The blizzard of the world

Paul Kingsnorth, 4 February 2010

Subjects:

The exhaustion of the planet and existing ways of life presents a creative challenge: exploring “uncivilisation”. Paul Kingsnorth introduces the Dark Mountain Project.

I often wonder how we would act if we really believed it. How we would act and how we would write.

Every day, we are hit with more news about the human impact on the non-human world. For decades, the evidence has been piling up. If you want to know about deforestation, species extinction, ocean acidification, overfishing or (the granddaddy of them all) climate change, you doubtless know where to look by now. And if you don’t want to look – because you don’t want to hear it – then nobody can make you.

We know these things are happening, and we know why. We know that a rapidly growing human population with rapidly growing appetites is strip-mining the world. We know that industrial capitalism, which eats the world and calls it development, is a weapon of planetary mass destruction.

We know, most of all, that this cannot last. We know we are running out of cheap oil, and that cheap oil in any case is storing up a future of chaos for us. We know that we are likely to see future wars over water, that we will have trouble feeding ourselves.

So why does nothing change? We are constantly claiming some sense of fierce urgency about the future, but we are all of us, even those who claim to be trying to stop all of this happening, mostly still driving, tweeting, flying, using the dishwasher, chomping down the sushi and saving for our pensions as if nothing were really happening. We claim to know the facts, but we don’t really take them in; we don’t internalise them. Comfortable, as all readers of this will doubtless be, none of it seems real to us. “Facts”, wrote Joseph Conrad, in Lord Jim, “as if facts could prove anything.”

True, there is a whole body of people dedicated to solving these problems: the environmentalists. I have counted myself amongst their number for fifteen years. But environmentalism, broadly speaking, is failing. It has become an adjunct to the consumer economy: the catalytic converter on the silver SUV of global capitalism. Environmentalists, at least those in the “mainstream”, seem to have realised that the problems they face in trying to divert our civilisation from its ecocidal course are too deep-seated to overcome. Failing, untrusted democracies, their managerial political parties unable to agree on any significant change of direction; overweening corporate power tying their hands; hungry, demanding consumers who will not vote for anyone who denies them their fix; a political class unable or unwilling to free themselves from the cult of growth.

Environmentalism, faced with all of this, has retreated into a search for techno-fixes. If (it tells us) we can just get the supergrids, the turbines, the carbon-capture systems, the nuclear-power stations (delete as applicable) up and running fast enough, we can keep the ship on course. The failure of Copenhagen is only the latest example of how untenable this last-ditch line is. In any case, keeping the ship on course is precious little use if it is headed for an iceberg.

Looking out

It took me a long while to admit to myself the conclusion I now draw from all this: that the civilisation we currently take for granted is coming to a stuttering end, that we are unequipped to prevent it, and that it is probably too late to prevent the worst of what climate change, peak oil and ecological destruction will throw at us. I suspect that the great challenge of the 21st century will not be building a great, “sustainable” civilisation to lead us to the stars, but coming to terms with decline, materially and existentially, as the fossil-fuelled bubble bursts and leaves us adjusting to a harsher reality.

When I did finally accept the logic of this, I had to ask myself a question: what would I do if I really believed it? How would I live? And, pertinent to me in particular, how would I write? “Writer”, along with “environmentalist” have long been the twin strands of my professional identity. Now both seemed inadequate to the task.

A society experiencing a genuine emergency, as we often claim to be, would see that reflected in its cultural output. What we have instead is a fin-de-siècle culture. We subsist on a tedious diet of novels about inner-city kidz or country-house angst; poetry that examines the poets’ inner life in arrhythmic stanzas; visual art playing games with empty cynicism, its creators swanning about like catwalk-models complaining about their tax-brackets. It’s as if nothing were ever going to change; as if nothing were changing already.

While pondering all this, I came into contact with someone who had been pondering much the same thing. Dougald Hine, like me a former journalist but also a social entrepreneur and all-round ideas man, got in touch and we started to kick ideas around. What would a cultural response to our times look like, we asked ourselves, if it didn’t assume that the future would be an upgraded version of the present?

The result was the Dark Mountain Project, an ambitious and possibly foolhardy attempt to bring together a cultural movement of people who shared this vision of the future. We believe that the obstacles we face as a civilisation are not purely physical, political or economic, but cultural; obstacles of the imagination. We believe that the stories we tell ourselves as a society are part of the reason for our rush towards a brick wall: stories about the ineffable march of progress, of our isolation from “nature”, of our uniqueness as a species, of the ability of our machines to save us from the consequences of our hubris.

It seemed obvious what we had to do next: write a manifesto. We wanted to set out the stall for what we had decided to call “Uncivilisation”: a process of unpicking the narratives of our culture and examining the threads they were woven from. What, we asked, would writing look like if it took the future seriously? It would be writing which:

“sets out to paint a picture of homo sapiens which a being from another world or, better, a being from our own – a blue whale, an albatross, a mountain hare – might recognise as something approaching a truth. [which] sets out to tug our attention away from ourselves and turn it outwards; to uncentre our minds … writing, in short, which puts civilisation – and us – into perspective. Writing that comes not, as most writing still does, from the self-absorbed and self-congratulatory metropolitan centres of civilisation but from somewhere on its wilder fringes …”

We took the name of our initiative from a line in a poem by the almost forgotten American poet Robinson Jeffers, who warned half a century ago of humanity’s suicidal course (“these grand and fatal movements towards death”), and who saw a Shakespearean inevitability in the fate our species had apparently chosen for itself:

“I would burn my right hand in a slow fire
To change the future … I should do foolishly. The beauty of modern
Man is not in the persons but in the
Disastrous rhythm, the heavy and mobile masses, the dance of the
Dream-led masses down the dark mountain.”

We wondered if anyone out there shared our views. We printed our manifesto, put a website up and waited to see.

At the edge

We sold our first print run of 300 manifestos in a few months. Soon we were being contacted by people from all over the world, and in such numbers that we found it hard to reply. We started to work up interest amongst the media, old and new. We popped up on blogs and discussion sites from Bermuda to Russia, on radio programmes in the USA. Newspapers picked us up too – the Independent and the Scotsman in the UK and others in Australia and Canada. John Gray even gave our humble, self-published manifesto the lead book-review slot in the New Statesman – though he also managed to seriously misread the project, oddly interpreting it as a call for apocalyptic primitivists to build a green paradise on the ruins of the old world.

Building on this, we will soon publish the first issue of the Dark Mountain journal, a collection of “Uncivilised writing” from all over the world. Some of its contributors are already among the best in their fields – names such as poets Melanie Challenger, Glyn Hughes and Mario Petrucci and essayists Jay Griffiths, Alastair McIntosh and John Michael Greer. Others are entirely new to us. Together they explore, uniquely I think, the imaginative challenges of our coming world. A fundraising campaign is currently underway to help us get the journal off the ground. In May, we will launch it at the first Dark Mountain Festival, a two-day collision of speakers, workshops, art, music, cinema and practical events moving “Uncivilisation” from theory into practice.

Where this will lead is anyone’s guess. But we have obviously touched upon something unspoken but fairly widely felt: a need for honest and novel cultural approaches to the human predicament. We believe that many of society’s certainties will crumble over the coming decades. But we also believe that the end of the world as we know it is not the end of the world full stop. A precipice opens up before us: we need to stop looking away, and instead look down. What we see may be surprising.

This article is published by Paul Kingsnorth, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.

Comments

Kynaston

4 February 2010 - 6:07pm

If you are rich enough, you can pretend to live off the land, especially if you sell books about self-sufficiency - and we all have ideas about how we could live. This society will see to it that - if not too threatening - our books and pamphlets are reviewed and discussed. Ultimately, though, everything depends upon the working class, whose work produces value. Only it can actually CHANGE the system we dislike, becaue it is the only group of people the exploiters MUST keep on side. If I am wrong, tell me why, please.

Zen9

9 February 2010 - 11:42pm

everything depends upon the working class

Who do you define as working class?

Paul Kingsnorth

4 February 2010 - 6:24pm

Kynaston-

Ultimately, though, everything depends upon the working class, whose work produces value. Only it can actually CHANGE the system we dislike, becaue it is the only group of people the exploiters MUST keep on side. If I am wrong, tell me why, please.

Or: if you are right, tell us how, please? Bearing in mind it's 2010 and not 1848.

Kynaston

5 February 2010 - 11:13am

Same way, obviously, as in 1848. What's new about exploitation - or Utopianism come to that?

Paul Kingsnorth

6 February 2010 - 4:32pm

So ... that's write a manifesto, create a massive global movement of workers, rise up in revolution, see that revolution quickly descend into mass bloodshed and then watch the totalitarians take over for half a century.

Don't you think that if it had worked last time you might not be here having this discussion? And don't you read your own comments? You just explained to me how 'they' will crush any such thing if it gets dangerous.

Hobbes

4 February 2010 - 7:33pm

I haven't read the manifesto, but what's offered here sounds a bit like the literary arm of the Transition movement, resonating with J.H. Kunstler's World Made By Hand. There's always been a healthy primitivist wing to the environmentalist movement in the US, from the permaculturist and back-to-the-landers all the way to the survivalist fringe. The fault-lines often open up around what we " truly believe" or whether we're "serious" or not in our expectations of disaster. Being a cynical urban dweller myself, I can't shake off my irony-tinged glasses.

For better or worse, DM apparently doesn't abjure the Internet or social media, so perhaps it shares more with the fin-de-siecle culture than Kingsnorth suggests? Does DM see itself as an aesthetic, a life-style choice, or as part of a broader social movement? Different commitments, different allies.

BTW, I'm shocked--shocked, I tell you--to hear Robinson Jeffers described as "almost forgotten."

Hobbes

4 February 2010 - 7:34pm

BTW, I'm shocked--shocked, I tell you--to hear Robinson Jeffers described as "almost forgotten."

Paul Kingsnorth

4 February 2010 - 9:18pm

Hobbes - have a read of manifesto and blog, if you feel like it, and you will get a better feel for where we're coming from. Not primitivism at all, more an imaginative response to likely changes. Disaster? Maybe. Disasters - certainly.

We hope we might be part of a broader cultural movement in time. We rather hope, in our fond imaginings, that we might spark one off.

As for Jeffers - I'd say 'almost forgotten' is a pretty good description, alas. Wouldn't you? There will be a very good feature in the first journal, by the way, about his exile and his prophecies. I think we're very much living in the world he foresaw.

Jim Robertson

5 February 2010 - 10:26am

Be the solution you want to see. That's what I admire about the climate campers.

Zen9

6 February 2010 - 12:13am

We cannot go back, even to try is tantamount to genocide. There is no returning to the Stone Age, or some pre-Industrial society without a cost of catastrophic proportions. Likely equal to any 'failure of the system' but with the added horror of being done by people devoutly concerned for a 'sustainable world'.

Which is worse, random failure or human intervention?

One is standing by a cliff waiting for a rockfall to kill you the other is someone shooting you.

If one believes we cannot now prevent such a collapse, then the question cannot be about how to turn back the clock. Even if it was successful humanity would soon forget why and return to its attempts to improve its existance. One would also suggest this is the logical outcome of any collapse even without it being precipitated by those concerned over such enviromentalism.

Which leaves only two options.

1. Change humanity, render through our science a dumb animal instead of the questioning creature we are. Which is the end of our sentience, and leaves the field free for some other creature to rise. If its like us (highly likely considering the enviroment) then all this does is once again put back the inevitable and hand the decisions over to something non-human.

The above is also applicable if we just self terminate the human race as a whole. Those who care about the enviroment presumably care regardless of whether humanity is doing the harm of some other sentient species, or is it just species specific?

2. Leave. Learn to live without a planet. In the end, this is the only long term plan for human survival.

LS.Saw

6 February 2010 - 5:38pm

The two options are very interesting:

1.Humanity changed me. If the species who harm the environment was not the one, was that the monkey ? or the tiger from the forest had the nuclear power plant? and want to drive a Lotus sport car in exchange with their river?

2. The planet is learning to live without "people", if that is as what you think for the long term...

all the best, well you did a very good job. at least, you are reacted, that means; YOU CARE about Your Earth.

Good luck.

Anonymous

6 February 2010 - 5:17am

"There is no returning to the Stone Age, or some pre-Industrial society without a cost of catastrophic proportions."

But is there a going forward to the Stone Age; an advancement into a sustainable lower tech existence? At this time I do believe that it will indeed entail catastrophic costs, but there just might be a method to go forward sensibly and live lightly on the planet.

LS.Saw

6 February 2010 - 5:11pm

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Do you rather be living on Pluto or in the cave (on Earth),if you have only two choices ?

May be i am inferior, but not superior to the stone age specie...the animals never had any civilization to increase their population and continue to live, and living in a sustainable, economical wise...the cats family are empirically more success, and populated just simply because they do not know how to use a calculator or driving a car...

For me, today’s cave living is better than tomorrow’s home on Pluto, it is not that i am against science, technology, but it has harms more than economic...

Provided, if cave living are not against the civilize, why are people against it ?it is a matter of choice, of cause it could starts at any point, from person to person contact, or through computers to start, than where there are enough supporters of 'caves' program, the computer may can leave behind...

The science exists in caves day, but it does not mean have to be use, or develop. Science is there, either you discovered or not, it does not care. In fact, if say that the laws to govern nature are science, but science is not suitable to be used to control the nature, not to transform the nature resources turning it into human's properties. The science belongs to nature, not to be use. Otherwise, the nature wants it back in their own way. Remeber, non, in historical time until today 'modern, civilized day'. Non-single person or groups of superior NASA, Mensa intelligent has succefully, with thier own power, through wars to control over the nature.

There are many intelligent scientists who knew science in ancient time, as they has knew how the life are in other galaxies. Nevertheless,they chosen not to develop science, or civilization.Well,of cause they were prosecuted, while few of these people alive to write the stories, so you would have the rights to chose your life. It is not guarantee in caves living is comfortable, unless you think that you own the entire nature, and welling to live with it, therefore , you do not disturb your own roof, which is big as the entire atmosphere.

LS.Saw

6 February 2010 - 5:19pm

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

<!--[if gte mso 10]>

Do you rather be living on Pluto or in the cave (on Earth),if you have only two choices ?

For me, today’s cave living is better than tomorrow’s home on Pluto, it is not that i am against science, technology, but it has harms more than economic...

The science exists in caves day, but it does not mean have to be use, or develop. Science is there, either you discovered or not, it does not care. In fact, if say that the laws to govern nature are science, but science is not suitable to be used by human to control the nature, not to transform the nature resources turning it into human's properties. The science belongs to nature, not to be discover or use by human ( Science may be could be know, but have to be lesser and lesser to it). Otherwise, the nature wants it back in their own way. Remeber, non, in historical time until today 'modern, civilized day'. Non-single person or groups of superior NASA, Mensa intelligent has succefully, with thier own power, through wars to control over the nature.

Paul Kingsnorth

6 February 2010 - 9:04am

Zen9

That is the funniest thing I've read in weeks. Thanks. Are you building the spaceship? Can we buy shares? Let us all know, won't you?

Zen9

6 February 2010 - 10:47am

Fascenating, you desire to denigrate what your sort have blocked for the last 50 years. Are you that afraid of it?

Tell us how safe it is living on this planet, now that really would be fantasy.

Paul Kingsnorth

6 February 2010 - 2:54pm

'My sort'? Who is 'my sort'? And how have 'we' blocked anything? I wasn't aware of any secret initiative involving spaceships and the colonisation of space which has been kiboshed by dastardly writers. I'd love to know the details though. It would make a great novel.

Zen9

6 February 2010 - 10:43pm

Not so much a conspiracy, (in fact where did I say such?) but rather a state of mind, that has inhibited the sort of effort required.

You want us to focus on a future on this world alone, which seems pretty clear from what you've put forward. While that was 'more of the same', inertia, apathy and ingorance where all in support, with the added benefits of the refinement of our science and expansion of capacity.

Now you want radical change, effectively catastrophic change, huge limitations on capacity, for the 'reward' of a limited existance bound to this world.

A selective focus on the potential dangers results in such a concept gaining ground. The full scale of what endangers us is far wider and potentialy far more devestating. Leaving all our eggs in one basket is risking all on a continual gamble that we won't loose everything.

Paul Kingsnorth

7 February 2010 - 3:58pm

You really haven't read it properly, have you?

Zen9

8 February 2010 - 1:05pm

You believe that our civilisation is headed for collapse, that it cannot change course and even if it did it would be too little too late.

You want people to internalise the many problems we've created, and utterly change their actions in their day to day lives. To live in terror of the 'comming apocalypse', and act to prepare themselves for 'the inevitable'. Sounds very familier really when put in that language don't you think?

You feel that the politicians cannot or will not change to suite what you feel is required. You believe the populace is "hungry, demanding consumers who will not vote for anyone who denies them their fix". In essence you have contempt for the populace and contempt for the politicians.

Again quite a familer ring about this, if one listens to millinarian cults and a number of religions.

Assuming you are correct, you must see the irony here. It is that very progress and use of machines thats permitted you to see the danger. It is the very idea of progress iteself, that things can change and improve that underlies any effort to change civilisations course, enviromentalism is itself a product of this civilisation, with all its biases and prejudices incroporated into the very achitecture of the minds subscribing to it.

But what is your desired state of affairs? The architecture of civilisation as would fit your perception of whats required to survive?

Your sustainable civilisation.

A society that uses less resources, clearly.

But it would seem you rant against progress and the idea of progress, so presumably you want to expunge the very idea from the consciousnesses of the people, all the people.

Something perhaps of the old mentality of harking back to some mythical 'golden age'?

You disparage Capitalism, well it clearly has its flaws as practiced, but what is your alternative?

I could go on, but its clear that what you want is a very limited civilisation, one that does not reach for progress, which implies a stasis or absence of change.

Here we are supposedly facing a collapse of civilisation as we know it, and in this time before the 'end' you want to engineer this new civilisation with what remains of our resources and power.

Or have I missread you?

Paul Kingsnorth

6 February 2010 - 9:08am

More seriously, I'm always interested in how quickly these discussions deteriorate into silly fluff about 'going back' and the 'stone age' and 'hair shirts' and 'golden ages.' It's really a waste of everyone's time to talk like this.

One of the reasons we started the DM project was that we identified a big gap in our cultural imagination when we think about the future. It seems very easy to imagine a Star Trek-tyle future of spaceships and medical perfection, and equally easy to imagine apocalypse, catastrophe and a return to 'Stone Age' living. The future seems much more likely to me to be somewhere in-between these two extreme poles. What will it look like? We'd like to try and think that through rather than having fruitless 'debates' about caves versus spaceships.

Kynaston

6 February 2010 - 1:39pm

The point, Paul, is not that 'you can't go back' for some sort of existential or philosophical reason, but that they won't let you go back, and will stop you at once if you begin to have any serious effect on the world from which they make their profit. They control the politics, the media and the armies, and they grow rich by exploiting other people and the world. Do you think they care about the world otherwise? They'll have bolt-holes prepared, and if that spaceship takes off, you won't be in it, nor will I. Just because they don't wear top hats and frock coats and don't use religion to control the mugs nowadays doesn't mean we are somehow living in a free world, you know: they have more efficient means. If you are into fashion, fine - but the serious problem still remains, surely? They will let you do what you like as long as you are not a cost to them AND ineffective. If you start getting anywhere, however, look out.

Antonio Dias

6 February 2010 - 2:56pm

It's precisely the "jumping to conclusions" exhibited in many of these comments that scream out the need for this kind of project. Such a gap in the "thinkable" as we have today drives people to embrace the most absurd notions, from GDP and the Military Industrial complex buying us time until the Space Ships are ready on the one side to Mad Max and the Zombie Killers living in caves and keeping warm in front of fires hearthed in old television sets on the other.

The first step in "Taking where we are seriously" is to let it sink in that we have no control over what's coming, and cannot predict how any of it will play out. In that kind of scenario, we need people who have minds open to the reality in front of them, not believers in some particular "outcome." The combination of resilience and robustness this requires can only come by getting in the habit of re-imagining. This is very hard to do. It requires that we drop our dearest assumptions. At the same time it requires patience and humility in the face of what will become a growing sense of desperation.

Using the tools available is just sensible, even if their use would contravene some ideological purity. We've had a few hundred years of that strategy, "How's that worked out for ya?"

There are few people at the point of considering these questions in this way. If we abjure any method of communication and connection now, we will soon be overwhelmed by the distances between us.

It's hard waking the dreamers, they're liable to lash out. Still, it's part of what needs to be done, if nothing else than to find a few more who wake up ready to see.

Zen9

7 February 2010 - 12:14am

In essence, we are gambling every day, and for the periode of recorded history we've been lucky. But there is no guarentee what has happened before will not happen and in all probability it will happen again, but precisely when is either not within our power to fortell or we have not spent the effort to gain that ability.

The real world is a very dangerous place in a very dangerous universe.

The 'dream' is that this is not the case, that we're all somehow favoured and nothing really bad will happen, but that which we might do to ourselves. After all nothing really bad has happened for all of recorded history, so that must be the future surely?

Take a look at the geological record for a glimpse of reality. Bad things have happend, very bad things.

When we were ingorant such dellusions of safety where at least understandable, but nature has no forgiveness.

LS.Saw

7 February 2010 - 10:48am

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4  /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Do you family, friends, relative, co-worker, the one you love, all of them never been injuries by the human invention? Such as never encounter car accident, exposes to radiation and have cancer, eaten ‘mad cow’ meat? These are the example of civilized disease …

Yes, you got it right, since our nature is very dangerous; it has indicated the peaceful way of living with it. However, human’s greed brings us to the edge of double the dangers. The nuclear weapons are the greatest terrorism of all mankind. Humans greedy have to be punishing by their own action. Does not denial the direct harms caused by these nuclear waste developed by human, and blamed to nature?

Mother Nature begat live forms, it would not cause harm, and take away life.

The change of me being eaten by tiger in the forest is where lesser than I die of car accidents while I on the street…this is the harm caused by civilization…

What is civilization? The cow you see in the farm are nature, but the ring on cow’s ear used as identification is unnatural ( it is civilize). A human with out ear ring or not having ear piercing is natural, having ear piercing is unnatural.

The birds has never farm, and never made clothing, they are still survive, and populated.

It is only when human’s intervention to nature, example: using wind mill kills the bird.

The root problem is: reduce the greed, than we will be find peace and happiness.

Do you rather listen to car engine , electrical equipment noises rather than listen to birds singing? This is very clear cut, and example of how sciences intervene, and harm the nature.

Do you rather choose the wind mill that save you 2000 dollars or do you rather have the birds singing ? This is the choices that make the ecology different in small scale and big scale…

Have you watch the movie “Avatar”? it is the time of human consciousness clear about how civilize cause harm to ourselves.

It is empirical that CO emission caused weather changes, as the same case that exposes to great degree of atomic radiation cause cancer and resultant dead in minutes.

Do you rather being pay millions to lives close to nuclear power plant or you rather not to drive a car?

These are all the great harm in terms of civilization. Other civilized diseases: anorexia, skin cancer in children (due to ozone layer depletion, using makeup at too young ages) impulsive shopper, all kind of chemical pollution caused cancer, food poisoning, caused harm than the time where there were not ‘civilize’ …

All the skin cancer and their reason were proven civilize disease: In the country where children are not using cell phone, their brain tumor case were almost zero, in comparison to Taiwanese children( the world most largest children group using cell phone), whose are 30 % child brain cancers caused by the cell phone. It is the same finding in EU, where second largest children using cell phone did affected with brain cancer. Are we going to blame this to nature’s dangerous? It is not nature who causes the harm; it is the civilization we want that caused the harm…

You are correct in the sense of natural would not cause harm , as human are normal to live for another millions years if we chooses lesser civilization ( not to let our children use the cell phone)

We are not gambling, it is your choice of civilize, if you chose not to live in nuclear plant, you more likely to lives. On the other hand, if you chose to live in nuclear plant, you …

The CO emission caused weather changed was empirically proven as the nuclear power caused harm. Basically, it is matter of choices …

LS.Saw

7 February 2010 - 10:51am