E-news update January 30 2006 In this issue: POLICY 1.1. Conflict ...


E-news update January 30 2006 In this issue: POLICY 1.1. Conflict ...

E-news update January 30 2006

In this issue:


1.1. Conflict between two sides blurs global warnings

1.2. Energy takes centre stage in EU growth plan

1.3. EU energy savings drive gains momentum


2.1. Sea energy to power Britain

2.2. Negative Impacts of Carbon Sequestration Strategies

2.3. Italy to Present Energy Crisis Paper to G7, Ecofin

2.4. Sweden: We will break dependence on oil by 2020

2.5. China Sends Smoke Signals on Kyoto Protocol


3.1. 2005 Was Warmest Year on Record - NASA


4.1. Market-based instruments for environmental policy in Europe


1.1. Conflict between two sides blurs global warnings

25 January 2006, Financial Times

Two inter-governmental meetings took place within weeks of each other in late 2005 and early 2006,

both with the same intention - to tackle the increasing problem of global climate change - but each

proposing a very different solution. Which of these approaches dominates could be crucial for the 21st

century? The first meeting, in Montreal in November/December last year, was the first round of talks

on the Kyoto protocol on climate change since the United Nations-brokered accord finally came into

force on February 16 2005, more than seven years after it had been negotiated. At the core of the

Kyoto protocol is the principle that developed countries should be required to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions relative to 1990 levels by 2012. Developing countries were given no emissions reduction

targets in the first phase of the treaty's operation, but would be assisted to reduce their emissions by

investment governed by a "clean development mechanism". This works by allowing rich countries to

finance the development of low-carbon technology projects, which reduce the output of emissions, in

poorer countries, and to count the resulting emission reductions against their own Kyoto targets.

About Euros 10bn is expected to flow from rich to poor companies by 2012 under this mechanism.

The second meeting was the first conference of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development

and Climate Change, which took place in Sydney in January. This was the first meeting of the six

countries involved since the announcement of the partnership in July 2005. Those countries - the US,

Australia, China, Japan, India and South Korea - together account for close to half of the world's total

greenhouse gas emissions. This was a very different affair to the Montreal meeting. The Asia-Pacific

partnership eschews targets and timetables for emissions reduction in favour of sharing technology

between participants. Government ministers at the meeting said the private sector would provide the

main engine of investment in "clean" technology – products and techniques, such as wind turbines

and new methods of burning coal more efficiently, that cut greenhouse gas emissions. The contrast in

the two meetings shows a fundamental divergence in approaches to climate change. On the one

hand, proponents of the Kyoto treaty - chiefly the European Union - say that only binding targets and

timetables can deliver the emissions reductions necessary to avert catastrophic climate change. On

the other hand is an approach championed by the US government, the main plank of which is a belief

that new technology will be developed and implemented in the future that will reduce greenhouse

gases. Supporters of this approach say that government regulation to enforce emissions reduction will

not be necessary, and would in fact be harmful, as it would hamper economic growth. US officials

have been careful to avoid suggesting directly that the Asia-Pacific partnership was formed as an

alternative to the Kyoto protocol. Paula Dobriansky, US under-secretary of state for global affairs, told

the Financial Times: "We see this as a complement, not a replacement, for the Kyoto protocol."

However, the US and Australia, prime movers behind the Asia-Pacific partnership, are the only

developed countries to have rejected the Kyoto protocol. The Australian government has been much

more willing to position the partnership as a way of sidelining the Kyoto protocol. Ian Macfarlane,

Australia's industry minister, told Australian radio during the Sydney conference: "The reality is new

technology will deliver three times the savings in greenhouse gas (that) the Kyoto protocol will

(because of) things like geosequestration, solar energy, better utilisation of the newer technologies

that are going to see more efficient electricity production and more efficient electricity consumption."

The divergence between these approaches is not a simple question of one side espousing technology

and the other regulation. Supporters of the Kyoto protocol happily agree that technology is essential

to providing ways to lower emissions. However, they argue that targets and timetables for emissions

reduction are essential to ensure that the technology is implemented. In many cases, using lowercarbon

technology imposes a cost on business. Fitting carbon reduction equipment to a conventional

coal plant, for instance, can cost millions of pounds. For this reason, runs the argument, only

regulation to reduce carbon emissions provides the spur necessary to ensure the technology is

developed and widely installed. Dirk Forrister, managing director of Natsource, a carbon asset

management and brokerage business, and a former adviser to US President Bill Clinton, said: "This

(clean technology) does not just fly off the shelf by itself. You need government to help to create a

market for it in the first place." But at the Sydney meeting, Samuel Bodman, the US Energy Secretary,

robustly rebuffed charges that the private sector had shown little interest in "clean" technology, and

was unlikely to show more unless compelled to by regulation. He told the conference: "I believe that

the people who run the private sector, who run these companies, they do have children, they do have

grandchildren, they do live and breathe in the world." Those who favour regulation also tend to have

more of a sense of urgency than the anti-Kyoto camp. Carbon dioxide, once in the atmosphere, can

stay there for a century. During that time it helps to heat the earth by trapping infrared radiation. At

present, the gas makes up more than 375 parts per million of the atmosphere, up from 280 in preindustrial

times. Scientists are concerned that if that level rises to more than 500 parts per million or

so, the earth could face runaway climate change and irreversible damage. As we are emitting more of

the gas every year, and as it accumulates steadily in the air, we are in a race against time to cut

emissions. Therefore, Kyoto supporters argue, we cannot afford to wait for the market to supply

solutions unaided by regulation. If they are right, then the question of which approach to climate

change dominates will be one of life or death for the planet. The onus appears to be on the

supporters of a non-regulatory solution to prove that the private sector is rising to the challenge.

Fiona Harvey is the FT's Environment Correspondent.


1.2. Energy takes centre stage in EU growth plan

26 january 2006, Environment Daily 2025

A common EU energy policy reconciling market, security and environmental challenges has emerged

as a central priority in the European commission's latest annual report on the bloc's Lisbon strategy,

issued on Wednesday. The EU executive promised to release a green paper on energy this spring.

Energy is cited by the commission as one of four top priorities for advancing the Lisbon strategy's

aims of more growth and jobs. Alongside more open markets, stronger energy grids and a more

united front in talks with suppliers, it calls for more actions to advance energy efficiency, renewable

energy and "clean energy technologies". EU leaders are being asked to endorse this and other priority

actions at their spring summit in March. In a press release, the commission called specifically for

"more tax and other incentives to promote sustainable energy and boost research". Environmental

group EEB complained that there was no mention of tax and other incentives in the Lisbon progress

report itself. A second of the commission's priorities was "unlocking business potential," essentially

reaffirming the EU's existing better regulation project. All member states should start measuring the

administrative burdens that regulations impose on businesses by the end of 2007, it said. Alongside

this, the commission pledged to launch its own "major exercise" to measure administrative costs

arising from EU rules and then to propose ways of reducing them "where appropriate". It will identify

the share of costs due to EU rules themselves and the share due to how member states have

implemented them. This is the first Lisbon progress report since the strategy was pared back last year

to focus more strongly on its core goals of more growth and jobs (ED 02/02/05). Broad sustainability

considerations are therefore virtually absent from the document, though in an accompanying memo

the commission insists that the goal is not to promote growth at the expense of the environment.


1.3. EU energy savings drive gains momentum

25 January 2006, Environment Daily 2024

The EU's drive to make serious cuts in energy consumption has gained momentum with the launch of

a new energy efficiency initiative by MPs and evidence that public support for actions to improve

energy efficiency is growing. During a two day inter-parliamentary debate on energy efficiency in

Brussels ending on Wednesday MEPs from the European parliament and several national parliaments

launched "energy efficiency watch". They promised to monitor EU and national performance on

energy efficiency and to "make sure that... actions... are well established". Energy efficiency watch

will be coordinated by European renewable energy forum Eufores. Its launch backers called on EU

governments to make energy efficiency a central issue in talks about security of supply. "Negajoules",

or energy not consumed, is now the EU's biggest energy "source", they said. The meeting comes in

the run-up to a wide-ranging EU action plan on energy efficiency due from the European commission

on March. It will contain concrete proposals to save 20% of EU energy consumption by 2020, as put

forward by the commission last June (ED 22/06/05). EU energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs

welcomed the energy watch initiative. Europe has many energy options, he said at the parliamentary

meeting, but energy efficiency "is a must". Europe must "get serious about the energy transition [it is]

facing, Mr Piebalgs said. "We can either prepare for it sensibly today or risk being faced with a major

crisis to our energy system for lack of sufficient preparation". The commissioner dropped a hint that

the commission will propose extending the EU buildings energy performance directive to smaller

buildings, while stressing that all options "are open". He insisted, however, that public authorities

must lead by example. Mr Piebalgs expressed concern at the significant number of member states

that are late transposing the buildings energy directive (ED 05/01/06). He stressed that half the

proposed 20% cut in energy consumption could be achieved simply by fully implementing existing

legislation. Also on Tuesday, the European commission released results of the latest official EU survey

of public attitudes towards energy. The poll reveals a rise in interest in energy efficiency. For example

26% - up two percentage points from 2002 - saw more efficient use of energy as a means of

improving Europe's economic performance. On other aspects, the survey confirms strong public

support for renewable energy and for government research into energy, and lesser support for

nuclear power. The commission picked out as a key finding the fact that 47% of citizens support

"European-level decisions" on energy.



2.1. Sea energy to power Britain

29 January 2006, The Observer

By Juliette Jowit: Waves and tides could generate 20 per cent of electricity and replace nuclear fuel,

report says. Surrounded by some of the world's roughest seas, Britain could generate a fifth of its

electricity by harnessing the power of tides and waves. The potential of marine energy is revealed in a

report by the government's energy advisers. Wave and tidal power could replace the electricity that is

currently produced by UK nuclear power stations, they state, and could prevent the need for Britain to

rely on increased Russian gas imports. Harnessing the sea, particularly around Cornwall and the north

of Scotland, with machines that capture the movement of tides and waves, has long been a dream of

scientists. In recent years the quest for clean, renewable power to replace polluting fossil fuels has

taken on a new urgency as the world battles to reduce carbon emissions from coal, oil and gas which

are the biggest cause of climate change. Until now, marine power generators have been limited to a

couple of small prototypes, considered too futuristic to take seriously as the answer to the planet's

energy problems. The study by the Carbon Trust, which advises the government on clean energy,

challenges that. It predicts tidal and wave power generators could be supplying a significant amount

of power to the electricity grid by the end of this decade. Its report follows a £3m, 18-month research

project into how marine energy generators could work, part of £50m of support programmes

promised by government. The report, which is being studied by ministers, says that the opportunities

for machines which use the power of waves to produce electricity are 'considerable'. Based on the

number of sites with reliable tides and waves and close enough to connect to the mainland, such

equipment could be supplying a fifth of the country's current electricity needs over following decades.

Given Britain's long coastline, close to the strong currents of the Atlantic, marine power would also

help to solve another of the government's key priorities - reducing reliance on imported energy

sources, said John Callaghan, one of the trust's programme engineers. 'The UK leads the world in

marine renewables technology,' he said. 'Given our superb natural resources and long-standing

experience in off-shore oil and gas, ship-building and power generation, the UK is in a prime position

to accelerate commercial progress in the marine energy sector.' The report was welcomed by

environmentalists: 'Solutions to climate change and the threat and expense of nuclear power exist; we

just need the political will to implement them,' said a spokesman for Greenpeace. However the Carbon

Trust also highlights problems. The new technology will need investment by the government and

private companies and there is no reliable forecast for when it will be available on the large scale, said

Callaghan. There are concerns that power generators at sea would be expensive to connect to the

electricity grid, could not always provide power when it was needed, and may pose problems for sea

life. Dr Jon Gibbins of Imperial College, London, questioned how much marine power could meet

Britain's aim of tackling climate change because that would require global agreement to reduce

carbon. Many countries did not have suitable sites and could not afford the new technology, he said.

'That doesn't mean we can't try it [marine power] and won't do it,' he added. 'But if you want to rely

on marine technologies to displace fossil fuel use you're being very optimistic.' The World Wildlife

Fund said it was against tidal barrages (which are not covered by the trust's report) that create huge

physical barriers to marine life in sensitive estuaries, but it supported the harnessing of tidal and wave

power as long as sites were chosen carefully. Callaghan said the trust had identified 'tens, possibly

hundreds' of suitable sites for wave power, principally off south-west England and north-west

Scotland, and a dozen sites for tidal power turbines, half of them in the Pentland Firth between the

Scottish mainland and the Orkneys.


2.2. Negative Impacts of Carbon Sequestration Strategies

Most experts agree that the current warming trend is mainly due to the rapid increase in atmospheric

CO2 from anthropogenic sources. In order to reduce and/or mitigate the potential adverse effects of

increasing temperature on ecosystems and human well-being, a variety of strategies are needed to

reduce CO2 emissions and remove carbon from the atmosphere. One way to manage carbon is to use

energy more efficiently and to reduce fossil fuel combustion. Another way is to increase the use of

environmentally friendly fuels and technologies. The third and the most recent way implies the so

called biological carbon sequestration. One of the most prominent tools for biological carbon

sequestration is the plantation of trees, known to store carbon from CO2 during the photosynthesis

process. Although the plantations provide a tool to manage the Earth’s carbon cycle, the existent

sequestration strategies do not seem to account for their full environmental consequences. A group of

international scientists have explored the trade-offs and benefits of carbon sequestration by existing

tree plantations worldwide. After combining field research, synthesis of more than 600 observations

and climate and economic modelling, the results of the study show that afforestation of grasslands,

shrublands, and croplands for carbon sequestration may indeed cause several environmental problems

that could outweigh the benefits. In particular, the global analysis has shown that trees of all ages

have larger water demands than crops or pastures. Consequently, the existing plantations dramatically

decrease stream flow causing reductions of 38% in water supply with losses increasing as the trees

aged and 13% of streams drying up completely for at least one year. The study also shows that

plantations not only have greater water demands, but they typically have higher nutrient demands as

well. These demands may change soil chemistry in ways that affect its fertility and sustainability

leading to soil salinisation and acidification in some cases. However, these general trends in water use

and soil chemistry must be adjusted to include local factors, viz. site history, soil texture, and the

availability and quality of the groundwater. The study cited cases where conversion of croplands to

forest might improve water quality through the reduction of nutrient, pesticide, and erosion runoff

from crop production. Reforestation of floodplains could also be beneficial for maintaining biodiversity,

reducing erosion, and controlling groundwater discharge. Based on their findings, the authors argue

that the evaluation of the benefits and trade-offs of tree plantations will be crucial for the

development and implementation of sustainable sequestration policies worldwide. They suggest that

one way to do this is by comparing the value of other ecosystem services gained or lost with those of

carbon sequestration. Source: Jackson R.B et al (2005) “Trading Water for Carbon with Biological

Carbon Sequestration”, Science 310(23):1944-1947. Contact: jackson@duke.edu.


2.3. Italy to Present Energy Crisis Paper to G7, Ecofin

25 January 2006, Reuters

Italy is preparing a document on the current energy crisis to present to the G7 group of industrialised

nations and European Union finance ministers (Ecofin), Economy Minister Giulio Tremonti said on

Tuesday. European countries who are customers of Russian gas giant Gazprom, including Italy, are

seeing shortfalls in supplies exacerbated by a wave of extremely cold weather across the continent.

"The idea of our document is that we have problems on a European scale which can only have

European solutions," Tremonti told a press conference in Brussels. "Our objective is to present the

document we are preparing to the G7," he said. "It will be a document of research and analysis...It is

fundamental that the next G7 deal with energy." The world's leading industrial nations will meet in

Moscow next month as the G8. It was not clear if Tremonti referred to this meeting. Tremonti added

Russia and Italy could also hold talks in the next few days on the current gas supply problems. "It's

possible that we could have a bilateral meeting in the next few days with Russia's economy ministry,"

he said. Current shortfalls have prompted a national debate in Italy on the country's dependence on

imported gas, mainly from Russia. Tremonti said Europe had "no alternative" to nuclear power,

banned in Italy since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union. The unexpected boost

from Russia for nuclear energy comes as its credentials as a power producer that doesn't pump out

greenhouse gases has already forced it back onto the agenda in Europe, despite opposition from

environmental groups. "As economy minister, and not as the government, I am convinced that

nuclear energy is one of the key solutions," he told reporters. "I am convinced we do not have

alternatives to nuclear energy". Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, some politicians and scientists have in

the past called for nuclear power to be revived, but analysts and industry experts say Italians would

be unlikely to agree to reverse the 1987 referendum. Story by Francesca Landini.


2.4. Sweden: We will break dependence on oil by 2020

19 Janaury 2006, Edie

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=10987&channel=0: Snips from this article: The

Swedish Minister for Sustainable Development, Mona Sahlin, has announced plans to break the

country's dependence on oil by 2020. She said that Sweden had the chance to be an international

model in being the first government to break the dependency on fossil fuels. She claimed that,

through a series of carrots and sticks, the country would boost its renewables sector and reach a state

of energy self-sufficiency enhancing both an environmental and economic advantage. "A Sweden free

of fossil fuels would give us enormous advantages, not least by reducing the impact from fluctuations

in oil prices. The aim is to break dependence on fossil fuels by 2020. By then no home will need oil for

heating. By then no motorist will be obliged to use petrol as the sole option available. By then, there

will always be better alternatives to oil."


2.5. China Sends Smoke Signals on Kyoto Protocol

20 January 2006, IPS

Antoaneta Bezlova: As global concern about climate change and rising carbon dioxide emissions

grows, China -- the developing world's biggest polluter, is sending confusing signals about its

willingness to clean up energy production and tackle environmental pollution. China, which accounts

for 12 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, was among some 141 countries that had ratified

the UN Kyoto Protocol on global warming when it took effect in February last year. The move enabled

Beijing to paint itself as a defender of the environment while condemning the United States, which

has withdrawn from the treaty, as "irresponsible". Since February last year though, China has also

joined an alternative forum to the Kyoto Protocol -- the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development

and Climate. The forum, nicknamed the "Coal Pact", groups the world's six leading greenhouse-gas

(GHG) emitting nations - U.S., Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea. Rather than committing

countries to firm targets for cutting GHG emissions like the Kyoto Protocol, the "coal pact" aims to

promote technologies that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in coal and allow it to burn cleanlier.

Environmentalists have lambasted the forum as an attempt to divert attention from the refusal of the

U.S. and Australian governments to sign the Kyoto Protocol. China however, has signed both pacts - a

stance of ambiguity, reflecting its conflicting interests of meeting its fast-growing economy's voracious

energy demands and placating worldwide concern about global warming. Last week, it also attended

the first conference of the Asia-Pacific Partnership, presided over by Australian Prime Minister John

Howard in Sydney. Officially, Beijing has manifested polite but restrained support for the new climate

change coalition. The Sydney meeting got little attention in the state-run media, compared to the

Montreal meeting in December when Kyoto signatories negotiated the extension and strengthening of

the 1997 U.N. landmark agreement. "Although the Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and

climate is a good step on the long road to fighting global warming, it provides no concrete and

effective measures on cutting greenhouse emissions as yet," says Zhang Jianyu, researcher with the

Beijing Tsinghua University. Yet, despite throwing its weight behind the Kyoto treaty, Beijing sees few

short-term solutions to satisfying growing energy demand beyond bringing new coal-fired power pants

on line. China is planning 562 new coal-fired power stations -- nearly half the world total of plants

expected to come online in the years up to 2012, when the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends.

Such is the scope of the power plant expansion that China's increases in GHG emissions in coming

years may well dwarf the 5 percent cuts in emissions required under Kyoto during the period 2008-

2012. For a start, emissions of carbon dioxide from China are increasing faster than from any other

country in the world. In 1990, China accounted for some 10.5 percent of world carbon dioxide

emissions. That figure rose to 12.7 percent in 2001 and is now second only to the U.S., whose 25

percent share China is likely to match within a few decades. China is the world's biggest coal

producer, and oil consumption has doubled during the past two decades of rapid industrialisation. This

is one of the reasons why Beijing sees the "coal pact" as a useful forum for acquiring technologies

that enable the capture and storage of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. During the Jan.

11-12 Sydney meeting, Australian Electric Power President Michael Morris claimed that if all countries

adopted clean fossil fuel-burning technology advocated by the delegates of the Asia-Pacific Clean

Development and Climate Partnership, then emissions would be reduced by three times the level

envisaged under the Kyoto Protocol. Yet, by signing and ratifying the U.N. Kyoto Protocol, China

stands to gain more than just accolades for its symbolic lead in the fight against global warming. The

international mechanisms under the Kyoto treaty could give China much of the environmental

investment it needs for free. Since it is a developing nation, China would be exempted from reducing

its own carbon dioxide output under the protocol. Under the terms of the treaty, only industrialised

nations, which are mainly responsible for the present high levels of gases in the atmosphere, must

reduce their emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But as the developing

world's biggest polluter, China stands to benefit substantially from the treaty because it provides for a

clean defence mechanism (CDM) that allows polluters in one country to earn credits by reducing GHG

emissions in another. While the CDM market is still relatively small, it has more than doubled since

2001. The United Nations CDM Executive Board has already approved some 25 CDM projects from

China. Already, Chinese energy officials estimate that CDM projects would have brought an increase of

250 million US dollars in foreign investment in 2005. That figure is expected to double in 2010,

according to the China Environment News. "In 2006, we will submit between 200 and 300 CDM

projects for approval," Lu Xuedu, a senior official with the ministry of science and technology was

quoted as saying by the newspaper. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has forecast an even

more optimistic potential for CDM trades in China. The IEA expects China to account for 40 percent of

an annual market of 250 million tonnes of carbon dioxide traded in 2010. That would translate to

environmental projects in China worth more than one billion US dollars a year. (END/2006)



3.1. 2005 Was Warmest Year on Record - NASA

25 January 2006

Last year was the warmest recorded on Earth's surface, and it was unusually hot in the Arctic, US

space agency NASA said on Tuesday. All five of the hottest years since modern record-keeping began

in the 1890s occurred within the last decade, according to analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for

Space Studies. In descending order, the years with the highest global average annual temperatures

were 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004, NASA said in a statement. "It's fair to say that it probably is

the warmest since we have modern meteorological records," said Drew Shindell of the NASA institute

in New York City. "Using indirect measurements that go back farther, I think it's even fair to say that

it's the warmest in the last several thousand years." Some researchers had expected 1998 would be

the hottest year on record, notably because a strong El Nino -- a warm-water pattern in the eastern

Pacific -- boosted global temperatures. But Shindell said last year was slightly warmer than 1998, even

without any extraordinary weather pattern. Temperatures in the Arctic were unusually warm in 2005,

NASA said. "That very anomalously warm year (1998) has become the norm," Shindell said in a

telephone interview. "The rate of warming has been so rapid that this temperature that we only got

when we had a real strong El Nino now has become something that we've gotten without any unusual

worldwide weather disturbance." Over the past 30 years, Earth has warmed by 1.08 degrees F (0.6

degrees C), NASA said. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 1.44 degrees F (0.8 degrees C).

Shindell, in line with the view held by most scientists, attributed the rise to emissions of greenhouse

gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and ozone, with the burning of fossil fuels being the primary

source. The 21st century could see global temperature increases of 6 to 10 degrees F (3 to 5 degrees

C), Shindell said. "That will really bring us up to the warmest temperatures the world has experienced

probably in the last million years," he said. To understand whether the Earth is cooling or warming,

scientists use data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature

since 1982, and data from ships for earlier years. More information and images are available online at:




4.1. Market-based instruments for environmental policy in Europe

Technical report No 8, published at: http://reports.eea.eu.int/technical_report_2005_8. Abstract: This

report presents an assessment of the main and most recent developments in the use of market-based

instruments in European environmental policy. The report covers a range of instruments which are

used as tools to achieve environmental objectives. These instruments include: environmental taxes,

charges and deposit-refund systems, environmental tax reform, emissions trading schemes, subsidies,

and liability and compensation requirements. The report finds a steadily growing application of

market-based instruments across Europe. It also identifies the need for cost-effective policy measures

in order to make authorities more aware of the advantages of implementing MBIs. The report "Using

the market for cost-effective environmental policy" is a shorter version of this report.



More magazines by this user
Similar magazines