What matters more: population growth, growth in greenhouse gas emissions, or some other aspect of sustainability? The short, quick answer is easy. They’re all important, they all matter. Yet, as I wrote recently activists often fight among themselves about whose issue is most critical. Two of John Feeney’s ideas quoted in that essay bear repeating:
- We’re better off exposing everything to the light and working with these interrelated issues accordingly.
- Rapprochement and cooperation would only strengthen the work of [all] groups.
All the sustainability issues are interrelated; bringing all their concerns and knowledge into the light is good; and, given splintering of the activist community, rapprochement and cooperation should be the order of the day. In that spirit I offer the following.
Paul Ehrlich created the IPAT equation to show how population, consumption (affluence), and types of technology combine to affect environmental degradation (human impact).
I = PAT
[See sustainability fundamentals for links to the more sophisticated STIRPAT.]
For simplicity, IPAT is often reduced to
impact = population * (consumption per capita)
The question then arises as to which factor is more important. As I said, the quick answer is they are both important, but the longer answer is worth examining — especially since “We’re better off exposing everything to the light and working with these interrelated issues accordingly.”
To make the discussion concrete, consider just one dimension of the problem, CO2 emissions.
(total emissions) = (population) * (emissions per capita)
or
Et = P Epc
What happens to Et over time given different growth rates for P and Epc?
The current world population growth rate is about 1.2%/year [1] and total emissions are increasing about 3.3% [3]. Let’s assume per capita (as opposed to total) emissions are growing at a rate of 2.1%/year, likely an underestimate. If these rates of change themselves don’t change, the 50 year projection looks like this:
Population goes up by nearly 2x and total emissions by more than 5x (”5x” is tech-speak for “five times”) — more than a little troubling considering we must reduce total emissions dramatically (more than 80%) and quickly (within 20 years) in order to avoid catastrophic environmental damage [2].
However, that graph may overstate the case since the rate of population growth has been declining for the last 40 years. Assuming it will continue to decline we get a result like this:
Now the population curve is similar to the UN’s medium projection topping out at 1.4x or something over 9 billion. Still, total emissions approach 4x of the current level producing disaster.
What if, starting today, we had a negative population growth rate?
Population declines to less than 5 billion yet total CO2 emissions more than double. Disaster again. Of course no one expects an immediate, steady reduction in population. Still, even this fantastic assumption is overwhelmed by the steady growth of total emissions fueled by the steady growth in emissions per capita.
Here’s my personal fantasy of choice:
If we could immediately begin reducing both population and per capita emissions we could avoid catastrophic environmental damage, but that too is a fantasy. The only way you get a population curve like this is through war, famine, and disease — not by compassionate family planning.
What if we start from today’s growth rates for population and per captia consumption and steadily reduce both?
Even though this scenario is in at least some sense realistic, we get 1.4x population, 2.3x total emissions, and still fail to avoid environmental catastrophe.
what’s it all mean?
We have a near-term emergency. We must reduce total CO2 emissions by 80% or more in the next 20 years to avoid environmental catastrophe.
In short, this means both population and per capita emissions are important. Reduce the growth rates of either the population or per capita emissions and the total emissions growth rate goes down. But the longer answer bears examination if for no other reason than to get beyond “my issue is more important than yours” thinking. More significantly the longer answer may enable activists of different stripes to not only avoid needlessly disparaging one another but also send consistent, accurate messages to the public.
As noted above the population growth rate has been declining for 40 years (from 2.2 to 1.2%/year) during which time the total emissions growth rate has steadily increased. In the 1990’s the total emission growth rate was 1.3%/year; from 2000 to 2006 it was 3.3%, more than double the previous rate. Faced with these facts it’s no wonder that some jump on the reduce-emissions-first bandwagon, and I see no reason to criticize them for doing so as long as they acknowledge that population growth plays a significant role, just like those on the population bandwagon consistently acknowledge the importance of per capita consumption (realized in these scenarios as per capita CO2 emissions).
There are more aspects to sustainability than population and CO2 emissions. It’s also about human rights, economic justice, preservation biologically diversity, access to potable water, and a host of other equally important things. Reducing then reversing growth in population and CO2 emissions contributes positively to all aspects of sustainability.
An idealized view of the future might look like this:
Note: reference to timespan has been removed. In this view, sometime in the future both population and CO2 emission will be far below today’s levels, a requirement of sustainability. We can imagine a better outcome, one in which per capita emissions stop increasing immediately and then decrease faster than population:
In these longer-term views both consumption (emissions in this case) and population have equal standing. It’s in the very short-term, the next 5 to 10 years, that a focus on consumption can be easily justified.
If we don’t begin bring down consumption (start to reduce emissions) we have no hope of avoiding environmental catastrophe. Since the population growth rate has been in decline for decades, it makes sense to focus on the consumption/emissions growth rate which has never declined except in periods of economic recession and then not much. Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to “bring everything into the light.”
Does this mean we shouldn’t be talking about population in the meantime? Of course not. Lowering population is essential for sustainability, and, sustainability aside, family planning services are fundamental to human rights, particularly women’s rights.
There is one more difference between reducing the growth rates of population and per capita consumption/emissions that I’ve never heard mentioned, perhaps because it is so glaringly obvious. Wealthy countries (US, EU, Japan, Australia, and Canada) can reduce per capita emissions dramatically without people dying — some would say without anyone suffering at all — and thereby achieve an enormous reduction in total world emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. These same wealthy countries can help other big emitters like China, India, Russia and Brazil reduce their per capita emissions as well. It is at least feasible that we can avoid the near-term environmental catastrophe without significant harm to people.
Not so with population. While it is possible to reduce high population growth rates quickly and humanely (see here for example), we have no example of a fast decline in absolute population numbers — and it’s hard to imagine one — that is not the result of war, famine, or disease and accompanied by shortened life expectancy and higher infant mortality.
I’ll end by repeating part of a list of “top issues” from a previous post. To achieve any progress on sustainability issues, we need to address these tasks now:
- decoupling government from big business and re-coupling it with the electorate
- addressing wealth and income disparity (and thus the disparity in political power)
- letting go of the myth that “free” markets solve our most vital problems
- establishing (or re-establishing) a news media that delivers unbiased, important news that is essential to any reasonable understanding of the world
- changing the idea that all economic growth is good to one that delineates between healthy and cancerous growth — and understands that the end of growth is not a disaster but a natural, appropriate, and healthy outcome (some fish continue to grow larger throughout their lives but humans do not)
- moving research funds from the military to renewable energy and other life-oriented projects
references/data sources
1. exponential or not? based on US Census Bureau data. See that post for more information.
2. your shrinking carbon dioxide allotment based on US Census Bureau, IPCC, and IEA data. See that post for more information.
3. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks by Josep G. Canadella et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS), October 25, 2007. The abstract:
The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the largest human contributor to human-induced climate change, is increasing rapidly. Three processes contribute to this rapid increase. Two of these processes concern emissions. Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its carbon intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 2000: comparing the 1990s with 2000-2006, the emissions growth rate increased from 1.3% to 3.3%/year. The third process is indicated by increasing evidence … for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions. …All of these changes characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing.
4. A Talk with Dr. Paul Ehrlich by Kathy Ricketts Reitinger, July 1999:
Zegrahm News recently traveled to Stanford University to discuss with Dr. Ehrlich his current feelings about the world’s population and his predictions about our future on the planet.
Ricketts: You introduced the equation, I=PAT, which illustrates the impact of any human group upon the environment: Impact = Population x Affluence (consumption) x Technology. When you first proposed this equation, you felt that “P” was the most critical in controlling and reducing human impact on the Earth. Do you still think that population growth is the most critical problem facing us today?
Ehrlich: Not anymore. Although the world is still vastly overpopulated, the past 30 years have shown that population can be controlled. People can be convinced that it may be in their best interest to produce smaller families. However, no one has any idea of how to convince humanity that it is in their best interest to consume less, instead of more. Even if ‘P’ is reduced, the steady rise of ‘A’ in the Impact Equation means that our crushing impact on the Earth will continue to increase.”
Ehrlich’s advice is to attend to both:
Don’t have families with more than one or two children. Encourage religious institutions to support birth control and family planning; encourage politicians to support the same. Reduce consumption. …In a nutshell, do as much as you can, in whatever arena you can.
Trinifar: “The only way you get a population curve like this is through war, famine, and disease — not by compassionate family planning.”
Sad but true. All three are possibilities we may have to face as a natural consequence of overpopulation. But lately I have been thinking this may be part of the the natural cycle. We – homo sapiens – may be able to think about these things but it may not mean we can escape it through our intelligence.
True, I’m starting to think the same thing. We can grasp all these problems, but since all what’s happening as concerns population and emissions growth is human nature, this is actually not something that can be changed by means of intelligence alone. In order to get these situations in check (without, of course, allowing the ruling classes to resort to mass murder) we shall have to develop some strange kind of wisdom as concerns the ecological responsibilities of the human race. Like not to allow for more than two childbirths in every woman’s life. And like not to allow for such future lifestyle choices that lead to emissions growth.
Hm. I’m dreaming. ‘Cause the fact are clear and simple. We are heading for a future of either mass death due to the fact that we are soon reaching all sorts of tipping points, or to continued population growth which will take us to the opoint when we reach the 9 billion mark or more. My little piece of maths really says it all:
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/population-forum/4114-maths-dont-matter.html
The most interesting thing is what is happening at the bottom of the page (when the population explosion takes off for real). here I am counting generations from a thought-up starting point of 500.000 people. After 16 generations of three childbirts per woman on average, the population has reached 1 billion. After 20 generations the population has reached 5 billion. We have now reached the point when the population explosion really takes off. In a matter of three generations more, the population has reached 17 billion. It is now heading for thirty billion in no time.
16. — 1.039.998.104
17. –1.559.997.000
18. — 2.339.000.000
19. — 3.500.000.000
20. — 5.300.000.000
21. — 7.900.000.000
22. — 11.800.000.000
23. — 17.800.000.000
- —
I’m thinking of Blair T. Longley’s way of visualizing this fast growth of a species. He wrote this on GIM not long ago: “You probably have all heard the story about the lily pad growing at a rate that it will take 30 days until it covers the whole pond … on the 28th day, only one quarter is covered, but on the 29th day, it is half covered, while on the 30th day, it has reached its limit of covering the whole pond. Earlier on, everything seems O.K., but towards the end, things got covered over at a rapidly crazy rate.”
And I’m thinking: as the average human life span is getting higher (people will ordinarily grow older before they die and pass on), the population explosion will still be taking place, even if the average woman gave birth to no more than 1.7 children. This is easily proven, but virtually impossible to do much about. It’s simply a pity, that’s all. Or a sorry aspect of human nature which can only work to drive you mad.
signature103 and Magne,
I hope our species can find a combination of compassion and intelligence, perhaps “some strange kind of wisdom as concerns the ecological responsibilities of the human race,” to at least mitigate the more dire aspects of the future.
I believe I have mentioned this ‘wisdom’ thing before. It isn’t intelligence that will be operative in any kind of ’solution’ (which includes letting nature do its thing, as cruel as that may sound).
The meek (and wise) shall (should) inherit the earth.
George
Those interested in more on wisdom might have a look at George’s blog. You could start here.
It’s the stubborn (and virtually unsupported) humanist in me who is forbidding me to believe that the Earth can’t handle anything less than 10 billion people, simply because I don’t thik it will be possible to stabilize the population of the world at a rate much lower than that.
George,
Would you say that it would be nature taking its course, so long as the best (humane) thing to do would be to at least inform people — orally and by making use of large, roadside advertisement boards — about the problematic mathematic background of population explosion?
I mean: which people can change their ways as concerns the number of children they get, so long as they are not informed about the existence of any problem relating to the practice of having more than two?
Trinifar: “In these longer-term views both consumption (emissions in this case) and population have equal standing. It’s in the very short-term, the next 5 to 10 years, that a focus on consumption can be easily justified.”
- —
I’m thinking the same thing; except that I’m experiencing a few problems as concerns the time aspect. It’s important to understand that many things can be done at the same time. And it is equally important that people understand that in social processes time is a most relative issue; and especially so in the television culture of our times.
But I think we should focus on overconsumption first and foremost, at least for a while. The simple mathematics of population explosion ought to be taught to school children, but short term the only thing we can do is keeping the discussion of the topic open at all times (could someone please call grumpy old Feeney in Boulder, Colorado, and ask him to get over it….??!), only for the reason that the population connection is probably the most vital of all social taboos possible to come up with. It’s a problem of an unspeakable quantity.
The good thing about focussing on overconsumption, first and foremost, is that the discussions that arise might have its own way of providing answers to questions of “what to do about climate change?” I KNOW this is a question that many, many people in the 2.1-children-per-woman Western Europe want a solution to.
On the vexing dilemma of what to do about the population explosion of the third world: what can I say? I’m a Social Anthropologist of education, I’ve lived in West Africa, and I’ve witnessed what it means to live in a culture and society in which all married women are expected to give birth very often: as much as twice every three years. Bringing such a practice to an end will require awareness campaigns of a different world. It’s a pity.
All in all, I think the best we can do is keep the hot potato of population explosion hot, understand that it is a third world problem, first and foremost, and realize that it is an issue which is located very deep inside people’s souls. If only I had a magic wand. –
Magne,
In answer to your first paragraph question: What is being humane? In reality the information about population explosion effects and the desirability of limiting population size has been around for at least 40 years (Limits to Growth and World Dynamics before that) and if you count Malthus’ warning for over 200 years. Many people wisely attended to this warning over the years and have, themselves spoken out about the dangers (e.g. Paul Ehrlich – Population Bomb). But the vast majority payed no heed. And the foolish (even if clever) classical economists have routinely diminished the importance of the problem. They love to point out that “Malthus was wrong”.
Then there are the religions. Most predominantly the Catholic religion has promoted child bearing as a duty of womankind. Go forth and multiply, indeed.
If the wiser among us have taken the warnings to heart and have set about trying to persuade others to do likewise, yet to no avail, then we might conclude that it is due to a lack of wisdom among the masses that produces this effect.
Almost all of the models suggest that overshoot of population results in a crash. Hopes for a soft landing are further dashed by the advent of peak oil and the calamities made likely by climate change. All of these forces taken in roughly the same time frame portend doom for the majority of humanity.
Perhaps, then, it is most humane to let people continue in their ignorance (self-imposed it would seem) right to the end. A crash implies that there will be ‘good’ times right up to the precipice. The end will be horrific, certainly, but if truly inevitable, why scare and threaten the general populace, or at least try to? If you believe they really are sufficiently wise to heed the message, then I accept you want to try to help them. If you believe they are really capable of changing their behaviors and beliefs over night, then I understand you desire to continue to get the message out.
But if you come to understand that you are dealing with a mentality that is fundamentally incapable of such thinking, then you may conclude, as I have, that shouting doom at the masses is the act of Cassandra.
Sapience – the neurological/psychological capacity for wisdom – is distributed in a kind of bell-shaped curve just as we picture for intelligence. If my hypothesis about the evolution/devolution of sapience is correct then there is a high likelihood that the distribution will be considerably skewed. Here (if it works) is a comparison of the distributions of sapience level (arrow to right as sapience rises) as compared with intelligence (IQ). The latter is a normal curve whereas the former is highly skewed toward the low end. There are some at the right tail end that have the genetic basis for developing high sapience. But the vast majority of humans are in the vicinity of the mean (the bulk within +/- one standard deviation as shown).
If this holds any water at all, and I emphasize that it is only at the hypothesis formation stage so should not be taken literally, then I further assert that trying to get the majority of people to understand what is happening is futile. Intelligence =/= sapience, so no amount of explanation or data will sufficiently convince the majority, even of those whose IQs are toward the right end.
This is my current thinking. Being humane means not causing suffering. Which is more humane, causing people to suffer mental stress for who knows how long? Or is it more humane to let them enjoy what remains of their world and let the consequences (nature) take care of the end game?
I honestly don’t know the answer to that. But until I see a compelling reason to try to muster the crowds, I will use my time chatting with those who have apparently been wise enough to recognize the dilemma and are interested in what needs to be done to minimize damage to the genus and the world.
Though I am not yet ready to say much about how we might actually tackle population to engineer a possible soft landing, I think such an endeavor might be feasible. I just don’t think it is going to involve voluntary action based on sudden recognition of the problem and drastic changes in beliefs/behaviors (same actually applies to consumption habits as well).
George
George: “Perhaps, then, it is most humane to let people continue in their ignorance (self-imposed it would seem) right to the end. A crash implies that there will be ‘good’ times right up to the precipice. The end will be horrific, certainly, but if truly inevitable, why scare and threaten the general populace, or at least try to? If you believe they really are sufficiently wise to heed the message, then I accept you want to try to help them. If you believe they are really capable of changing their behaviors and beliefs over night, then I understand you desire to continue to get the message out.”
Well said. And here’s the thing: I actually HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE that it is possible to change the reproductive side of the population explosion, and also the psychological flip of the coin. Why? Because I have — on my own personal accord — tried to talk to (and teach) 9-12-year-old children the mathematics of population explosion and the simple logi of why the population explosion should have to be brought to an end. The last point is all about talking to the children about natural limits. And the first point is a piece of maths that can prove the correlation of having three children per woman on average; which is not too far from the fact of our times, as seen on a global level.
The point is: I have seen (not in a lot of children, but some) the eagerness to do that piece of maths. And I have never experienced any problem of speaking to Norwegian children aboput the natural limits of the planet. Not only in terms of population, but also in terms of overgrowht activities. And I know for certain that I’ve not posed any danger to any of these children’s mental health.
The thing is: I strongly believe that the majotrity of children ages 8 – 12 have in themselves a large reservoir of wisdom which has not yet been “educated out of them,” as so often is the case with education of youths. I have also been quite persistent in saying that the best and probably also the only solution to the population explosion is teaching the children about itk, even before they reach the reproductive age. Simply as a precaution, that’s all.
Now, what is worrying to me is the fact that I can’t seem to find a single adult (social scientist) in this world who agrees with me, and is willing to make it a go, and at least test my pedagogic theory in a class room environment. And this is my destiny, really: I’m being too radical in order to be taken seriously by the educators of our societies. Until I find other social scientists who are ready to listen to my idea of class room population growth education of children aged 8 – 12, my pedagogic theory of mine will remains untested.
I’m sorry to say so. And that’ll be all.
George: “This is my current thinking. Being humane means not causing suffering. Which is more humane, causing people to suffer mental stress for who knows how long? Or is it more humane to let them enjoy what remains of their world and let the consequences (nature) take care of the end game?”
I have invested a lot of time in order to tend to my sworn belief that it should be possible to erach a more reasonable solution to our problems, than just allow them to push the human race off the Cliffs of Valhalla, so to speak. I may be wrong, of course, but I am still hoping to see a future which is geared at achieving some ideal of ecosystems protection; a discontinuation of the present phase of happy-go-lucky building boom, wars, robberies and violence. But okay: I’m some kind of freak, I know. Unacceptable to absolutely all and everybody, or so it seems.
But I need to hope. And I know that the natural end game is going to take hundreds of years. It’ll happen over my dead body, I guess. Or I’ll learn to disagree with myself and grab a whole crate of beer. OK?
George: “A crash implies that there will be ‘good’ times right up to the precipice. The end will be horrific, certainly, but if truly inevitable, why scare and threaten the general populace, or at least try to?”
- —
You know, my last couple of essays on my blog (titles: “Life as we know it: an American Lifestyle protection and proliferation campaign” and “How about a boomerang future marked by ecosystems destruction acceptance?”) go to explore the possibility that what you are saying here is what will actually be our common ordeal. I hate to say this, but the fact is fact: most of the proceedings of political and economic global structures or cultures of our time seems to go in the exact opposite direction of what I would believe to be ways forward, and not backwards into some kind of a medieval structure of thought and reasoning, complete with witch hunts and blood funny genocides, as might even be the final result of a world civilization based on pure greed and multi-million dollar questions of to be or not to be, the right of might, and natural and artificial selection.
My personal life story is quickly sending me and my own life down the drains. I can feel the hate, the anguish, and the sheer murderousness of people around me. No one seems to be able to talk to me. Way too many strange or rather unfortunate things has happened in my life over the past few years, and people are extremely wary of me. I know it is because I am accosiated with doom and gloom, although what I am hoping for is some kind of rejuvenation of the human spirit, so to speak: a revolution of the soul, leaving us with the opportunity to start co-operate with forces of nature, and blah, blah, blah. You know what I mean? It is a very long shot indeed.
As it is: I’m all hopes and a number of dreams, but the way things seem to be going, I can only guess that I’m on the losing side. Along with a lot of other serious ecology-prone thinkers. My real problem is that life itself has destroyed me completely, as concerns the psycho-social aspect of things. I have received the kind of treatment that I never expected to happen in a so-called “good” country like Norway. They could equally take me away, lead me into a wood and just shoot me in the back of my scull, I say: as they’ve managed to commit murder on my soul. For the moment I am actually hospitalized. Uh. This is too much. I only wish I could feel allowed to telling my story like it really is, but I can’t, as I’m an a general lack of solid proof as concerns my ordeal. It’s all hearsay anyway. Uhhh.
Life is research. Goddamn.
Things should have been so much easier. The oil, the gas, and the coal should be rendered parts and parcel of human history, as it would be the only rock solid way of saying to our chilødren that adults indeed do take the official IPCC climate science seriously.
But again: I’m a Dreamer.
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/population-forum/11482-population-explosion-visualised.html
Uh.
I’m sorry. A guy on The Environment Site duscussion forum just called me “a moaning machine” — I must confess that I am just that, at least from time to time. The problem is: I’m not capable of standing alone and protecting myself against the evil deeds of a political and social system which quite obviously wants me dead.
Oh shit. I forgot. It’s that Finland connection in the above discussion board thread. Believe me: “Forfi” is telling you the truth of my situation. It’s only that he may be right in fearing for his life, simply on account of his saying so. Now, I am trying to figure out a way of communicating the story through my blog, but I just don’t know. How can I make a case against a helath and social system which is, in theory, flawless? And which isn’t — in any version of good practice — evil to the core? Although it is?! I just can’t prove it, that’s all. The system is bullet proof. And I’m dead as can be. I’m truly a zombie.
Hi Magne, for lack of anything more meaningful to say, I’m wishing you the best and hope you can find a way out of that dark and distrubing place.
Thanks.
If ever you feel I am going too far here, please tell me to get lost. The point is: I think I must be destined to spend the next few weeks seeking to get my own personal truth out. I can tell you that this whole mess I am in got started after I sent that essay for the inspection of the Club of Rome in 2004, when their conference was held in Helsinki, Finland. And that anecdote of the policeman telling me that “God lives in Finland” is absolutely true to the point. As for the thing about Swedish doctors: what can I say? All the real bad news in my life is connected to the treatment of a handfull of Swedish doctors. — They’ve planet a horrible dignosis on my body, and what’s happened since then is that four different hopitals have given me every reason to think that the diagnosis is wrong. It’s been communicated to me in all sorts of ways. But very hush-hush, and under no terms to be deemed as official. So: officially I am dying from a terminal disease, whilst the unofficial truth is that I’m not. Sociologists, psychiatrists, doctors, nurses, and social workers treat me as if I am truly infected with this disease, although they sometimes tell me that “I am free to believe that they’re lying to me!” That’s for me to decide. Now, my 50 cent question is simple: how should a 37-year-old man respond to this shit? I seriously don’t know.
The situation is absolutely absurd and not just a little bit grotesque. Let me tell you that the a 1990s Trade Minister of Sweden (Rosenblad, I think his name was) characterized Norway by these two tokens: 1. Norway is the 51st State of America, and 2. Norway is also the last Soviet Republic.
Now, from now on, I know that it is my destiny that will play itself out. I’ve got no high hopes, though. I’ll probably be shooting myself in the foot. But then: at some point in your life, you’ll need to stand up for yourself, don’t you? — That would certainly be when things are at their hardest. And I know you won’t believe many of the things that I’ve heard said to me, and around me, over the past fewe months and years. I’ve been treated like a piece of meat and a sack of beans. That’s also the truth.
I think I must consider finding time to see my make-believe lawyer, Darras now. Mulig?!
[...] This must be it. But not quite it? Because it must be more to it than this? I don’t know. I’m lost for words. It’s a long story, dear lawyer. Are you [...]
[...] to talk openly about the shared fact of closing time. It will probably be like George Mobus said in a comment on Trinifar: “Almost all of the models suggest that overshoot of population results in a crash. Hopes for [...]