I grew up on the coast of the Great Barrier Reef in North Queensland and I can say that the current state of the reef is almost unrecognisable to what it was 20-odd years ago.
While a large part of this damage has been caused by rising sea temperatures, another large component is due to the run-off from agriculture, refineries and mining. The latter being a directly contributed by the local population.
The region is currently in a economic recession and many of the mines and refineries have either slowed or ceased operation. Anecdotally, the sentiment of the population affected by (un)employment by these industries are either unaware or ignorant towards the damage that the industries are having on this sensitive ecosystem. Instead they are consumed by how they are going to make ends meet.
In this environment, it is unthinkable to allow Adani expand their Carmichael mine to further exacerbate the situation. Add to this, that a former Adani board member is appointed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the expansion. Adani is the biggest direct threat to Australia, both environmentally and economically and they are in talks with the government to be provided with a $1 billion tax-payer funded railway line. Adani and the Carmichael mine expansion are rifled with corruption.
The issue of the reef and climate-change in general is a fairly untouched issue in Australian politics. I'm not sure that we are going to get anywhere without foreign intervention.
If you are interested, I do urge you to read some material on Adani and the Carmichael coal mine expansion and perhaps donate to a "StopAdani" cause.
> The issue of the reef and climate-change in general is a fairly untouched issue in Australian politics. I'm not sure that we are going to get anywhere without foreign intervention.
I'm surprised by you saying this.
I was in australia last year and saw TV news a couple of times. And multiple times climate change was mentioned as one of the election issues. Of course mentioning the issue doesn't mean it's being taken seriously or that politicians will do something about it. But I felt this seems to be at least a topic that is talked about.
Just to give you some contrast: Hillary Clinton completely stopped talking about Climate Change at all once Bernie Sanders was out of her way [1]. In Germany, there was a statistics about the topics of TV talk shows recently, which was picked up by a number of media outlets, because it had an overwhelming bias towards having the refugee crisis as the major topic. Talk shows about climate change? Zero.
I grew up in Cairns & think that's a big part of why I'm so fascinated with marine life. I can happily spend a day watching almost any fish tank. My girlfriend has to drag me out of aquariums every time. It completely crushes me to think my (future) kids might not ever know what it was like.
I thoroughly urge anyone in the world with the means to do so, to visit and experience it.
The QLD government is doing some good work on water quality - particularly engaging with farmers, reducing pesticide and fertiliser runoffs, and reducing erosion. But it's all underfunded and therefore not coordinated or widespread enough.
The federal government has ignored these issues for decades while we've been burning coal for power and digging it up and exporting it to the biggest polluters.
>> “Scientists had written off that entire northern section as a complete white-out,’’ Mr Eade said. “We expected the worst. But it is tremendous condition, most of it is pristine, the rest is in full recovery."
>> “It wasn’t until we got underwater that we could get a true picture of what percentage of reef was bleached,’’ Mr Stephen said. “The discrepancy is phenomenal. It is so wrong. Everywhere we have been we have found healthy reefs."
>> A full survey of the reef released yesterday by the authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed.
>> Dr Reichelt said the vast bulk of bleaching damage was confined to the far northern section off Cape York, which had the best prospect of recovery due to the lack of onshore development and high water quality.
Sorry, you said the reef looks "indistinguishable to what it looked like 20-odd years ago." which implies it looks basically the same, but that seems at odds with the rest of what you're saying. Did you mean something besides "indistinguishable" ("unrecognizable", maybe?)
Many posts here about how sad and disgusted people are. Not much about people taking personal responsibility.
What do people think the carrying capacity of the planet means? Sustaining more humans means sacrificing other life that competes for our resources. It means pollution rising until it doesn't quite kill us but is well above the levels of a pristine, clean environment.
Nobody wants to live near the carrying capacity because approaching it means sacrificing anything that doesn't keep us alive.
Every round trip flight across the country you take contributes almost one year's allotment from the Paris agreement for one person -- https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=71970.... Flying first class and you're well over it. Eating meat contributes a lot too. Having more kids in western cultures contributes significantly.
Who among us, reading this, hasn't gone over their annual limit in just a few hours of flying, not to mention their regular life otherwise? How many have blown past their Paris limits already this year?
Some would say the damage was done by past generations. Okay, well what beautiful part of nature will our behavior destroy years from now? People keep posting to HN that since we can't change that a lot will happen, it doesn't matter any more, we should just enjoy ourselves, but there are different degrees of destruction.
Alternatively, we can fly less, drive less, eat much less meat, and have fewer kids. We don't need to wait for legislation. In fact, it's the fastest way to get legislation, since politicians follow voters.
In my experience, acting on all those things improved my life tremendously (including not flying for a year+ http://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/365-days-without-flying.htm...), more than almost anything else. I'm more fit, enjoy my neighborhood and neighbors, and spend less money and there's nothing special about me.
My employer pays for its software developers to attend one conference per year. While software conferences can be terrific learning experiences, most of us consider this perk to be something similar to a paid vacation. Many people try to find conferences in exciting, far-flung locations.
It seems like the software conference industry is one that could be a leader in creating "virtual tracks" for conferences. This would have the effect of reducing unnecessary airplane trips while also opening conferences up to larger audiences.
>Having more kids in western cultures contributes significantly.
I wonder how much longer before the idea of limiting people's reproduction is on the table.
Someone who never has kids can probably drive a Hummer and spend every weekend jetting off somewhere, and their lifetime carbon footprint will still be many times lower than someone who has several children.
I understand that developed country carbon footprints are vastly higher than developing countries, but there are countries that are developing rapidly yet still have fertility rates of 4 or 5 children per woman. We can be pretty sure that those people aspire to having a western-style carbon footprint (and to be fair, why shouldn't they) either through migrating to a developed country or their own country developing.
When do we start saying that we need to limit the number of people who can exist? I don't see how it could ever be practically possible (outside of a regime like China, and even then it backfired horribly) but it if it could somehow be enforced it would probably be the best (and fairest) thing we could do.
Side note: for those of us who worry about this stuff, it can be hard to comprehend how little the average person cares about it. We have these TV shows in the UK which show people going through the process of buying a holiday home (British people are obsessed with houses/real estate to the point where watching other people buy a house is a recreational activity). The other day there was a family with 4 kids buying a holiday home in Florida. So they're planning to spend the rest of their lives jetting their whole (large) family across the Atlantic a few times a year. As someone who feels kinda guilty every time I fly, it just left me thinking that I'm wasting my mental energy on caring about this stuff when other people care so little.
How will politicians follow voters if voters' own actions cause shrinking economies and fewer jobs? That's not rhetorical. I don't know how it is possible within the current system to back down en-masse in the way you suggest. In addition if one culture does shrink and others simply grow more aggressively then the end result will be same.
What you're talking about is a global consensus to shrink the world population and economy. That isn't something I can personally take hold of. Despite the fact that I do live rather minimally - I don't kid myself that it's changing anything. I just like it that way.
I am often quite sceptical of the "science will save us" approach, but actually it seems more credible than the "change one person at a time" approach.
I'm doing my part, no kids, and I won't be having any. Unfortunately human nature isn't going to change, and we're not going to get out of this one with our civilization intact; we're probably cooked.
There are those of us that also think asking people to 'cut back' voluntarily like this is a fucked solution out of the gate.
I continue to fly across the country for work because refusing only hurts my career and gives me a slight sense of smug superiority. Someone else on standby would just take my seat anyway and my refusal would have had no impact (other than a negligible reduction in revenue for the airline).
Instead I actually do something that might have an impact and I donate to organizations researching alternative energy or just straight up planting trees.
I would rather just have the price of carbon emissions priced into the airline tickets than stupidly trying to shame anyone who travels.
I've never flown on a commercial jet, have no kids, limit my consumption of meat and other products of the corrupt agriculture industry, and I don't own a car because I don't support extortion via insurance and I have a hard time convincing myself it isn't selfish to add more greenhouse gases to the air when I know better, even though "it's just me" and I'm one person.
Don't be so quick to judge the members of your community, maybe consider a less accusing tone, I dunno. But you're pointing your finger at everyone and no one.
Quite frankly I think blaming it on flying is incredibly offensive.
It's got nothing, at all, to do with cars or flying. They're tiny pollutors compared to industry, specifically the dairy industry, transportation by truck and manufacturing things in China.
Sure we could fly less and drive less but that would do fuck all, and certainly having fewer kids isn't going to solve any problems. Having fewer kids in the west actually just means white people having fewer kids in the west, we're well below replacement rate and are being rapidly replaced by people coming from high birthrate countries like India.
The only thing that will actually solve the problem is sustained government intervention in trucking, dairy and industry, worldwide.
Although I've never seen the Great Barrier Reef, I was recently in Belize and snorkeled around its Barrier Reef. It was painfully obvious that the reefs were extensively bleached(though still quite beautiful). It's quite shocking to think that 30 years ago the reefs looked completely different from now and in another 30 years may not even be around. I hope that in the future we won't be reduced to having to point to pictures in a book if people want to witness the beauty of nature but this seems increasingly inevitable. What a shame.
Sadly at the speed this is going they won't last 30 more years. We've already reached their limit point, and when they go the entire eco-system they host are going to die with them.
There are some excellent scientists and programs attempting to improve water quality (particularly catchments that flow into the reef) and the crown of thorns starfish.
Unfortunately these are badly underfunded, not coordinated at a national level as they should be, and do not address the biggest threat - climate change. The reef is doomed unless something is done about CO2 emissions. It's probably already too late.
The loss of the GBR will see a collapse of tourism industries, and entire ecosystems will die off. There are going to be huge impacts in the next 15-20 years to come out of this.
A lot of low lying countries in the pacific will get the triple whammy of increased cyclone activity, rising sea levels and a loss of reefs and the fish populations that they subsist on. There are huge humanitarian disasters ahead.
I saw a bleaching event in Thailand last year, it really is depressing to see. This year, the same sites have seemingly recovered and I'm really happy about that. But seeing the pictures of completely bleached white corals in the article and knowing that's probably the future for a lot of these reefs breaks my heart. Coral reefs are magical places and we're destroying them for future generations, maybe even the current one.
Sadly I can't remember the last time we had any real action to protect the reef, and our current government is all too willing to put businesses above the environment.
Most of the damage is part of climate change in general, so real action to protect the reef involves the world drastically cutting carbon emissions. Meanwhile, we can't even prevent things like this happening right next to the reef:
I don't think the average Australian cares, at least not enough for it to influence the way they act/vote.
Of course if you ask anyone on the street if they are in favor of protecting the reef they'd say yes, but when they see the price tag they would probably lose interest.
I wonder if there is any possibility of restoring the reef after we've gotten carbon in the atmosphere back down to livable levels for it. I'm sure it's basically impossible, but if we're approaching the point of no return maybe we can invest in preserving as much of the reef as we can in aquariums to make an attempt down the road.
See my comments elsewhere in the thread for an example of people/organisations that are involved in some fairly serious activism around these issues. They do exist.
My cousin Sam[0] runs the environmental side of things at GetUp and is putting a lot of time and effort into raising awareness about the reef. They're currently fundraising[1] for a targeted campaign in 12 Liberal electorates with the aim of encouraging MPs to break their silence and listen to their constituents on the issues surrounding Adani and the GBR.
Full disclosure: GetUp is a politically partisan organisation with strong left leanings. But I think the work they're doing around these issues is rooted more in common sense than politics.
Is anyone else involved in any grassroots-level efforts to save the reef? I'd be interested to hear about them.
This is what keeps me up at night. If we don't find an efficient way to extract CO2 and methane from the atmosphere, I fear that mankind might go extinct.
I spent a week or so on Lady Elliot Island more than a decade ago, snorkelling every day. Because it is a protected area, the fauna are unafraid of people. I would dive down into these cavernous bowls of coral and be surrounded by schools of fish, rays, turtles. It was amazing.
I live in Europe now, but I always hoped to take my children there to see it one day. Seems there won't be much to see.
> Coral bleaches when the water it’s in is too warm for too long. The coral polyps gets stressed and spit out the algae that live in inside them. Without the colourful algae, the coral flesh becomes transparent, revealing the stark white skeleton beneath.
Is improving water quality the decided-upon method for preventing (or even reversing) bleaching of coral reefs?
It seems like that ship has sailed, and now more technological advances are required.
Speaking from zero expertise or experience in marine biology, is it not possible to manufacture massive quantities of synthetic coral that somehow corrects for the changing water quality to enable coral life to flourish?
I really wonder if the 'job creation' that goes with the mining and dredging they want to do to the dying reef will counterbalance the estimated 100,000 jobs in the tourism industry that are predicted to disappear once the reef is completely dead and no one wants to visit any more.
Then again, I guess it is not really about the jobs per se, but rather the $$$ kickback in royalties and 'spotters fees' that are paid into political campaign funds for passing the wrong bills through parliament.
[+] [-] crawrey|9 years ago|reply
While a large part of this damage has been caused by rising sea temperatures, another large component is due to the run-off from agriculture, refineries and mining. The latter being a directly contributed by the local population.
The region is currently in a economic recession and many of the mines and refineries have either slowed or ceased operation. Anecdotally, the sentiment of the population affected by (un)employment by these industries are either unaware or ignorant towards the damage that the industries are having on this sensitive ecosystem. Instead they are consumed by how they are going to make ends meet.
In this environment, it is unthinkable to allow Adani expand their Carmichael mine to further exacerbate the situation. Add to this, that a former Adani board member is appointed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the expansion. Adani is the biggest direct threat to Australia, both environmentally and economically and they are in talks with the government to be provided with a $1 billion tax-payer funded railway line. Adani and the Carmichael mine expansion are rifled with corruption.
The issue of the reef and climate-change in general is a fairly untouched issue in Australian politics. I'm not sure that we are going to get anywhere without foreign intervention.
If you are interested, I do urge you to read some material on Adani and the Carmichael coal mine expansion and perhaps donate to a "StopAdani" cause.
Wish us luck.
[+] [-] hannob|9 years ago|reply
I'm surprised by you saying this.
I was in australia last year and saw TV news a couple of times. And multiple times climate change was mentioned as one of the election issues. Of course mentioning the issue doesn't mean it's being taken seriously or that politicians will do something about it. But I felt this seems to be at least a topic that is talked about.
Just to give you some contrast: Hillary Clinton completely stopped talking about Climate Change at all once Bernie Sanders was out of her way [1]. In Germany, there was a statistics about the topics of TV talk shows recently, which was picked up by a number of media outlets, because it had an overwhelming bias towards having the refugee crisis as the major topic. Talk shows about climate change? Zero.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/20/hillary-...
[+] [-] ryankennedyio|9 years ago|reply
I thoroughly urge anyone in the world with the means to do so, to visit and experience it.
[+] [-] jozzas|9 years ago|reply
The federal government has ignored these issues for decades while we've been burning coal for power and digging it up and exporting it to the biggest polluters.
It's disgusting, really.
[+] [-] ericras|9 years ago|reply
>> “Scientists had written off that entire northern section as a complete white-out,’’ Mr Eade said. “We expected the worst. But it is tremendous condition, most of it is pristine, the rest is in full recovery."
>> “It wasn’t until we got underwater that we could get a true picture of what percentage of reef was bleached,’’ Mr Stephen said. “The discrepancy is phenomenal. It is so wrong. Everywhere we have been we have found healthy reefs."
Also: "Great Barrier Reef: scientists ‘exaggerated’ coral bleaching" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/great-barrier-re...
>> A full survey of the reef released yesterday by the authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed.
>> Dr Reichelt said the vast bulk of bleaching damage was confined to the far northern section off Cape York, which had the best prospect of recovery due to the lack of onshore development and high water quality.
[+] [-] Tossrock|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spodek|9 years ago|reply
What do people think the carrying capacity of the planet means? Sustaining more humans means sacrificing other life that competes for our resources. It means pollution rising until it doesn't quite kill us but is well above the levels of a pristine, clean environment.
Nobody wants to live near the carrying capacity because approaching it means sacrificing anything that doesn't keep us alive.
Every round trip flight across the country you take contributes almost one year's allotment from the Paris agreement for one person -- https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=71970.... Flying first class and you're well over it. Eating meat contributes a lot too. Having more kids in western cultures contributes significantly.
Who among us, reading this, hasn't gone over their annual limit in just a few hours of flying, not to mention their regular life otherwise? How many have blown past their Paris limits already this year?
Some would say the damage was done by past generations. Okay, well what beautiful part of nature will our behavior destroy years from now? People keep posting to HN that since we can't change that a lot will happen, it doesn't matter any more, we should just enjoy ourselves, but there are different degrees of destruction.
Alternatively, we can fly less, drive less, eat much less meat, and have fewer kids. We don't need to wait for legislation. In fact, it's the fastest way to get legislation, since politicians follow voters.
In my experience, acting on all those things improved my life tremendously (including not flying for a year+ http://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/365-days-without-flying.htm...), more than almost anything else. I'm more fit, enjoy my neighborhood and neighbors, and spend less money and there's nothing special about me.
[+] [-] boralben|9 years ago|reply
It seems like the software conference industry is one that could be a leader in creating "virtual tracks" for conferences. This would have the effect of reducing unnecessary airplane trips while also opening conferences up to larger audiences.
There is a group within academia that is promoting this approach: https://academicflyingblog.wordpress.com/
Their FAQ has a lot of really solid information, and some of the answers really resonated with me in terms of "Do I really need to physically be at this conference?" FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1URRRh4zMSpvtZY08F9-Rkbx0...
[+] [-] J-dawg|9 years ago|reply
I wonder how much longer before the idea of limiting people's reproduction is on the table.
Someone who never has kids can probably drive a Hummer and spend every weekend jetting off somewhere, and their lifetime carbon footprint will still be many times lower than someone who has several children.
I understand that developed country carbon footprints are vastly higher than developing countries, but there are countries that are developing rapidly yet still have fertility rates of 4 or 5 children per woman. We can be pretty sure that those people aspire to having a western-style carbon footprint (and to be fair, why shouldn't they) either through migrating to a developed country or their own country developing.
When do we start saying that we need to limit the number of people who can exist? I don't see how it could ever be practically possible (outside of a regime like China, and even then it backfired horribly) but it if it could somehow be enforced it would probably be the best (and fairest) thing we could do.
Side note: for those of us who worry about this stuff, it can be hard to comprehend how little the average person cares about it. We have these TV shows in the UK which show people going through the process of buying a holiday home (British people are obsessed with houses/real estate to the point where watching other people buy a house is a recreational activity). The other day there was a family with 4 kids buying a holiday home in Florida. So they're planning to spend the rest of their lives jetting their whole (large) family across the Atlantic a few times a year. As someone who feels kinda guilty every time I fly, it just left me thinking that I'm wasting my mental energy on caring about this stuff when other people care so little.
[+] [-] scandox|9 years ago|reply
What you're talking about is a global consensus to shrink the world population and economy. That isn't something I can personally take hold of. Despite the fact that I do live rather minimally - I don't kid myself that it's changing anything. I just like it that way.
I am often quite sceptical of the "science will save us" approach, but actually it seems more credible than the "change one person at a time" approach.
[+] [-] M_Grey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hueving|9 years ago|reply
I continue to fly across the country for work because refusing only hurts my career and gives me a slight sense of smug superiority. Someone else on standby would just take my seat anyway and my refusal would have had no impact (other than a negligible reduction in revenue for the airline).
Instead I actually do something that might have an impact and I donate to organizations researching alternative energy or just straight up planting trees.
I would rather just have the price of carbon emissions priced into the airline tickets than stupidly trying to shame anyone who travels.
[+] [-] kakarot|9 years ago|reply
Don't be so quick to judge the members of your community, maybe consider a less accusing tone, I dunno. But you're pointing your finger at everyone and no one.
[+] [-] milesrout|9 years ago|reply
It's got nothing, at all, to do with cars or flying. They're tiny pollutors compared to industry, specifically the dairy industry, transportation by truck and manufacturing things in China.
Sure we could fly less and drive less but that would do fuck all, and certainly having fewer kids isn't going to solve any problems. Having fewer kids in the west actually just means white people having fewer kids in the west, we're well below replacement rate and are being rapidly replaced by people coming from high birthrate countries like India.
The only thing that will actually solve the problem is sustained government intervention in trucking, dairy and industry, worldwide.
[+] [-] corey_moncure|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Luminarys|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nolok|9 years ago|reply
And then the greet barrier reef will be a memory.
[+] [-] jozzas|9 years ago|reply
Unfortunately these are badly underfunded, not coordinated at a national level as they should be, and do not address the biggest threat - climate change. The reef is doomed unless something is done about CO2 emissions. It's probably already too late.
The loss of the GBR will see a collapse of tourism industries, and entire ecosystems will die off. There are going to be huge impacts in the next 15-20 years to come out of this.
A lot of low lying countries in the pacific will get the triple whammy of increased cyclone activity, rising sea levels and a loss of reefs and the fish populations that they subsist on. There are huge humanitarian disasters ahead.
[+] [-] ohashi|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dingo_bat|9 years ago|reply
How so? How are they different from any other natural ecosystem?
[+] [-] H4CK3RM4N|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flukus|9 years ago|reply
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/abbot-point-coal-termi...
[+] [-] catmanjan|9 years ago|reply
Of course if you ask anyone on the street if they are in favor of protecting the reef they'd say yes, but when they see the price tag they would probably lose interest.
[+] [-] snuxoll|9 years ago|reply
The whole situation is depressing :(
[+] [-] huckyaus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huckyaus|9 years ago|reply
Full disclosure: GetUp is a politically partisan organisation with strong left leanings. But I think the work they're doing around these issues is rooted more in common sense than politics.
Is anyone else involved in any grassroots-level efforts to save the reef? I'd be interested to hear about them.
[0] https://twitter.com/samregester
[1] https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/great-barrier-reef--3/the...
[+] [-] Red_Tarsius|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orschiro|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psynapse|9 years ago|reply
I spent a week or so on Lady Elliot Island more than a decade ago, snorkelling every day. Because it is a protected area, the fauna are unafraid of people. I would dive down into these cavernous bowls of coral and be surrounded by schools of fish, rays, turtles. It was amazing.
I live in Europe now, but I always hoped to take my children there to see it one day. Seems there won't be much to see.
[+] [-] infradig|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rodionos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zipwitch|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josscrowcroft|9 years ago|reply
It seems like that ship has sailed, and now more technological advances are required.
Speaking from zero expertise or experience in marine biology, is it not possible to manufacture massive quantities of synthetic coral that somehow corrects for the changing water quality to enable coral life to flourish?
[+] [-] tim333|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] good_vibes|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Baeocystin|9 years ago|reply
Identify areas that are become more hospitable, and work on establishing reefs there.
Expand artificial reef building, to help make up for lost area.
Cut carbon emissions, and work on finding ways to sequester what has already been released.
No one thing will be the fix, but they all have a role to play.
[+] [-] flukus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbverschoor|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Diederich|9 years ago|reply
The reason CO2 is going up, at an increasing rate, is largely because the biosphere's ability to absorb CO2 is diminished.
I believe the grim truth is this: the world's transformation would continue for a long time even if humans stopped producing CO2 tomorrow.
Preparations for the inevitable should be our focus.
[+] [-] emmelaich|9 years ago|reply
We can do a LOT better in terms of pollution.
[+] [-] dingo_bat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ozy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Slobbinson|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoodoof|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cyberferret|9 years ago|reply
Then again, I guess it is not really about the jobs per se, but rather the $$$ kickback in royalties and 'spotters fees' that are paid into political campaign funds for passing the wrong bills through parliament.
[+] [-] Oletros|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] castratikron|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fersho311|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]