Archive for the 'economy' Category

Best Peak Oil Prose Award

Sharon July 14th, 2008

Ok, you all know that I’ve had my differences, some polite, some not so much with James Kunstler.  But I have to tell you that for sheer ferocious, delicious prose, there is no one like him.  There’s nobody out there in the peak oil movement, and precious few anywhere who can write like this -

“There’s a particular moment known to all Baby Boomers when Wile E. Coyote, in a rapture of over-reaching, has run past the edge of the mesa and, still licking his chops and rubbing his front paws in anticipation of fricasseed roadrunner, discovers that he is suspended in thin air by nothing more than momentum. Grin becomes chagrin. He turns a nauseating shade of green, and drops, whistling, back to earth thousands of feet below, with a distant, dismal, barely audible thud at the end of his journey. We are Wile E. Coyote Nation.
Is there anyone in the known universe who thinks that the US financial system is not fifty feet beyond the edge of the mesa of credibility?

 Nothing will avail now. Not even if Sirhan Sirhan were paroled at noon today and transported directly to the West Wing with a .44 magnum in each hand (and a taxi driven by the Devil waiting outside to take him to the US Treasury and the offices of the Federal Reserve).”

Kunstler is almost certainly right - the markets aren’t buying the bailout - so you get to have your pocket picked, your children impoverished and you get your Depression anyway.  Check the news out at   But more importantly, reading about your doom should always be fun.  As you hear the bad news, it is always good to be thinking “Shit, this guy can write” rather than “Well, I guess Mom will have move in with us and we’ll be giving up luxuries like meat and more than 1 pair of shoes each.”  And hey, we’ve got to take what pleasures are available to us.


Time For a Check In?

Sharon June 8th, 2008

So oil went up $11 on Friday, while the stock market dropped 3%.  Unemployment is up, and reports of a recovery are greatly exaggerated.  And most importantly, the word bubble is started to get scraped off the oil price jump:

But many analysts say that fundamentals, not speculation, are driving prices.

I don’t know how else to say it, this is not a bubble,” Jan Stuart, global oil economist at UBS, said. “I think this is real. There is a whole bunch of commercial buyers out there who are spooked and are buying. You are an airline, right now, you’re scared. I don’t see who would buy at these prices unless they need to.”

Jeffrey Harris, the chief economist at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who was speaking before a Senate committee last month, said he saw no evidence of a speculative bubble in commodities. Instead, Mr. Harris pointed to a confluence of trends that has contributed to the oil price rally, including a weak dollar, strong energy demand from emerging economies, and political tensions in oil-producing countries.

“Simply put, the economic data shows that overall commodity price levels, including agricultural commodity and energy futures prices, are being driven by powerful fundamental economic forces and the laws of supply and demand,” Mr. Harris said. “Together these fundamental economic factors have formed a ‘perfect storm’ that is causing significant upward pressures on futures prices across the board.”

Who’d a thunk it?  You mean peak oil is a real thing?  Shocked.  Shocked, I say!  Note that this is the New York Times, not me ;-). 

But more seriously, let’s be blunt, even for the best prepared of all of us, this sucks badly.  All of us are feeling the scraping at our budgets, at least a little, and I know that some people are really hurting.  So I thought it would be worth doing an update on how this is looking in your neck of the woods?  How’s your family doing?  What you are seeing in your neighborhood that you haven’t seen before?

The New York State Budget strips the Universities pretty badly, so Eric is losing a lot of sleep about his job.  Now we made the choices we did pretty consciously - he doesn’t have tenure.  He’s been offered tenure track jobs at smaller Universities (he wants to teach, not do bench science), but turned them down because our long term estimate was that all of them were more likely to either dump him before he got tenure or go under completely if the economy tanked.  Eric teaches one of the largest classes at his University - 1/4-1/3 of all SUNY Albany students go through is class, so he makes the University literally millions of dollars a semester, and they pay him about half what they’d pay a similarly qualified research scientist.  Our bet was that Eric will look like a good deal to the University.  We may lose that bet - of course, we could lose the other way around.  But it is tough on him, because he loves, loves, loves his work. 

Otherwise, we’re not hurting too much, although we may have to cut back on stocking up a little.  We’re lucky - Eric’s off for the summer and so we’re hoping to go to driving only two or at most three days a week, and of course with the garden kicking in, and a reserve of stored food mostly bought at lower prices, we can economize.  The problem, of course is that I’m reluctant to dig into stores right now, since I think times are only going to get tougher all around. 

Lots of new gardens popping up around here, and lots more people asking me serious questions about energy and the economy.  The place I’ve gotten some plastic buckets from is saying they’re going to have to start charging me, and that’s ok - their costs are going up too.  A fair bit of economic strain among folks I know.  But mostly, a lot of hoping and praying that things will get better while there’s still a little hope of fixing the worst. 

 How about you?


7 Million Americans May Have Died of Hunger in the Great Depression

Sharon May 25th, 2008

I have not been able to find the original Wikipedia article or any of the critiques mentioned in the article.  But it does answer a question I’ve had for a long time at least in one way - because we know people died of starvation during the Depression in the US.  Hoover told us “at least no one has starved” and then they started pulling bodies out of Chicago tenements.  There was a minimum of a 25% malnutrition rate in urban schools in many places.  So yes, we know people died.  But I’ve located no full scale investigation until now.

And again, just as we saw in Gaidar’s analysis of the fall of the Soviet Union, we begin to realize that moving rural populations off the land can devastate whole nations.  Preserving farmers isn’t just about preserving rural landscapes.  Without food and the people who grow it, we don’t eat - period. 

 How many people may starve this time?  And how many will we know about, even as it happens? 

“The researcher, Boris Borisov, in his article titled “The American Famine” estimated the victims of the financial crisis in the US at over seven million people. The researcher also directly compared the US events of 1932-1933 with Holodomor, or Famine, in the USSR during 1932-1933.

In the article, Borisov used the official data of the US Census Bureau. Having revised the number of the US population, birth and date rates, immigration and emigration, the researcher came to conclusion that the United States lost over seven million people during the famine of 1932-1933.

“According to the US statistics, the US lost not less than 8 million 553 thousand people from 1931 to 1940. Afterwards, population growth indices change twice instantly exactly between 1930-1931: the indices drop and stay on the same level for ten years. There can no explanation to this phenomenon found in the extensive text of the report by the US Department of Commerce “Statistical Abstract of the United States,” the author wrote. “


What’s It Like At Your Place?

Sharon April 27th, 2008

My readers have been so great about reporting shortages and prices, I thought I’d expand this and start a discussion of what things look like in your neck of the woods, and through your budget.  How are you all doing making ends meet?  How are rising food and energy prices affecting your household?  What are you most concerned about?  What are you seeing when you go the store?  I admit, I’m curious to hear more about what this looks like through the eyes of more people.

Today’s New York Times reports that people are changing their dietary habits in response to the recession, buying cheaper food, cutting back on some luxury items and cutting red meat from their budget.  I have to admit, the last quote in this section struck me - this is, after all, the New York Times. 

Home prices are sliding, wages are stagnant, job losses are growing and the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, a broad measure of stock performance, is down 6 percent in the last year. So consumers are going on a recession diet.

Burt Flickinger, a longtime retail consultant, said the last time he saw such significant changes in consumer buying patterns was the late 1970s, when runaway inflation prompted Americans to “switch from red meat to pork to poultry to pasta — then to peanut butter and jelly.”

It hasn’t gotten to human food mixed with pet food yet,” he said, “but it is certainly headed in that direction.”

So how does this look to you?  To your friends and family?

 Our region is one of the few that hasn’t had a major downturn in housing prices - the greater Albany area has slow sales but is still hanging tough.  Still, we were finally able to get the house reassessed after a ridiculously high assessment (redone after Eric’s grandparents moved in near the peak of the market), and will see our property taxes drop by 30%.  We’re actually benefitting from everyone else’s suffering, and so are some elderly neighbors.   It is tough on others as well - one of our neighbors lost her husband recently and wants to sell the house, but can’t.

The other big savings has been getting rid of the van.  We’ll save nearly a 1000 keeping it on the road.  Cramming in the little car is quite uncomfortable, but then again, having riding in the car be a bit uncomfortable isn’t bad for us.  Someone asked what we were driving - it is a 1993 Ford Taurus - we inherited it from Eric’s grandmother and it has been our commuting car ever since.  We can put 2 boosters and a carseat side by side in the back. 

We’ve definitely slowed our stock up rate, and at this point are just trying to maintain on everything (we’re actually letting our rice supplies slide a bit).  But we’re rapidly approaching our six months of grocery-store free time, where we live primarily off our own home produce.  Even better, the goats will arrive in July and we’ll be able to cut back on milk runs to the local farmstand.  Meanwhile, we’re getting the property into order - fixing the leaky roof (grrrr…we had it replaced 3 years ago and the $&#@*! who did it did a bad job), replacing attic insulation, putting drainage on the back field so we can expand the gardens that way, building more raised beds close to the house, setting up fencing for goats and sheep.  The hoophouse is going up this year, come hell or high water - I’m determined to produce all of our greens over the winter.  If we can afford it, I might even put up two, and start a winter CSA this year.

 We’re betting on the fact that as the New York State budget collapses, Eric, who isn’t tenured (intentionally so) and is much cheaper than tenure track faculty with similar qualifications, will probably keep his job, even if he’s stuck with more courses.  Last recession, they encouraged older profs to retire, had a hiring freeze and added more adjuncts rather than tenure track faculty, so we think Eric’s status may serve him well.  We’ve got dentist appointments for everyone and tetanus boosters for us planned, since we won’t be shocked to see benefits cut at some point.  Definitely working on *staying* healthy.

 I’m going to intensify my efforts to find birthday and holiday presents at yard sales, so that we aren’t buying much of anything new.  Also Eli’s feet jumped three sizes this year, and since he is drawn to mud puddles the way metal is drawn to magnets, more bigger shoes are on the list.   I figure at some point, things will get so expensive people stop using things lightly and discarding them so easily - so might as well look a little further ahead and pick up clothes a couple more sizes up.

We’re going to suck it up and fill the oil tank (which runs backup heat to keep the pipes from freezing when we’re out of town and the hot water heater) this spring, since I don’t think the price will be any lower in the fall.  We’re already splitting and hauling wood for winter.  May will be a tight month, given the price of oil.  But a tank full should, at our present rate of use, last us two years, so better do it now.

I’ve upped my plans for growing our own chicken feed and alfalfa hay for the bunnies and goats.  Feed prices are way up.  Not a lot of ways we can cut our food budget, except by producing our own milk and perhaps by giving up some seasonal fruits we really like and don’t grow enough of.  If we had to, we would.  For now, it is worth keeping them.  I’m already canning rhubarb and drying nettles and dandelions.

We’re going to start a homeschooling coop with two neighbors, to cut back on everyone’s trips to various activities.  And we’ll do all our swimming one day a week, to cut back on trips to the pool at the next town over. 

I’ve decided not to sell eggs this year - I have noticed in the last few years that the things we give as gifts sometimes profit us more than what we sell, so I decided that this year, we’d give the extra eggs away - to the food pantry, to neighbors, Eric takes them to work and hands them out.   

So far, things haven’t really penetrated hard into our lives - we’re lucky - and we’re reaping the fruits of a long time of being called nutcases ;-).  But I don’t expect it to stay that way for the longer term.  How are you doing?


The Bad, the Worse and the Seriously Ugly

Sharon April 11th, 2008

I have to apologize for the title - I know most of my readers come here for the cheery, uplifting approach that I have, and that the above is a bit of a shock.  I did seriously consider titling this post “Cute Bunnies, Kittens and the Sunshine on my Shoulder” but it seemed too cruel to make you start there and head straight into the bad news on climate change.

Remember climate change?  It isn’t just this blog that has gotten a little bit quieter on this subject lately because there’s so much other, related bad news - I’ve definitely noticed a move from the front pages to the back ones as the economy and the food situation displace climate change as the worst crappy thing going on in the world.  Remember, we can’t take the human interest stories off the front pages - those sell papers.  So there has to be a heirarchy of the awful.  

And it  isn’t that we all don’t care a lot about climate change, of course.  It is just that when the bank is talking about foreclosing and we have to run down and sign up for food stamps, sea level rises at the end of the century look a lot less serious. 

This is, of course, both inevitable and a potential disaster.  Poverty has the potential to reduce our carbon emissions in some respects, and increase them in others.  James Hansen’s recent analysis of the fossil fuels situation, which notes that oil and natural gas alone can’t get us much past 450 ppm of Carbon (although Hansen’s other recent work has emphasized the absolute necessity of getting back to 350ppm - we’re past that already) , but coal can.  But to imagine us leaving the coal in the ground, we haev to imagine a level of self-restraint we haven’t managed when we were rich and flush with energy - it seems difficult for me to imagine that we’re going to be ok with rising electric prices constraining our usage when we’re already struggling.

Which brings me to a list of Unpleasant Truths about how climate change, our response and adaptation are likely to proceed.  Unfortuanately, I could find no pleasant truths to go along with it.  I really wish there were some.

 1. As we get poorer and the economy tanks, it is going to be harder and harder to muster the time, energy, enthusiasm and above all *money* for climate change mitigation projects.  That’s not to say that we might not see some or even many major public works projects.  But right now, our economy is stretched.  With the total cost of the war in Iraq looking to be 4-5 trillion and our ability to borrow from other nations headed into a serious decline,  along with the municipal investments of many towns and cities, our ability to do large scale adaptations is in serious trouble.  The price of energy is also steadily limiting our ability to do a build out.  Absolute shortages of diesel fuel may at some point may create further constraints. 

Officially, we exceeded the May 2005 oil and liquids production peak in January 2008 - which means we’re producing more oil, right?  Ummm…yeah…a big old 0.23%.  Oh, and EIA estimates of production are often revised downward more than that.  Oh, and we didn’t actually produce more conventional crude *oil* - we just produced more “liquids” which is a little different.  There’s a full discussion over here at The Oil Drum.  But the point is that there’s no reason to be getting excited - and demand is growing far faster than supply, which is essentially flat.  We’re in energy trouble.

Meanwhile, we’ve maintained the economy essentially by borrowing from the future a host of ways, among them our failure to maintain our existing infrastructure - estimates suggest that keep the water coming out of pipes and the bridges from falling on people would cost 1.5 trillion additional dollars.  And since the Fed is relentlessly nationalizing the losses of corporations at our expense, it does not take a genius to guess that trillions for a new energy infrastructure and retrofit will be discussed, the possibilities glowingly described, and most of the money won’t emerge unless the economy gets fixed.

2. Reports of a new green economy, and the ability to continue growth have been radically overstated.  People like Alex Steffen and Colin at NoImpactMan (both of whom I think are totally terrific, if not correct on this issue) have argued that we can still have plenty of economic growth and a brand shiny new economy based on renewable energies.  But a closer look at the evidence for this suggests otherwise.  For example, both refer to this site, to reassure us that it won’t cost us anything economically to switch to renewables and use less.  But besides the fact that the underlying assumptions that allow them to perform their calculations aren’t transparent on this site, the maximum imaginable reduction over business as usual emission is 40%.  But 40% not only won’t get us to 350ppm, it won’t keep us below 450, or even 550 over time.  In fact, a University of Victoria study found that the only thing that kept us below 450 was a 100% reduction of industrial emissions, and in fairly short order.  And that is a wholly different animal economically speaking, particularly given constraints on our ability to retrofit and build out new resources.

 The US economy is driven heavily by consumer spending - and the emissions for consumer goods, shipping, shopping, etc… constitute nearly 1/4 of all emissions.  Cut those emissions, and you also cut the driving force of the economy.  A steady-state economy may be possible, but it isn’t easy - even those who advocate it admit that the idea is pretty hypothetical. 

Moreover, fossil fuels have driven the economy as powerfully as they have in large part because their EROEI was so great - they are roughly the equivalent of an extremely high return investment.  The dividends on the oil you use to extract it are huge.  On the other hand, the EROEI of most renewables is fairly low (wind is something of an exception), and will never be cheap.  So more and more of our economic costs get eaten up in expenses, and it is harder and harder to keep the economy afloat.

3. Aren’t just getting poorer now, we’ve been getting poorer for a long time - it just started moving faster. The most recent poll on this subject just matches up with what we all  knew - real wages have been declining for decades, benefits have been reduced, expenses are rising, people are going into debt to maintain and wealth is getting concentrated in the hands of already wealthy people.  What does this have to do with climate change?  Well, a lot, actually.  For example, most incentive strategies for adaptation are directed at homeowners who pay out taxes.  You get them as tax rebates - but most poor people don’t pay taxes, and most people who may be foreclosed, or want to walk away from their houses don’t feel any great incentive to superinsulate them.  And our sheer level of indebtedness means that any major problem in the system is likely to bring people down fast - they simply don’t have any more cushions of credit to fall back on.

Major town and municipal infrastructure investments depend on the property tax rate - and if your town is like mine, a lot of new downward assessments are coming.  As towns start having trouble keeping the buses running and the plows going, I would expect the suggestion that the local community center go solar to rank right up there with the all-Mercedes police car proposal. 

 The psychology of poverty is probably, though, the most important thing.  People who are in or on the verge of crisis just want to maintain and get along.  They can see themselves falling into an immediate abyss, and they don’t care very much about the next terrible thing. 

 4. Matt Savinar’s axiom “We’re spending billions to fix problems we’re spending trillions to create” is right on the money here.  It is easy to get impressed by our new commitment.  It is important we look at the amount of money we’re throwing at creating and continuing the problem - and that we look carefully at how much of that money is coming from us.  Colin over at NoImpactMan has a nice rant about the evils of the political destruction of congestion pricing in New York City.  He’s totally on the money.  But that is the point - it isn’t that congestion pricing couldn’t pass, but not only do many of the people who oppose congestion pricing drive into the city and thus fund the opposition, but I’m willing to lay odds that  many of the same people who in principle agree that this is a good idea are giving money to parking lots and garages when they travel into NYC on business.  And that money is going to stop congestion pricing.  

The reality is that most of us, no matter how carefully we try to minimize our impact, are collectively funding the opposition efforts.  We’re still buying gas, even as the oil companies are working against us.  We’re still buying food at the grocery store - even me sometimes. 

The things that need to happen to mitigate climate change are huge - a cessation of the mantra of growth, for example, or the end to the biofuels boom - and the force of opposition to making them happen doesn’t just lie in the evil corporate headquarters of GE or Monsanto, it lies in all of us, who go out and make our money in the existing economy, and put our water filters on our credit cards.  The reality is that we are working much harder at making the problem worse than we are at fixing it.

5. We just did our build out, and it is not going to serve us well.   Take a look at this article on slum housing - and the future of the mass build out we just engaged in.  I think it articulates really well the problems we face, and I’m quoting it at some length because I think this is so important (btw, Mike Davis’s Planet of Slums is a terrific book):

“Let’s now turn to the U.S., which has seen a similar ballooning of urban and core-suburban value. Despite the obvious need for alternative sources of energy and technology which reduces petroleum consumption, how much global and American capital flowed into these investments for the future (recall the slogan, “energy independence is national security”) in the U.S., compared to the trillions pumped into mostly urban real estate?

I haven’t been able to find adequate statistics on these investment flows, but it seems the “investment” in urban-suburban real estate is on the order of 100 times the total capital invested in alternative energy research and development.

How many jobs flow from those thousands of granite countertops and fake “Gone with the Wind” staircases in thousands of McMansions and urban condos, and from the hundreds of strip malls constructed in the past decade? None.

Yes, someone was paid to manufacture and install the construction materials, but now that the building is done, there is nothing to show for those trillions of dollars of investment. Just like the Third World mega-slums, America’s cities and suburbs are now “capital traps” of national savings.

For it isn’t just the capital trapped in empty condo towers and millions (yes, millions, see yesterday’s entry sources) of empty houses and the rapidly enptying office parks and malls-it’s also all the capital trapped in the financial institutions which enabled the real estate bubble to expand so voraciously and profitably that all other investments paled.

It’s no secret that financial firms’ profits have grown to the point that they dominate the S&P 500. Trillions of capital are tied up in U.S. real estate and the mortgage-backed securities and other asset-based financial instruments based on residential and commercial real estate.

What could the nation have gained had those trillions been invested in new production of goods and services? Was the entire real estate bubble a vast, perniciously destructive misallocation of national savings into “capital traps”? I think the answer is clearly “yes.” Now that real estate is starting its long decline from euphoric fantasy to reality, plummeting values of both the real property and the financial house of cards erected on the property are erasing trillions.

How do you extract the capital from a rapidly depreciating asset? It’s human nature to hope “things will turn around next year.” Unfortunately, real estate will not turn around next year, or the year after that or the year after that. Real estate has become a capital sink for the national savings.

This is the clearest exposition I’ve seen of the problem of imagining a renewable build out - we’ve thrown our money away on an infrastructure that is not going to serve us in any way in the future.  Kunstler’s claim that this was the greatest misallocation of resources in history is probably correct. 

 That said, however, I’m more sanguine than Kunstler that we can make something out of some large chunks of our suburban infrastructure - I’m much less hopeful for the Condos in Miami and Vegas.  The suburban infrastructure can, at least, grow food.  But the sheer scale of the problem of adapting an infrastructure made entirely for cheap oil with decreasing amount of energy and money is going to, a minimum, push our creativity.

One corrollary of this point is that we have millions of unoccupied homes and millions of square feet of unoccupied office space.  Anyone who starts any mitigation discussion with the words “build new housing” is out of their freakin’ minds.  We’re going to be living in those houses, so retrofit is the word of the day.  It may have been a wild misallocation of resources, but we simply don’t have enough resources left to throw away what we have.

 6.  The bad news about climate change is that it is growing worse faster than anyone - especially the politicians - can keep up with.  For example, areas of the ocean are warming up to four times faster than the most radical predictions.   This is non-trivial for a host of reasons, one of them be the accelleration of the collapse of fish stocks, but more importantly, the oceans are the single largest carbon absorber we have right now - and the warmer it gets, the less able it is to keep absorbing carbon - that is, the warmer the planet gets, the faster you have run to keep in place.  We are now, at best, at the point where we can perhaps avoid the very worst outcomes (that does not mean it will not be truly terrible) if we make “draconian” as Hansen puts it - changes very rapidly.  But we are very close to the point at which very little can be done - on at least one level - at all.  In fact, it is possible we are past that point - although we cannot live our lives as though that is true.

Does that mean that emissions cuts are pointless?  No, they aren’t - the difference between 3 or 4 degrees of warming and 6 are enormous - the difference between living in a vastly changed and deadly world versus a visit to hell.  In fact, it is more and more urgent that we do all we can - and that we do it FAST, before what we do stops mattering entirely.  But that means we have to understand what is going on, transmit that information *AND* (perhaps most difficult), we have to stop picking outside numbers, and start using the precautionary principle, which says that instead of waiting for some perfect certainty in the data that may or may not come in time, we now must work under the assumption that everything is more serious than we know it to be. 

To say the least, getting there will be difficult, if it is even possible.

7. Estimates of the cost of addressing global warming like the Stern report are overwhelmingly based upon old data, older estimates of how Global Warming will work, and other outdated analyses.  And they assume that we are still early on in the GW process - which doesn’t look to be the case.  We can expect climate change to eat up an increasing portion of the GDP every year - that is, every year, we’re going to have to run faster financially just to keep up.

Take the example of the city of Barcelona, which now will have to import water by ship to deal with its extended drought.  The thing is, no city or region or nation is ready for these kinds of disasters to happen over and over and over again.  As Gilda Radner used to say, “It is always something.”  Well, we’re entering the world of “it is always something” - and there will always be a better use for our dollars and energies and times than to deal with climate change - until it is too late.

8. Turning the ship around ain’t going to happen.  Global emissions have been rising - the good news is that it looks like in 2008, the stunning rate of increase (something no report accounted for) in demand may slow down a little.  But that doesn’t mean that the emissions levels are falling - that just means we’re not raising them up quite as fast. Yes, higher energy prices will probably drive us to cut back on our driving - and they will probably also drive people to accept coal plants. 

So is there any hope here?  Yes, I think there is, but I’m increasingly finding myself agreeing with Thomas Homer-Dixon in _The Upside of Down_ where he points out that a collapse isn’t actually the worst possible outcome in some cases.

The thing is, the problem with having a lot of money and high technology is that you can’t not use it.  People get weird - they start saying “but we’ve got nano-technology just sitting there.”  They develop conspiracy theories.  And the comfy and entitled get bitchy when they have to give up priveleges.

The thing about a global depression and major collapse of wealth is that it might actually save us from ourselves.  There is no way to turn the ship around - but there is a way to get the hell off the ship and start looking for safe harbors in the lifeboats - by letting the damn thing go down.  Climate change is a bigger threat to us than hard times - and I’m not minimizing the potential suffering created by a world depression.  But I don’t think there’s any way to stop it except this - make most of us too poor to burn our full share.

Ok, I could use some kittens and puppies right now.


« Prev - Next »