David Wallace-Wells: The Uninhabitable Earth | On Civil Society | Oct 31, 2019

David Wallace-Wells: The Uninhabitable Earth | On Civil Society | Oct 31, 2019


[pause] Kai Nagata: I will say that the first time
you came on my radar, and probably many folks in this room, was after the article in 2017. Very briefly, what made you think the world
needed another depressing long-form article about climate change? David Wallace-Wells: Well, I guess the short
answer is that I didn’t feel that there had been all that many of them certainly not enough
to clearly state the scale and speed and severity of the crisis. I’m somebody who came to this issue quite… I’m 37 but quite late in my relatively short
life. I’d lived my whole adult life, my whole childhood
in New York City feeling that that was a place that protected me against the forces of nature
and while I understood in theory that climate change was a problem I also thought that it
was something that was happening elsewhere. DW: And that ultimately it was a challenge
for sort of ecosystems, other species. It was a challenge for our politics, but not
an existential one. And I had that impression I think, because
that was the main tone of most climate journalism, that I consumed. And I was consuming that as an engaged reader
of the news without a special interest in climate, but reading the New York Times, reading
the Washington Post, watching the television news I heard about climate change, mostly
as a manageable compartmentalize-able threat and was often presented with sort of parables
of dying polar bears and Arctic ice melt. And as someone who was frankly sort of a human
chauvinist who cared primarily about the fate of humans, I wanted us to stabilize the planet’s
climate. But I also didn’t understand just how threatened
my life and the lives of everyone that I knew… DW: How threatened we all were by this change. That is something I had started to sort of
see in new research that I was reading in 2016. As a magazine journalist, I just have this
special interest in the near future and so I’m always looking at stuff that’s coming
out of the academy. I was seeing a lot more about climate and
then what I was seeing was much more concerning than the sort of baseline understanding I
had been given, or felt I had been given. And even more than the sort of bad news, it
felt to me, in a sort of profound way, an untold epic story, I did respond to it as
a storyteller, as much as a human, as a humanitarian, as a political actor, in the sense that when
I started putting together all of these new bits of research, which added up to a really
total portrait of a global threat defining the whole theater of human existence as one
shaped by climate crisis, I started to see that saga in quite dramatic epic terms that
this was the greatest story of all time. DW: That it put a special burden on each of
us as not just observers, and witnesses to this story, but as protagonists. And I didn’t feel that any of the climate
storytelling that I was reading was quite up to the task of that saga. It was always very measured, very earnest,
very careful. And when I started to take in what I understood
to be the full scale of the crisis, I thought it was much more cinematic, much more grand
and much more demanding than most climate storytelling had been. Now, I think that’s actually changed a fair
amount over the last couple of years, I think that there is much more urgency in the storytelling
that we’re doing, about climate. But a couple of years ago, I felt very much
out on my own. DW: I could connect to people who had particular
views, of just how bad things could get, spoke to a lot of scientists who felt the same way
even if they were uncomfortable saying so in public. But still, I think really up until last October
I would say, when the UN published this big report on the difference between 1.5 degrees
of warming and two degrees of warming, I think basically the public had not yet woken up
to just how fast things were going bad, just how all-encompassing that the threat would
be and just how bad it would get if we didn’t change course quite dramatically. As I say, that’s beginning to change, but
I still think we as a species as the United States, Canada, countries like ours, cultures
like ours, have not yet really reckoned with just how dramatic this crisis is just how
significantly it demands us… It demands we act. How immediately it demands we act. DW: Even, we were talking about this a little
bit back stage, but even those of us who count ourselves woke on climate, engaged on climate,
live most of our lives in denial and delusion, about just how totally transformed our lives
will be too in the decades ahead. And I think we need to change that if we have
any hope of addressing this crisis at the scale that it demands. KN: Well, clearly you tapped into something
and the article rocketed around the world. Was there a moment when you realized, “Oh,
shit, I’m the climate guy now. [laughter] This is my beat.” DW: Well, on some level, I still don’t entirely
feel that way. I still think of myself as a general interest
journalist who has some sort of broad sociological reflective impulses. And there’s part of me that thinks, “Okay,
I’ve tackled this. Now, move on.” On the other hand, I know also from having
spent now a few years doing this work, that this story is just way too big to leave behind. Way too important to move on from. And even if it’s a sort of an uncomfortable
fit for me, as someone who does not come from an activist background, does not come from
an environmentalist background, I think that this is too big a challenge for us to let
our own temperament get in the way of engagement. I think if only those of us who are temperamentally
suited to political activism on climate become activists, we’re not gonna have nearly the
political quorum that we need to produce the kind of change that we need. I think we need a movement that really embraces
all types of people with all types of inclinations, all types of backgrounds, all types of perspectives
and that’s why I’m trying to sort of lean into it and take the role that I found myself
in. DW: But it’s not entirely natural to me. I mentioned earlier, I’ve lived my whole life
in New York City. I don’t think of the natural world as being
my home. I think of the concrete city as being my home. I think of modern life. I think of the neo-liberal, post-Cold War
America as the place that I grew up, which had very simple answers to a lot of these
very complicated questions. And even if I knew at the time as a teenager
that those answers were simplistic, they still formed the sort of environment in which I
was raised. And it’s still a little strange for me to… I think it’s strange for all of us coming
to terms with how totally the world has changed and fallen apart over the last decade. But I think climate is a sort of a… Places a special demand on us because we must
rethink very fundamentally every assumption that we were raised to believe in as members
of at least my generation if we have a hope of getting a handle on this. We simply can’t continue as we’ve been behaving
as a nation, as a hemisphere, as a civilization. All of those paths lead towards something
like suicide. I’m not somebody… There are people on the environmental left
who think that climate change is gonna mark the end of human civilization, bring about
true human extinction. DW: I don’t think that that’s likely on any
time scale that it makes sense for us to think about, but we’re already imposing such enormous
amounts of suffering on people all around the world. Many of whom we choose to ignore, their suffering
we choose to ignore. But we’re beginning to see over the last few
years suffering much closer to home. And I think that’s one reason why there has
been a great awakening on this over the last year. It’s a kind of an indictment of our moral
imaginations that it takes us seeing the Kardashians fleeing from a forest fire, from a wildfire
to really wake up to the climate crisis, when people in South Asia, in the Middle East have
been, in sub-Saharan Africa, have been suffering from climate change for decades now. But there we are. And on some level, I have to say, I’m glad
that the West is waking up to this crisis now, even though we’d probably all be better
off if we had started taking action three decades ago, when scientists first started
raising alarm. KN: You talk in the book and in the article
about how a large proportion of climate change storytelling and communications was focused
on sea level rise. This kind of plodding event many decades into
the future that you argue allowed or bred a kind of complacency. That just changed yesterday. There’s a brand new model that came out. Do you wanna talk a little bit about sea level
rise and what we know now that we didn’t know 48 hours ago? DW: Well, like everything else, when it comes
to climate, the news just gets worse. What’s interesting about this particular new
model, is that it’s not even a new estimate for how much sea level rise is likely to happen. It’s actually a revised estimate of how low
many of the lands in vulnerable parts of the world are. So even without revising upward our estimate
for how much sea level rise we’re likely to see by 2050 which is the time period that
the study looked at, nevertheless the author has concluded that three times as many people,
a total of about 300 million, are likely to be at risk from basically permanent inundation. Again, as soon as 2050. KN: So the problem was that the satellites
were reading the tops of buildings and tops of trees, and averaging that out as the land
elevation in these densely populated river deltas and coastal cities. DW: Yeah, so in Mumbai, Basra, the whole other
parts of the world, much of Vietnam, likely to be much more inundated than we had expected. And the truly terrifying thing about this,
is that the natural time scale to think about sea level rise is really tens of thousands
of years. It takes that long for arctic ice to truly
melt. Certainly, thousands of years, probably tens
of thousands of years. The fact that we’re seeing in the models already
such dramatic sea level rise just 30 years from now. KN: Yeah. DW: That’s not the end point of melt. That’s the very, very, very fractional beginning
of the likely sea level rise that we’re going to see. It’s estimated that just north of two degrees
which is likely where we’ll be somewhere between 2040 and 2050 by even conservative estimates,
we will lock in the permanent loss of all the planets ice sheets. At which point, inevitably, we will have 250
or 260 feet of sea level rise, 80 meters of sea level rise, maybe 85 meters of sea level
rise which is enough to drown two thirds of the world’s major cities, maybe 80% of the
worlds major cities. Now, that is going to take place, like I said,
over centuries, which means we will have time to adapt. But how many of those cities will we really
be able to move? Moving a city is a really complicated endeavour
although in Indonesia, they’re gonna be doing that by moving the capital away from Jakarta
in part because of sea level rise and part because the city is just sinking and that’s,
I think, one clear case study about the limitations of adaptation. DW: We often think… I often think, okay, these things are really
bad, but we will find some ways to live amidst their impacts, with their suffering, adjust
how we’re living. That’s undeniably true, that will happen,
but the moving of 80% of the world’s major cities is not a minor undertaking. And that is one of the impacts that we have
the most time to adjust to. Some of these others are practically speaking
immediate. Many of the biggest cities in South Asia and
the Middle East, are expected to be so hot in summer again, just by 2050 that you won’t
be able to walk around outside on a lot of days in the summer without risking heat stroke
and death. These are cities that today, hold 10 or 12
or 15 million people and as soon as 2050 you won’t be able to really live in them which
is one reason why again, just by 2050 the UN thinks that we could have at least 200
million and maybe one billion climate refugees. One billion is the number of people that live
today in North and South America combined. DW: I think those numbers are high, but you
take the lower number, you divide it in half, you get a number of refugees 100 times the
size of the Syrian refugee crisis that totally changed European politics and that’s another
thing that I worry about. An enormous amount is not just the direct
climate impacts, it’s the way that these things… Cory hinted this in his introduction, you
hinted this in your remarks earlier. The way that these changes do transform every
aspect of the way that we live together and make it harder to sustain the sort of humane
commitments that we want to make to one another or at least I want us to make to one another
and make it much easier for us to turn our backs on those who are most in need. DW: If we imagine… If we take a look at what’s happened in Europe,
because of one million Syrian refugees, or in the US because of climate driven migration
from Central America and then you multiply those impacts 100 fold it’s a recipe for some
really dark politics. Totally independent of the direct climate
impacts we’re probably gonna be… Even in a relatively rosy climate scenario
we’re probably gonna be punishing each other as much as the climate is punishing us directly. KN: It’s already happening. DW: Totally. KN: So let’s come back to that in a minute. The time horizon that we’re talking about
2050 you said you’re 37, so, I’m 33. We will both be younger than many of the people
in this room are today when these things come to pass And I think that one of the things
that’s most arresting about this book is the way that it brings that time horizon so much
closer to our present day. Sticking with the oceans for a minute, you
described many very colorful ways to die in this book, one of the most kind of total is
the hydrogen sulphide scenario. Can you tell us about hydrogen sulphide? DW: It’s a toxic chemical. It’s why you can smell flatulence is because
your nose has been trained by evolution to really, really know what this smells like
so you can get away from it. That’s how bad it is. And it is the end result of processes that
are already actually underway in lots of parts of the world’s oceans, which are becoming
less oxygenated and less supportive of ocean life. Now we’re in most parts of the ocean pretty
early on in that story but already in parts of the world there are large areas of what
are called dead zones. There’s been one recurring in the Gulf of
Mexico, there’ve been others in the Black Sea and elsewhere around the world in which… In part because of carbon uptake which happens
when water absorbs the carbon that we’ve put into the atmosphere. And just as a quick aside, I heard the other
day that if the land had absorbed all of the carbon… If the land had absorbed all the heat that
the ocean had taken up that we currently have 93 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming. DW: So the ocean is absorbing the lion’s share
of the damage that we’re doing to the planet. One of those results is that the ocean is
becoming more acidic, less oxygenated and over time in particular areas at the moment
it’s often, also in part due to pollution, the run off of fertilizer chemicals which
accelerate this can produce areas that are basically toxic to marine life and allow no
new life to form and no existing life to thrive. And that is concerning in many, many ways. These are some parts of the ocean that have
sustained local communities, food supplies for centuries but it’s also the case that
the ocean supplies a huge chunk of the world’s oxygen. And if we can’t produce the phytoplankton
they’re called, the really small creatures that produce that, then we’re gonna be in
some really big trouble. Now, most people who study the oceans don’t
think that climate change is anywhere near a global tipping point for oxygen creation. They don’t think that we’re… DW: On any time horizon that it makes sense
to think about, at risk of suffocating. But at a much more local level, we are already
seeing ecosystems, marine ecosystems all around the world collapsing as a result of this process. And that’s really true not just in the oceans,
it’s true of almost every ecosystem you can look at around the world. We may not yet be at the point where humans
are walking around dropping dead left and right because of climate change, but many
other species on the planet are. KN: Yeah. DW: And we are dependent on all of those species. So the more die-off that we see, the more
vulnerable we will be ourselves. This is one of the, for me personally, great
revelations that I’ve had in thinking about this stuff and it sounds so naive, but I really
did used to think that humans in the 21st century lived outside of nature. And the more I know about climate change,
it’s very clear. We are entirely dependent on the system, it
encloses us, it provides the air we breathe, it provides the food we eat. It sounds so kindergarten level. But I do think the way that most of us live
our lives is on the presumption that we are protected from a mass extinction, the mass
extinction that we’re living through and we’re not. KN: Well, if you’re ever on the West Coast,
I’m happy to take you fishing while we still have time. So, in the face of this information, there’s
a few different responses and you talk to a few different folks in the book. One of the most colorful is this guy Guy McPherson
who lives on a farm in Belize. But there’s a number of people who take this
information in and accept it, and they take it in some really weird directions. What did you come across or what surprised
you as you talked to folks who basically accepted the inevitability of climate annihilation? DW: Well, I thought about those people as
basically representing our collective future response. And I think that’s really important in the
sense that advocates and even storytellers often imagine that history will evolve along
a single trajectory. It’s the temptation to do that on any particular
issue, is especially acute. So we think either we’re gonna beat climate
change or it’s gonna defeat us. We think this way about a lot of things, healthcare,
education, either we’re gonna go in one direction or we’re gonna go in the other direction. On a planet as diverse and complicated as
this one, full of people who are as diverse and complicated as people are, the much more
common response is for many different people to have many different kinds of responses
to any particular crisis. And at the moment, I think it’s still the
case that most of the world is not really living as though the climate crisis is real
and present. But once they do, it’s not like a light switch
is gonna go off and we’re all gonna move in one direction. DW: We’re probably going to move in many,
many different directions at once. And there almost certainly will be people
who adopt a kind of humane, humanitarian, almost philanthropic posture and wanna do
everything we can to alleviate the suffering of those who are suffering most. But there will also be those who are most
focused on their own lives and protecting their loved ones. A lot of… A question I get a lot when I’m signing books
or something is “Where should I move?” And it’s funny, ’cause on some level, it’s
a logical response to an understanding that the world is in crisis. On the other hand, it’s not a very, it’s not
morally honorable response. And yet, I understand it too. And we’re seeing… Already we’re seeing politics globally retreating
from international commitments, retreating from the liberal global order, retreating
from cooperative frameworks and institutions and more and more countries of the world embracing
a narrowly nationalistic view of their own self-interest. DW: And I’m not sure that it’s fair to say
that Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro are products of climate change but I do think that if the
world continues to warm, I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if we saw more people like them,
who responded to a growing intuition of resource scarcity and more a sense of zero sum competition
with an understanding of political leadership that really primarily emphasized the role
of securing the well-being of those people who lived within a particular leader’s borders. Even if that meant really aggressively building
walls, turning our back on people living elsewhere. That’s happening at the national level. I think it’s happening at the sort of international
level where three years into the signing of the Paris Accords, no major industrial nation
in the world is on track to meet its commitments. Only Morocco and Gambia are even compatible
with the Paris goals. And you see examples left and right of even
those international leaders who are understood to be climate conscious nevertheless behaving
often in ways that reflect a much more cold calculation of national self-interest. DW: So for instance, Justin Trudeau has given
a lot of lip service to climate concerns, has approved new oil pipelines. We saw Emmanuel Macron attacking Jair Bolsonaro
over the fires in the Amazon a couple months ago. Macron famously failed to pass gas tax last
year and is doing a bit of grand-standing, I think, in part to play out non-climate issues
in a climate… In the theater of climate politics. I think we’re likely to see that unfold a
lot more in the next decade where climate becomes a central feature of international
competition and great power rivalry without necessarily moving us closer to actual solutions
and collective action, which is I think really what we need. And on the individual level, there are people
like you and me, who are quite aware of this threat but still flying. DW: More importantly, I think… Because I think that individual action like
air travel and diet are relatively insignificant contributors. More importantly, there are a lot of people
like you and me who are really scared about climate change and yet haven’t totally re-oriented
our politics around climate, which is to say I’m watching the American Democratic primary
unfold. And I see one candidate in the primary, who’s
all in on climate, Jay Inslee. And I’m thankful that he was in that race. I spoke to him a couple of times did actually
a couple events with him and stuff. But I probably wasn’t gonna vote for him because
I, myself, hadn’t yet totally re-oriented my politics around this issue, even though
it’s what I say all the time when people ask me, “What should I do?” I say, “You should reorient your politics
around this issue. That’s how important it is.” And then there are people who are much at
the individual level, taking much uglier lessons from it and deciding that no collective action
or cooperative engagement is worth it. KN: Yeah. DW: Because the world’s burning, anyway. And people who are so nihilistic and see the
only positive outcome as a sort of eco-fascist future that they arm themselves and commit
massacres to try and inspire a sort of right-wing uprising in the name of climate crisis. And we saw that in Christ Church in New Zealand. We saw that in Texas a few months ago in the
US. Both of those shooters I think are… Their climate politics, I don’t think, explained
the full scope of their action. But again, if I’m not gonna be surprised to
see more Donald Trumps and Jair Bolsonaros on a world stage. I’m also not gonna be surprised to see more
climate terrorists of the right. I’m also probably not gonna be surprised to
see climate terrorists on the left because ultimately, as much as it pains me to say
as someone who is a kind of establishmentarian liberal at heart, I know that the crisis we’re
facing is bigger and more urgent than our present-tense politics can accommodate. DW: And that means that in order to address
it, we need to change our politics. Now, I don’t wanna change it in the direction
of the Christ Church shooter, obviously. I also don’t want to see a flourishing of
left-wing environmental terrorism. I wanna see a re-orientation of our existing
politics animated by liberal values addressing this crisis. But as I say, not everybody is gonna respond
to this issue in the same way. We’re not gonna have the same political impulses. We’re not gonna have the same personal concerns. We’re not gonna have the same storytelling
impulses. We’re not gonna respond to the same kinds
of rhetoric. It’s way too big and complicated and overwhelming
a saga to expect that the world will respond in any one way or move in only one direction. KN: We’re gonna get to questions from the
audience in a minute. But I guess to close, I would ask, since you
wrote the book, since you submitted the manuscript, are there developments, are there things that
have happened that have given you some glimmer of hope? DW: Yeah, this is… It’s something I’ve thought a lot about because
I turned this book in… We sort of rushed it to press. So I turned it in last September. And at that point, I had concluded the book
with a sort of halfway upbeat note, which said basically, “The scale of the crisis that
we’re facing, the incredible terror that is possible is also a reflection of our power
over the climate, that these scenarios are only gonna come to pass if we make them come
to pass. Our hands are on those levers. We can drive that story how we want it. And that we have a path forward through politics
to take action.” In fact, that’s what politics is for whatever
or however our neo-liberal culture taught us to think that we make our mark on the world
politically through what we buy and what we consume. Really what politics is for is for us to build
a system of collective priority that will allow us to address a crisis like this. I finished the book on that sort of half-hopeful
note which I sort of half believed. I knew it was true, logically true. But I also looked back on the past generation
of climate activism, scientific warnings, protests, and saw basically no progress. KN: Until the IPCC authors read your book. DW: Yeah. [chuckle] But it’s really eye-opening when
you think about… We’ve known about the greenhouse effect for
a century and a half, a little bit more. We’ve really known about what that would mean
for at least 30 years since the mid-80s. More emissions have been produced in the last
30 years than in the entire history of humanity that came before. So that’s since Al Gore published his first
book on warming, it’s since the UN established its IPCC climate change body, signalling to
the world unmistakably that this was a huge crisis which means that we’ve done more damage
knowingly than we ever managed in ignorance. And that is really scary when we think about
where we’re headed, that knowledge is not itself sufficient. And I think the lay person believes that as
the world is waking up, we’re probably moving too slowly, but moving in the right direction. In fact last year we set a new global record
for emissions. We’re probably gonna set a new record this
year, among other reasons, because more people are using air-conditioning to deal with extreme
heat, which we’ve ushered into being because of climate change. DW: So, I looked back on the past 30 years,
and I said, “People have been raising the alarm for 30 years, and we’ve only moved in
the wrong direction.” And so, I didn’t have that much hope in political
progress. But a year later, things look really, really
different. I mean, last September, yeah, we hadn’t seen
that UN report, which has been, I think, a total game changer. We had never heard of Greta Thunberg, nobody
outside of Sweden had. Extinction Rebellion had not formed in the
UK. Now, they’ve forced a conservative Parliament
to declare a climate emergency and commit to going zero carbon by 2050, which is for
me, way too slow, but still way more ambitious than anything that had been floated by a country
like that before. And then the aftermath of that commitment,
in the aftermath of that commitment, Norway, and Finland, and Denmark all made even more
ambitious commitments. A year ago, Sunrise had not announced itself
in the US. We had not even elected AOC to Congress, let
alone been debating the Green New Deal in any serious way. And we’ve now been walking through a Democratic
primary in which every candidate is trying to compete with the next one to be more ambitious
on this issue. DW: Now, a lot of this transformation is at
the moment just at the level of pledges. And I think we have to be cautious in assessing
those, because basically when it comes to climate, no pledge has ever been fulfilled. But the fact that the pledges are so much
more ambitious, I think is really meaningful. And when you combine it with the incredible
protest action that we’ve seen out in the streets and the movement in public opinion
polls, which in the US that’s the example I know best, but 10% more people now are concerned
about climate change than were concerned about it just a year ago. That’s incredible progress by any political
science metric. I think that we now have an opportunity to
do much more than seemed responsible to consider even a year ago. And even more than what seems possible, I
think this new political progress is exciting in that it opens up a whole new category of
things that are probably gonna be really, really hard to achieve, but a year ago would
have seemed totally impossible. DW: And if we keep moving and keep applying
political pressure and keep growing concern, those things will move more and more into
the realm of mainstream possibility over time, which is frankly what we need, because even
the incredibly rapid political movement that we’ve seen over the last year is woefully
inadequate, given the scale of the challenge that we face. The UN says to avoid catastrophic warming,
we need to cut our emissions in half globally by 2030 basically. And they say that in order to achieve that,
we would need a global World War II scale mobilization beginning this year, 2019. Now World War II, every man of fighting age
was drafted into the army. Every woman of working age was drafted into
the workforce. Factories were nationalized. Whole industries were nationalized and re-purposed
in the time scale of six months or a year. DW: That is what the UN says is necessary
to avert a level of warming that scientists call catastrophic and island nations of the
world call genocide. So we need a lot more than Greta Thunberg,
and Extinction Rebellion, and AOC, and the Green New Deal to have a hope of securing
a future that everyone in this room would consider relatively comfortable. Thankfully, we still have a chance at that,
but it will require a completely profound reorientation of our politics and probably
our culture and our economy as well. Now, I think that we can do that and still
secure some of the expectations of prosperity and growth that we’ve been raised on, but
there will be some meaningful adjustments that have to take place as well. And at the moment, I think the most important
thing is for us to all just understand the world is going to be transformed dramatically
whatever we do. So, the choice before us is: Do we wanna do
what we can to secure changes that bring us towards a healthier, more stable, more just,
more equitable, more prosperous future or do we wanna sort of sit idly by as the changes
come without our consent? [chuckle] And make it impossible to dream
of a future with economic growth with the whole planet inhabited, defined by, say, a
doubling of war, a halving of agricultural yields, a refugee crisis of the scale that
we can’t possibly comprehend today. DW: We have to make changes one way or the
other. The question is: Do we wanna make changes
that will comport with our values or that will just buckle us and turn us into the worst
examples of ourselves today? And I think that’s why climate change is… It’s really hard to project where we’re headed. Science can tell us a lot about what will
happen if we don’t do anything. But ultimately, it’s a human question: What
are we gonna do? How are we gonna respond? Are we gonna rapidly de-carbonize? Are we gonna deploy huge amounts of negative
emissions? Are we going to build in social justice values
to our response so that the people, the poorest people in the world, the people suffering
most in the global south, are prioritized or are we going to turn away and pretend as
though this crisis isn’t already upon us? And honestly, I don’t know the answer to that
question, which is probably the scariest part.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *