

Anonymous said...

Here's a piece on "Haiti's Poor Resort to Eating Mud as Prices Rise."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512

Clearly, as a result of diverting grains to biofuels. Why can't humans in the "developed" world just reduce their carbon emissions and live simply? No nukes, no biofuels, etc. would be needed. Seems like our choices are seldom just and rational.

~Vegan

Anonymous said...

Hi Sharon,

Why build a grid when distributed power is much more efficient? Put power production where the power is used.

Distributed power is smaller scale, has very little distribution loss, is more efficient.

Oh yeah, and reduce power demand by 90+%...

edde

Cindy in FL said...

My cloth TP came from a dumpster and there is more where that came from. People waste incredible amounts of everything. If we would just quit wasting , that would be a start. Then we can work on reducing. But how do we convince the public at large that this even needs to happen? Someone like a new president, or congress or maybe even the media needs to start telling people that we need to do something NOW. Otherwise it is just "the crazy people" talking about the world going to hell in a handbasket.

Anonymous said...

Name calling? Like greenpa saying that anyone who advocates nuclear power is mentally deficient? Little hypocritical, maybe?

A rephrase. A dismissal of nuclear power points to an ignorance of statistics and utility akin to cutting off your legs so you don't run the risk of stubbing your toe, Jack Daniel style. A'ight?

Anonymous said...

福~
「朵
語‧,最一件事,就。好,你西.............................................................................................................
..................

Anonymous said...

禮服店 ,酒店小姐 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店兼差,酒店打工, 酒店上班,酒店經紀PRETTY GIRL 台北酒店經紀人 ,酒店經紀 酒店兼差PRETTY GIRL酒店公關 酒店小姐 彩色爆米花酒店兼職,酒店工作 彩色爆米花禮服店, 酒店上班,酒店工作 PRETTY GIRL酒店喝酒酒店上班 彩色爆米花台北酒店酒店小姐 PRETTY GIRL酒店上班酒店打工PRETTY GIRL酒店打工酒店經紀 彩色爆米花酒店兼差,酒店,酒店經紀,酒店經紀,經紀公司,經紀公司,經紀公司,經紀公司,經紀公司,經紀公司,童裝批發,童裝GAP

eda said...

電動按摩棒,飛機杯,視訊,自慰套,自慰套,自慰套,情趣按摩棒,角色扮演,按摩棒,跳蛋,跳蛋,情趣,情趣,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,情趣用品,跳蛋,男女,潤滑液,SM,情趣內衣,內衣,性感內衣,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV,按摩棒

yoyo said...

.....................................................
i like it ,ths!

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要打工兼差打工,兼差,八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店日領上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作兼差打工假日兼職兼職工作酒店兼差兼差打工兼差日領工作晚上兼差工作酒店工作酒店上班酒店打工兼職兼差兼差工作酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領假日兼職兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有鋼琴酒吧又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領現領
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職缺錢便服店的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的賺錢,酒店和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

Anonymous said...

酒店打工

酒店兼職

台北酒店

打工兼差

酒店工作

酒店

禮服酒店

酒店兼差

酒店上班

酒店PT

酒店經紀

酒店喝酒

酒店消費

喝花酒

粉味

喝酒

Anonymous said...

Almeda University | accredited degree | online diploma

Anonymous said...

Online universities | Online education

replica rolex said...

$75 Replica Rolex Watches sale, Our site provides Rolex replica, replica Rolex Watches, replica breitling, replica Cartier, replica Omega, Tag Heuer Watches. . .more than 100 famous rolex brands"
rolex air king
rolex datejust
rolex day date
rolex daytona
rolex gmt
rolex submariner
rolex yachtmaster
a lange sohne watches
alain silberstein watches
bell ross watches
breguet watches
breitling watches
bvlgari watches
cartier watches
omega watches
patek philippe watches
ロレックスレプリカ
ロレックスコピー

Anonymous said...

gucci replica handbags
men gucci shoes
Gucci men sneakers
Gucci men moccasins
gucci women sneakers
gucci women boots
Gucci men boots
Gucci
Gucci shop
Gucci bags
Gucci shoes
Replica GUCCI SHOES
wholesale gucci shoes
cheap Gucci handbags
Gucci ON sale
Gucci Belts
Gucci small accessories
Gucci hats & scarves
Gucci wallets
Gucci Handbags
Women Gucci shoes
Men Gucci shoes
discount gucci shoes
cheap Gucci shoes

Goldpreis said...

thanks for sharing.
Dollarkurs | Goldpreis

janewangleilei said...

You can have a look at it.
jordan shoes
Wow.
newest jordans
jordan 7
Wonderful!
air yeezy
jordan true flight
If you like,you can contact us.
jordan 3
jordan 4
We offer different styles.
jordan 1
jordan 2
Thanks.
jordan 5
jordan ajf shoes
There are cheap shoes to choose
jordan 6
jordan flight 45
Good quality with low price.
air jordan 2010
Air Jordan 2009
Enjoy it!
jumpman
jordan 28

Anonymous said...

酒店打工 酒店兼職
台北酒店 打工兼差 酒店工作 禮服酒店
酒店兼差 酒店上班 酒店應徵 酒店 酒店經紀

yuere said...

...............................

Nike shox said...

If more and more people say "well, it just IS" - then nuke plants will be built.

dfadf said...

Y te vi bailar bajo la lluvia
y saltar sobre un charco de estrellas
Obama Is Lying<1>
When was the last time the MSM took a Republican's side in a fight over credibility with a Democratic opponent?Microsoft OfficeOffice 2010Well, it has been a while.Microsoft Office 2010However, conservatives have little to grumble about in the recent Office 2007face-off between Barack Obama and John McCain over McCain's statement thatte vi bailar bajo la lluvia
esperando la luna llena
Volverás a reírte de veras
Microsoft Office 2007troops might have to remain for "100 years" in Iraq "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed" afterOffice 2010 keyfighting had concluded, Office 2010 downloadMost recently, ABC's Jake Tapper noted that at least on three occasions Obama had personally said that McCain favored cuando creas que estaba perdidovolverás a reírte de veras
continued fighting in Office 2010 ProfessionalIraq for 100 years. Tapper concluded that "Obama has in the past distorted McCain's comments" and "that he is violating his own stated si te quedas conmigoTe vi bailar bajo la lluviaesperando la luna llente vi llorar bajo la lunMicrosoft outlookaspirations...[b]ecause not only has he distorted what McCain said, he is not being honest about having made those distortions."Outlook 2010Tapper is not the only MSM reporter to point this out, Windows 7of course. It is not every day that the RNC sends around e-mail blasts quoting Frank Microsoft outlook 2010Rich ("Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain") and reports from the Chicago Tribune,

duckless said...

The original chi flat iron was released as a professional salon straightener. After gaining popularity on the market the cheap chi flat iron was later released for personal consumer use. If you are a professional stylist or someone who loves straightening their chi hair straightener before leaving for work the Chi original ceramic flat iron is one styling tool you cannot live without. Unlike other wholesale chi flat iron before its day the Chi model was developed with moist ceramic heat technology that does not burn or damage the wholesale chi hair straighteners.