Writing in Yale Environment 360, Mark Schapiro reports on European companies that have been overpaying China to offset their own carbon emissions by incinerating a powerful greenhouse gas known as hfc 23.
If that's not all, those very payments have spurred manufacturing of an ozone-depleting refrigerant, hcfc 22, that is being smuggled into the U.S. and used illegally.
As Schapiro puts it,
That black market completes a global circuit unique to the era of climate change: From China’s industrial zones, the credits for the greenhouse gases — bought and sold as commodities on the global carbon markets — flow to European companies that need them to continue polluting at home, while the underlying ozone-depleting gas responsible for creating those credits flows to American companies seeking discounted refrigerants.
This speaks to the perils of carbon offset programs and potential abuses, but also that safeguards such as the NGOs set up to monitor offset programs do play a valuable role. According to Schapiro, "Two European nonprofits, the Germany-based CDM Watch and the London-based Environmental Investigations Agency, kicked off the controversy when they asserted last summer that European companies were paying dramatically inflated prices for the emissions credits."
The message from industry leaders attending the MIT Energy Conference this weekend is clear: "Give us a clear price on carbon."
John Rowe, CEO of Exelon, has long been a proponent of cap-and-trade.
He reiterated this support this morning in his opening keynote, saying he felt "a bit like Elizabeth Taylor's eighth husband: I know the drill, but I'm not sure how to make it interesting."
Rowe is not so enthusiastic about our ability to reduce emissions through increasing deployment of renewables, at least not at current prices and efficiencies.
"Our work shows you can do some things with renewable energy standards," Rowe told the audience. "But you don't want to bet the farm on your picks."
Rowe secretly prefers a carbon tax, telling the audience, "Every six months I call Rohm Emmanuel and ask him if it's time yet to try a carbon tax." But he knows that it just won't happen.
Still, Rowe asserts, "We need lower carbon energy. We need more secure energy. And we need to harness the market to get it, but a market that is constrained and directed."
These sentiments were echoed by just about every industry representative I've seen at the conference.
"We need a level playing field," Helene Regnell of Maersk Line, the largest container shipper in the world, told the audience gathered for a panel on "Supply Chain Energy Use. "We need standardized, strong international regulation on carbon in order to get where we need to go and how we get there."
Speaking on the same panel, PepsiCo International's David Walker concurred, adding that 80 percent of his company's carbon footprint comes from outside the company itself.
It is hard to operate internationally with cumbersome, often conflicting regulations that differ from country to country.
The answer, at least from industry's perspective, is a clear price on carbon.
"We have to use the market to get to a $20-30 per ton price on carbon," Exelon's Rowe said. "And that means cap-and-trade or a tax. We can do a lot with carbon at $20-30 a ton."
The Cantwell-Collins "cap-and-rebate" climate bill, known as the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act (CLEAR), proposes refunding 75 percent of all revenue collected back to U.S. residents in a monthly check of about $100 per family of four.
Tim Hurst over at Ecopolitology has a good analysis of the bill proposed by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), which they claim would reduce greenhouse gas emissions of 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. And without the messy offset program that would be hard to monitor and regulate.
As Peter Barnes wrote in On the Commons, Cantwell-Collins provides "a simple, transparent cap-and-dividend system that returns higher carbon prices directly to consumers and allows only minimal carbon trading. It would cap fossil fuel suppliers like Exxon-Mobil and Peabody Coal, rather than emitters like utilities and steel plants, because it's much easier to catch carbon when it enters our economy than when it leaves."
Barnes explains "it would auction all carbon permits and avoid giveaways, market distortions and offsets. And it would put a 'collar' on the price of carbon permits in order to limit market volatility."
This Bill has garnered some interesting support, such as Dr. Kenneth P. Green at the American Enterprise Institute, which may give it a leg-up over the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham Climate Bill. But, as Tim Hurst rightly points out, "getting any climate legislation passed before November, 2010 is going to be problematic, to say the least."
Camille Ricketts also takes a hard look at the two Senate proposals in VentureBeat's GreenBeat
On Tuesday, the State of California announced its plans for its own cap-and-trade program as part of Assembly Bill 32, which aims to cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions 15 percent by 2020.
The California Environmental Protection Agency's Air Resources Board released its scoping plan, which was praised by governor Schwarzenegger, environmentalists, and utilities.
But is all the praise deserved?
The California plan follows the same outline of other such plans: a cap limits the amount of GHG emitted by power plants, refineries, cement factories and the like, and requires a permit for every ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere.
The trouble with a California program -- or a Western States Program or a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative like we have in the Northeast -- is that it's a patchwork approach.
If you're a company with a national footprint, you have to react to all sorts of different regulations, that's why some companies want a national program.
Yet even a national cap-and-trade program is a flawed scheme for dealing with CO2 emissions. Despite the prevailing sentiment that cap-and-trade is market-based, most of the proposed programs will hand out a significant portion of the permits for free, which could have the unintended consequence of keeping the price of permits lower than desirable.
The EPA estimates that the average price per ton will be around $15 for possibly the next two decades. That's until 2030 folks.
Some analysts say that utilities need a carbon price of $50/ton before they'll commit the billions needed for new technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and alternative energy resources. When will we get to a $50 price for carbon? When it's too late.
At that rate, the price of carbon won't be enough to create incentives for investments in low-carbon energy infrastructure, energy efficiency, and transportation.
The potential for gaming the system is equally troubling. There is little agreement about monitoring and accounting of the permits and projects that qualify, which could provide an avenue for unscrupulous speculators to take advantage of the situation.
A cap-and-trade program potentially creates windfall profits for utilities, but it is unclear whether it will generate significant reductions in emissions or investments in clean technology.
And some analysts think it is doubtful that cap-and-trade will even put a dent in fossil fuel's price advantage. Others fear that much of the transactional value of the assets created by any cap-and-trade program will be in the hands of some of the same folks who gave us the subprime mortgage and credit default debacles.
Finally, if we are going to have a cap, and that seems to be the way it's going, I'd rather see a cap-and-invest structure where you auction of the permits to the highest bidder and use profits to create an R & D investment fund rather than giving the permits away for free.
It seems to me these flaws need to be addressed in any scheme that gets adopted before we head down the road of future regrets.
I was asked the other day why I think the UN's Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD) is a flawed, if not bad idea.
Here are 10 concerns I have about the REDD scheme:
1.) I've said it before, but will say it again: Entrusting governments to protect their forests in light of competing interests of growth, feeding hungry, and poverty reduction is very risky.
2.) We can't ensure that forest protection won't lead to shutting out the interests of local people and lining the pockets of corrupt government officials, corporations, or even NGOs. Better to trust the local community to manage their forest assets -- or at the very least, make sure they have a seat at the table.
3.) Underdeveloped monitoring and accounting could lead to unscrupulous speculation and gaming the system. How can we protect against the Bernie Madoff of the carbon market or the Enron of global forest protection? (And don't forget organized crime: Interpol, the world's leading policing agency, raised concerns in early October that chances were very high criminal gangs could take advantage of REDD schemes, according to an article in the Guardian.)
4.) We need to raise standards of living by valuing and maintaining natural capital not converting it and not, necessarily, setting it aside. And we need to ensure that the local communities have more influence and power over how their resources are managed for the multiple uses they require for access to pathways out of poverty.
5.) Right now REDD is only about reducing emissions: the money goes to those nations with high rates of deforestation. This could lead to perverse incentives or unintended consequences. If a nation has a low deforestation rate, they can't participate. What's to stop them from thinking, "Hey, if I accelerate my deforestation rate, I'll get paid to stop..."
6.) We need market mechanisms to drive protection. People won't protect it if there is no money in it, especially when cutting it down pays. We need to put a dollar value on the services forests provide: watershed protection, stabilizing soils, flood protection, as well as generating rainfall, storing carbon, and moderating the climate. What is that worth? Nicholas Stern suggested a $15B market value – that's a pittance compared to global insurance business of $3T -- a relatively cheap insurance policy.
7.) Could creating forest bonds, insurance products or user-fee water funds be tied to the ecosystem services provided by forests, ensuring that such things as agricultural productivity or water supplies linked to rainfall coming out of forests? (Some conservation groups have tried this, such as The Nature Conservancy's Water Funds in Ecuador.)
8.) We need an investment grading system for countries that participate in schemes like REDD: Those with good governance, clear land title law, and high forest protection receive AAA rating; those with high levels of corruption, conflict, and high deforestation are relegated to subprime. (This has been suggested by others, but I don't think it has been implemented.)
9.) I've said this before, too: Philanthropy and government taxes are not going to be able to protect the world's forest assets – you need viable market mechanisms and the will to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of the people who depend upon the forests.
10.) The solutions must be market-based: If someone is getting paid $5 to cut down a tree, you're going to have to pay him $6 to leave it there; if you can pay him $10 to not cut and make some money off a related product or service, even better. We need to figure out how to make that happen and ensure there are proper financial incentives for the 1.6B people who depend upon forests for water, food, and livelihoods.
To date, rich countries have put up $52M to establish nine UN-sanctioned REDD pilot schemes in Asia, Latin America, and Africa -- and private schemes are forming through a consortia of banks, conservation groups, and other businesses.
I just don't think handing out what essentially amounts to aid to developing countries is the right solution. I do hope the Copenhagen delegates consider the unintended consequences of their bold actions. (Remember the food vs. fuel issue created by jumping on the ethanol bandwagon!)
REDD ain't the new black, at least not to this green skeptic.
NASA’s leading climate scientist, James Hansen, says he hopes that climate legislation proposed by Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman (CA) and Edward Markey (MA) to introduce carbon emissions trading to the United States fails.
Hansen says lawmakers should abandon cap-and-trade initiatives altogether and implement a simple carbon tax instead, according to Nathanial Gronewold, a reporter at Environment & Energy Publishing.
"Trading of rights to pollute...introduces speculation and makes millionaires on Wall Street," Hansen told an audience at a conference hosted by Columbia University climate policy students on Saturday. "I hope cap and trade doesn’t pass, because we need a much more effective approach."
This may be a nice way to curry favor with student environmentalists, but is it smart? According to Reuters, even the Chinese are considering a carbon tax over cap-and-trade. What's the difference, really?
Under a cap-and-trade program, the government will set the overall emissions cap and issue allowances or credits to businesses to pollute at a set amount. A company that reduces its emissions quickly and cheaply can auction their extra credits to another that, because of the nature of its business or available technology, may find it more difficult to comply with the caps.
This market-based approach helps ensure that overall caps are met at the lowest possible cost. Cap-and-trade has been modeled after the U.S. effort to control acid rain pollution, which saw greater reductions at lower costs than originally anticipated.
Under a carbon tax, such as that proposed by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), emitters are required to pay a tax for every ton of pollution they produce. Carbon taxes lend predictability to energy prices, according to supporters, who claim that cap-and-trade systems will simply aggravate price volatility and adversely affect consistent investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy.
But, argue cap-and-trade supporters, such a system also provides certainty: it fixes the ceiling on emissions (stepping it down over time) and lets the price vary with demand.
Despite rhetoric on both sides, neither system is really more complex than the other, as each requires often difficult monitoring and enforcement.
Cap-and-trade and carbon tax do share another issue: what to do with the proceeds? The Obama administration seems to favor distributing 10 percent of the proceeds to American citizens; others, including Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), would return 90 percent to Americans. Still others call that highway robbery.
Now, Jim Hansen says we'll create a bunch of robber barons on Wall Street if we go this route. But a carbon tax will simply create bigger government, or at least help pay for the biggering and biggering the government has done since last fall.
As readers of the green skeptic know, I firmly believe we won't make the shift until one of two things happens: 1.) we can make boatloads of money off of addressing the issue or 2.) oil prices go through the roof and supply plummets to worse than anticipated levels.
President Obama has already included a line item for cap-and-trade in his budget, which clearly signals the Administration's preference for capping global warming pollution, auctioning all the emission allowances, and investing $15 billion per year in clean energy.
Wither a tax? It's probably, as every politician knows, an idea that is dead on arrival. And it is looking less and less likely we'll get a decent cap-and-trade program in place any time soon. So, perhaps we should just focus, as blogger Gar Lipow suggested in Grist, "on pushing for green infrastructure, paid for the moment by 10-year bonds with a 3 percent interest rate."
If time is money and we're running out of time, then why not support an approach that will generate more money and maybe, just maybe, buy us some time?
Early in 2009, CF Partners of London will launch a new 50 million euro (USD$70.06 million) hedge fund designed to profit from volatility in carbon markets.
The CF Carbon Fund will be one of the first dedicated carbon hedge fund products of which I'm aware. Others will likely follow.
The Fund, according to CF Partners "adopts a relative value and arbitrage-based approach to trading carbon and the correlation of carbon with other global energy markets. It seeks to capitalize on pricing inefficiencies and dislocations in these markets."
The European Union's endorsement of climate goals stretching to 2020 may make the EU's emissions trading scheme a stronger investment, according to Michael Szabo at Reuters, who reported on the announcement in London this morning. And "recent volatility in commodities markets has opened shorting opportunities."
"To date in the carbon space the majority of the players from a fund point of view have been long-only guys," Simon Glossop, one of CF's founders, told Reuters. "That's been a workable model up to this year, but carbon has now become an asset class in its own right instead of a compliance tool."
The global carbon market, which has an anticipated of US$100 billion this year, allows companies to trade rights to emit greenhouse gases.
Carbon prices, which are closely linked to energy prices, have fallen nearly half from a peak price last summer of 29.69 euros (US$41.60), according to Reuters.
Questions surrounding a new global pact on climate and uncertainty about future energy prices has made for a rocky carbon road.
"'The volatility around the market's policy risk is actually good for us from an investor point of view, so we encourage it,' Glossop told Reuters."
Glossop said that "the fund was investing in large hydro projects in China. The fund has a staff of 10 in London, with another employee on the ground in China originating deals." And the fund could grow to 250 million euros (US$350.3 million), but still needs to secure initial investment.
I'm unaware of anything like this starting up in the US, but president-elect Barack Obama's focus on a cap-and-trade program in the US could encourage development of such funds here.
---
CF Partners is a specialised environmental advisory and investments firm. The Firm’s strategic focus is on advisory, sales & trading coverage and fund management with a specialisation on environmental and global carbon products.
Image via Wikipedia"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," is an old adage to be sure. But a new twist on it might be "All talk and no action makes for a dead planet."
I haven't been able to pay much attention to what's going on in Poznań, Poland, this week, the site of the 14th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Climate Change Conference. But checking in today, I hear UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer briefing the press on the fifth day of the Conference saying that serious discussions were emerging to launch the intensified negotiations needed to reach the 2009 deadline in Copenhagen.
Sounds like progress? Smells like more talk. De-boering...
Which brings to mind a twist on another expression, "Fiddling while Rome burns."
Many delegates were highlighting the need to move to a low-carbon society, citing the emission reduction range of -25 to -40 by 2020 over 1990 levels for industrialized countries, and asking these countries to show ambition and leadership with regard to these targets.
There was agreement that financial mechanisms, including insurance, can play an important role within a strengthened response to climate change, and that financial mechanisms for risk management in developing countries needed to be scaled up.
Parties were also considering how to increase funds for adaptation through the carbon market, with discussions focusing on extending the current 2% levy on mitigation projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to the other Kyoto mechanisms, Joint Implementation and Emissions Trading, Mr. de Boer said. He added that the inclusion of a limited number of Carbon Capture and Storage pilot projects under the CDM was also under discussion.
Steve Rayner, climate policy expert and lead author of The Wrong Trousers: Radically Rethinking Climate Policy(PDF), is featured in this month's Wired Magazine. He's on the "2008 Smart List: 15 People the Next President Should Listen To" (no matter who wins).
Read this carefully, for Rayner is onto something. He declares that cap and trade won't work and that new technology investment is critical. Here is Professor Rayner's letter:
Mr. President:
The outgoing administration failed to come to grips with climate change out of fear that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would damage the economy. But the decision to deal with climate change doesn't lend itself to cost-benefit analysis. It is a strategic choice, like the decision to get married. You have an opportunity to define the nation's character and upgrade its infrastructure -- and bold action would be consistent with America's historical role as a leader in innovation. It would also encourage India and China to participate in the effort. Here are a few points to keep in mind.
Cap and trade won't work. The market for carbon offsets is widely touted as the best way to curb greenhouse gases. This would be fine if time were unlimited. However, the best available science suggests that we need to stabilize emissions by mid-century. That's too soon for carbon prices to rise enough to drive the R&D necessary to enable cleaner alternatives to compete with fossil fuels. It doesn't help that the cap-and-trade approach relies on underdeveloped monitoring and accounting systems that inevitably leave plenty of wiggle room for unscrupulous speculators to work the system, amassing fortunes while achieving nothing for the atmosphere.
New technology is critical. The only plausible way to curb emissions in the next few decades is to accelerate the development and adoption of low-carbon energy sources. Rather than setting targets for greenhouse gases, we should establish goals for installed technology, beginning with the most energy-intensive sectors, like electricity generation, ground transportation, and cement manufacturing. Similarly, international cooperation on emissions reduction should focus on the handful of countries responsible for the lion's share of the problem. In the US and elsewhere, R&D funding should be directed toward technologies that otherwise might not come online for up to 20 years. This would fill the gap between the turnaround timeline for venture capital (three to five years) and for basic research (beyond 20 years).
Let the market decide. No amount of public investment will succeed if politicians are allowed to pick the winners. The program must be designed to widen the choices available to the market, not to preempt them. There is no silver bullet, but we can develop silver buckshot. The point is to ensure that money flows to a variety of options from which the market can select, not just the one that's being developed in the district of a powerful member of Congress.
Mr. President, this strategy is not just about throwing money at the problem. It will be necessary to review a wide range of policies that affect technology development and deployment, including intellectual property, defense procurement, taxation, and performance standards. Moreover, stabilizing the atmosphere does not address the legacy of past emissions. It is equally important to invest in infrastructure that will head off damage from extreme weather events caused by the climate change we've already set in motion.
Twice in the past century, the US dragged its feet before confronting threats to our civilization in the form of two world wars. But when it finally committed itself, it shot straight into the leadership position and dealt decisively with the problems. Climate change poses the same sort of challenge -- and opportunity -- at the beginning of the present century.
Sincerely,
Steve Rayner
Steve Rayner is Professor of Science and Civilization at Oxford University.
Reggie Jackson may have been Mr. October, but there's a new RGGI in town.
The states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) recently announced that the auctioning of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions allowances in North America is off to a strong start.
All of the 12.5M allowances offered for sale on September 25, 2008 were sold at a clearing price of USD$3.07 per allowance, which is about 65 percent more than the minimum set price of $1.86. $2 per ton had been a reasonable estimate of what a RGGI CO2 allowance is really "worth" in 2009, according to energy consultants at Webb, Scott & Quinn.
RGGI, Inc. reports that 59 participants from the energy, financial, and environmental sectors took part in the first-in-the-nation auction, starting the first of many CO2 allowance auctions.
Demand for the allowances appeared to have been strong with a total of 51,761,000 allowances demanded or four times the available supply for this first auction.
The USD$38.5M in proceeds produced from the auction will be distributed to Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont, the six RGGI states that offered allowances for sale during the first auction. The states are expected to invest those funds in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, along with programs to benefit utility rate payers.
Pete Grannis, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Chair of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc. "RGGI’s example shows that an open and competitive carbon market can be implemented."
Any CO2 allowances purchased at the first auction can be used by a regulated facility for compliance in any of the RGGI states, even if that state did not offer allowances in the first auction. Four out of the ten did not participate in this first auction.
The next allowance auction is set for December 17, 2008. These early auctions, combined with the others being held in the first compliance period, according to RGGI, will ensure an ample opportunity for bidders to obtain the allowances they will need for compliance across the entire 10-state region. RGGI intends to hold quarterly auctions during the first RGGI three-year compliance period, which runs from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2011.
James Letzelter of Webb, Scott says that "RGGI is indeed a real cost. At $3 per ton, a 10,000 Btu/kWh coal plant faces about $3 per MWh. A 7,000 Btu/kWh gas-fired combined cycle faces a cost of about $1.50 per MWh."
While that's not onerous, Letzelter concludes, "these prices will increase power market prices slightly (figure about $1.50 per MWh). Count that as "RGGI Bonus" revenue picked up by all market players, especially nuclear, hydro and renewable players with no RGGI costs."
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states will cap and then reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector 10 percent by 2018.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ucE2Fj2YplHOnDnEkOhnHIuaA8bWzt9tNA5RJHZKpKsHHlqyqPBM0fJIUGGO9KmvUNJmhnc_-pp3N8pHN3Z7sGmOBTc-4-bkVv8XtkZM3t4bO3dJMqNtJbfaZEAGtuFYRys8-g3kBPWYzZgA0lOXU=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s9z4YOpgov9s2c5JVfxWWlLiADqqi2UOZMbW2LJ9DxY0YetAVnze1yFm_LeXNxqY8dOLdto9clAuo_XJ8qt65HTXp_oMiImNoetk-9cAlDYXOwiwHA_mglSKo6RPA0xZyPxkhCKsYvin8185vbQW9j=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tuImp4SrPh_L4ZEa2t_4poa1Habo9tp5q1nBtVQXkOQmB-AcFjRSLmI2g6msC1cz9V7BZCJl-Um7qK1pr5-7Xa2fBdHldXYVg4E338r12zkOXF3wYLwIQAwV6qpiwVmdHzNvOT5D8uSEPWA1jFjmk=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vpiiqQJyo_AoWITM50j9Y6Hb1TWggZGy2fRlApuS1cdRY1bR5Nwvr2KHM62zuzLgthKuBmE7j80J3UNNrP7OeZvURSWW6yStZYbYC-7Gg-rInCDhgiRka5r17dI0A1JR3NtGgMqW9E-q-Vs0yCi9Hk=s0-d)
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tG1kP80raePB9KKIMOYO3Ial1Nc9-3R0vSEk71AovxIRkteOKNc_fHkK2o5FaY8hPqRmp60Dh89OyPa7ANQHbdi8E0uniMxZAmo7Vi1eb6yrobAyGV8nh2LHwTYhtJRekRpDDh9W0gqMFFtI15WlzA=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uZOQYld2FVMk99wajSzA1DXrSDFzQ8OPY_EOwpvoB4LPWHKtYuq6CsF6gLd4Eq86AczIJORxib9cxGXsTv7dBZuGW4M6vHXlJGf9BVdPjdrqsJXZLtuQ5ru2HfSenAI32yjmZ6eTMyfquPCuC91aEz=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sZmbeB2H8JLL3PPVF6aZxAMmuHtPPmA25CxRbNXGiNFfbJFajpg63ADBEIDdKP9bbztW07IrwXX6N2vCEZrm_m1YLf3IwaeGW6GmdBdJe1QL2LAI27LW05kldIzxf8HMLB-IFBh4pUfuStznkT1QLf=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tGBSIT9wux5VQ56bGGU_TiDbaY1Ok5Sm1xRhsDWXEtGibopY7NxZGEKjJmVClAEzZfFFg-F0gf4AXa9aszccxufhN9nqcwaZwtBHQK60_9biE93Yf0B6Y1amVXGmHhtNOPpZThCpRtZ4tfNdDoWR1G=s0-d)