Natural Resources

Got Environmental Problems? Think Government.

Foreign Policy identifies true environmental catastrophes, but misses the main cause.


The Gulf oil gusher may be capped (for now), but "many of the world's greatest environmental catastrophes continue, with no end in sight," according to Foreign Policy magazine. Foreign Policy lists five such catastrophes: Nigerian oil spills, Chinese coal seam fires, Haitian deforestation, desiccation of the Aral Sea, and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

While Foreign Policy identifies five true catastrophes, it fails to grapple with the main problem behind what is causing them. So what does the Gulf oil catastrophe have in common with the five ongoing disasters? The first question you should ask whenever you see someone behaving badly with respect to the stewardship of the natural environment is: What is the government doing that encourages people to act that way? It may turn out that government policies are not at fault, but history shows that it is usually a good place to start.

In the case of the Deep Horizon oil spill, BP's risky behavior was encouraged by the congressionally mandated $75 million cap on liability on damages to natural resources and economic losses suffered by private parties resulting from offshore drilling spills. In addition, by placing lots of promising onshore domestic petroleum resources off limits to exploration and production, Congress encouraged oil companies to make riskier endeavors offshore. Still it must be said, that as bad at the Gulf spill is, it the first such huge domestic oil spill in 40 years, and the U.S. has the resources to ameliorate its bad economic and ecological effects.

But what about the five big ongoing disasters highlighted by Foreign Policy? Are bad government policies behind them? In a word, yes. The annual Economic Freedom Index put together by The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation combined with the World Bank's Rule of Law Index provide a good shorthand way to illustrate bad policies. Let's briefly consider each of the five catastrophes.

Five decades of Nigerian oil spills are the first ongoing disaster featured by Foreign Policy. On the economic freedom index Nigeria ranks 106 out of 183 countries and is described as mostly unfree. On the rule of law index, the country garners a pitiful 11 out of a possible 100 score. The Nigerian government owns all petroleum resources and works in partnership with Western oil companies to produce it. Since 1966, some 546 million gallons of oil have been spilled—the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez spill every year. Oil accounts for 90 percent of Nigeria's exports and 80 percent of the government's revenues. Naturally, the government is more interested in maximizing revenues than it is in reducing pollution. In fact, the government has been so assiduously draining the Nigerian National Petroleum Company of revenues that the company is reportedly now insolvent. Foreign Policy notes that the number and severity of spills may increase as oil exploration extends into more remote and difficult terrain.

The second big ecological disaster cited by Foreign Policy is the massive coal seam fires in China. China ranks 140th on the economic freedom index (mostly unfree) and scores 45 out of 100 on the rule of law index. Coal seam fires are a vexing problem around the world. Given the right conditions coal seams can spontaneously ignite; however, most occur in abandoned mines. Foreign Policy specifically cites 62 underground coal fires in the province of Inner Mongolia that have been burning since the 1960s. That was when the coal industry was entirely run by the country's communist government. The Chinese constitution explicitly states that "mineral resources are owned by the state." As part of its drive to develop its "socialist market economy," the Chinese government now leases some mineral rights to private companies. China is currently the world's largest producer of coal and the mineral provides 70 percent of the country's energy. The underground fires burn up more than 20 million tons of coal annually, releasing about 2 to 3 percent of the world's greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuels. In June, the Chinese government announced that it was launching a $25 million initiative to quench half the fires in Inner Mongolia by 2012.

The third ecological calamity is deforestation in Haiti. At 141, Haiti ranks just after China on the economic freedom index and the Caribbean country ranks even below Nigeria on the rule of law index, earning a score of 6 out of a possible 100. Haiti is 98 percent deforested which causes vast amounts of erosion and boosts flood damage from frequent hurricanes. Foreign Policy blames charcoal production for most the problem and points to the next door Dominican Republic as a success story because it banned cutting down trees. Haiti's actual problem is the lack of secure property rights. Less than 5 percent of Haiti's land is accounted for in the public land records. On the Property Rights Index Haiti scored the same as Cuba, 10 out of 100 possible points. The Dominican Republic did a bit better at 30 out of 100 points. The importance of property rights for protecting natural resources is illustrated by the fact that in 1900 only 1 percent of Puerto Rico's primary forests still existed and in 1953 its secondary forests covered only 6 percent of the island. Today 32 percent of Puerto Rico is forested. Also note that Haiti averages 781 people per square mile, while Puerto Rico averages 1,135 per square mile.

The shrinking Aral Sea in central Asia is the fourth ecological catastrophe cited by Foreign Policy. Since 1960, the world's fourth largest lake has shrunk by about 70 percent, leaving former port cities and fishing villages high and dry. This disaster is entirely the result of Soviet communist central planning in which the rivers that sustained the Aral Sea were diverted to massive irrigation projects that aimed to create a cotton industry in the deserts of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The freedom index rankings are 82 and 158 for Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, respectively. Uzbekistan scores a miserable 10 points out of 100 on the rule of law index, while Kazakhstan scores 24 points. Interestingly, Kazakhstan has recently engaged in engineering projects that have somewhat restored the Northern Aral Sea.

The last ecological disaster underscored by Foreign Policy is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The currents of the North Pacific Gyre collect a huge amount of plastic waste from East Asia and the west coast of the U.S. and funnel it into an area variously estimated to be the size of Texas to the size of the continental United States. Over time wave action and sunlight break up the plastic into ever smaller bits that float in the top 100 feet of the ocean. Marine creatures are harmed when they mistake the plastic bits for food. There is also the possibility that toxins released by the plastics can accumulate in the food chain eventually reaching consumers on land. The Garbage Patch is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. If there is no clear ownership of rights to a natural resource, the users of the resource will overexploit it. In this case no one owns the ocean and therefore no one is responsible for protecting it. This same tragic dynamic of overuse and overharvesting operates in other open access commons such as rivers, airsheds, fisheries, and many tropical forests. Some researchers are working on methods to capture and recycle the plastic, perhaps turning it into diesel fuel or polyester clothing. More fancifully, some Seasteading aficionados think that recycling the oceanic plastic could be an economic opportunity.

Foreign Policy largely missed one of the central features of all of the ecological catastrophes it highlighted: defective or non-existent property rights. In the case of the BP and Nigerian oil spills, the resource is owned by the government which sets up the rules for how resources are managed. The Chinese coal seam fires and the draining of the Aral Sea took place under communist regimes where private property was outlawed. In the sad case of Haiti, lack of secure property rights means that few have any incentive to reforest land. And the absence of property rights in the ocean results in it being treated as a global dump. The lesson is that establishing clear property rights encourages resource exploiters to behave responsibly. And if they don't, property rights enable rest of us to hold resource exploiters responsible for the damage they do.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

Disclosure: I nearly forgot to mention that I spent my own money to buy two hundred shares of BP a couple of weeks ago. Back in the mid-1990s, BP took my wife and me on a tour of the Prudhoe Bay production facilities. The wind chill was -70 degrees.

NEXT: Political Uncertainty and ObamaCare

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’ve actually never heard of the Aral Sea problem, and that does sound pretty bad.

    At any rate, it is both the US government and BPs’ fault for the oil spill. The Feds because they forced BP to take a huge risk (drilling at 5000 ft depth instead of 500 ft), even though the neighboring states (Louisiana and that other shithole) agreed to the drilling at 500. And it’s BPs fault for being incompetent in the face of a challenge.

    On a side note: the problem in Haiti started way before they had independence, blame the French.

    1. I studied geography in college in the early 90’s, and it was a problem then.

      To a lesser extent, the Caspian Sea has a similar problem, only not to the extent of the Aral Sea. The Russians were somewhat more hesitant to divert water from the Caspian because it bordered Iran, and also because the sturgeon in the Caspian were / are the source of Russian caviar.

      1. College, early 90’s – Me too, but I studied vagina, alcohol, and a few other illicit drugs.

        1. Funny, I only did those recreationally. Seems like kind of bummer to study them.

        2. Vagina is an illicit drug??

          1. Its certainly addictive.

    2. The Soviets hid a lot of environmental problems.

      The city of Norilsk, for example, is surrounded by a 30 km dead zone.

      1. Not to mention nuclear waste dumped on Novaya Zemlya.

        1. You need an href on your a tag there, BakedPenguin.

          1. Goddamn it. Maybe this will work, along with this.

    3. The Feds because they forced BP to take a huge risk (drilling at 5000 ft depth instead of 500 ft), even though the neighboring states (Louisiana and that other shithole) agreed to the drilling at 500.

      What? They’re drilling at 5000 feet because that’s where the oil is. Even if you opened up the rest of the coast to drilling, eventually they’d be drilling at 5000ft again.

      1. If I remember correctly, the oil well that they were drilling is available at both 500 and 5000 ft depths.

        And yes, the Feds did step in and prevent BP from drilling in ‘shallow’ waters.

      2. Also, there are already over 3800 rigs in the area.

        1. Wrong.

  2. I remain unconvinced that there are workable property rights solutions to commons issues. I’m open to reconsidering the topic. To that end, what book should I pick up that might convince me that a working rights system (i.e. one that discourages and penalizes externalities while ensuring resource ownership for the rights holder) can exist in commons spaces such as oceans and airspace and underground?

    1. I remain unconvinced that there are workable property rights solutions to commons issues.

      Really? I assume you are not homeless. Do random strangers get to walk in your residence and trash it without your consent? No? Why not? Because it is not a commons, but private property. Turn it into a commons, and watch it deteriorate.

      1. sigh…did you even read my whole post? Is your whole concept of “Commons” just “Anything that is commonly owned”? c’mon…it’s not a challenge to sub-divide most land surface. The challenge is for things which either don’t have easily definable boundaries or for things which can’t be contained within definable boundaries. Rights solutions (water rights, fish quotas, etc.) offer some guidance but aren’t the be all/end all of solving commons based property rights.

        1. To start with, here is a doc on property rights at sea.

          1. You mean cap-and-trade for fish?

            It’s so funny that you guys GET IT for fish, but DENY IT for CO2.

            Like any C&T policy, fishery quotas require government involvement any many levels. How libertarian.

            1. Surely you recognize that the difference in reaction arises because the depletion of fisheries is an obvious, critical, immediate, and fairly non-controversial view; global warming is subtle, long-term, and politically divisive.

              1. Not to mention how much more CO2 C&T would effect the economy.

                1. You mean “not very much”? Because that’s what every study has shown. Costs are minimal or even negative, and benefits offset them many-fold in almost everyone’s calculation.

              2. It’s only “politically divisive” because your head is stuck in your heiney. They are the same policy with virtually identical mechanisms. They both work for the same reason.

                You are right, though, that people tend to respond to more visible problems but ignore long-term, vague ones. Sure, the Cuyahoga no longer catches on fire, but we are still sitting in the pot of water with the heat slowly turning up.

            2. Uh no, Chad. Cap-and-trade does not give ownership of anything to anyone, while catch-shares allocates the property of the commons to everyone equally.

              Cap-and-trade and catch-shares are only superficially similar. But I guess that’s enough for simple-minded twats like you to say that they are the same thing.

              1. wtf are you talking about heller? The only difference between the two is that fisheries quotas are usually permenant, while CO2 permits must be renewed annually. Either could actually work the other way around. There is no practical difference between the two at all.

                Keep on denying, my good friend (as most of the plant is baking in record-setting temps for months on end, no less)…

                1. I love that anecdotal evidence is good when it supports your theory, but the record cold the last couple of years means nothing. 1 year doesn’t prove anything. Also,

                  Costs are minimal or even negative, and benefits offset them many-fold in almost everyone’s calculation.

                  What studies? We could just look to Europe and see that what you say is completely incorrect. But what’s new?

              2. +1 /golfclap

            3. Also worth pointing out here that C&T worked just fine for sulfur emissions back in the 90s. Cleaned up a lot of the acid rain problem, too. There are some technical hurdles with a carbon cap, but I’d think they could be solved via a little American ingenuity.

  3. an area variously estimated to be the size of Texas to the size of the continental United States

    I’ve seen smaller-than-Texas and bigger-than-the-U.S. estimates.

    It’s the John Holmes’s boner of invisible garbage monsters.

    1. Did all the satellites and airplanes fall out of the skies? How hard can it be to fly over, snap a couple pictures, and calculate the area affected?

      1. It can’t be measured because the ‘garbage’ for the most part isn’t visible.

        It’s described as snowflake-sized plastic bits suspended in the upper layers of seawater, where they can’t easily be seen from above the surface.

        Yeah… I’m a bit skeptical too whenever an environmental issue is raised that is practically unfalsifiable.

      2. It only exists in the Astral Plane. But it still like totally screws with the dolphins.

  4. Underground is not a commons. Generally speaking, your property rights extend to the center of the earth.

    1. There are commons area reservoir issues underground.

    2. Not true in Colorado. You can own the land, but not the water or mineral rights. A friend of mine has parents living on a ranch there with natural gas wells. He doesnt own the gas, but is compenstated for the usable space they take away from his property.

    3. Mineral rights are sometimes available, sometimes not, depending on where you are. Many times the mineral rights are to the state.

    4. not in canaa

  5. In addition to their ignorance of property rights, Foreign Affairs doesn’t have the guts to cover the real environmental disasters. For shame.

    1. How sad.

    2. That made me a saaaaaad panda. 🙁

  6. Blaming the government for environmental disasters brought on by corporate greed and short-sightedness is ridiculous. There are many things government can be blamed for, but this is not one of them.

    1. Trollololol

    2. Since when is Nelson a curse word?

      1. Took me a second, but I got it, I got it!

    3. So Nigerian oil spills, the Chinese coal seam fires and the draining of the Aral Sea are because of corporate greed and short-sightedness – not government control on intervention.

      Care to explain? BP oil spill – it’s both. Government pushing further and riskier (Since you are not allowed to drill close), government slowing cleaning up response, and BP’s all over suckatuide.

      1. If deep water drilling is risky, then the moratorium is correct.

        If it’s not risky, then what are you blaming the government for?

        Blame first, explain later.

        1. Guh? They were allowed to undertake the risky drilling (in deep water), but not the safer drilling (in shallow water, closer to the shore).

          1. Where do you get your facts from?

            There are twice as many rigs in the shallow Gulf than the deep Gulf, so lots of people find drilling in the shallows profitable enough. If BP wants more than just the shallows and wants to use their technological advantage over the smaller rigs to go for the deeps, that’s their choice: no one forced BP to drill in the deeps.

            If drilling in deep water is risky, then there should be a moratorium on it. If it’s not risky and this was just a fluke, then the government can hardly be blamed for “forcing” someone to do something non-risky.

            1. jeep: Why a moratorium? Why not let insurance companies figure out the liability and decide to cover deep water drilling or not? The result would likely be no deep water drilling with current technology, but I think that insurance companies would be better at evaluating risks than DOE bureaucrats or the denizens on Capitol Hill.

              1. So are you going to force oil drillers to buy insurance? How not-very-libertarian! And how are you going set up regulations such that we can be certain that the insurers can actually pay up?

                And no, Ron, I would think just the opposite: experts at DoE probably understand the risks of oil drilling far better than just about anyone in the insurance industry. The hard parts of doing the calculations necessary in order to offer this insurance lie completely on the “what are the odds of a well blowing, and what are the likely costs”, not on the actuarial tables that would crunch out a premium once the former is determined. In other words, the insurance industry has no particular expertise in this matter at all, and would have to higher someone from the oil industry or DoE or something similar in order to make this work.

      2. Maybe it’s riskier to drill deeper, but remember that the 1979 Ixtoc oil leak in Mexico was a shallow water operation, and was the 4th largest oil spill in history.

        1. And it’s a state run oil company.

          1. I thought someone would point out that 1979 was over 30 years ago, and 3 decades of technological advances have made shallow water drilling safe.

            But instead, someone points out that it’s a state run oil company, so that explains why shallow water drilling is safe – because the companies that would be doing it in the U.S. are private.

    4. Wrong. In the context in which he used it, it was perfectly correct. If BP’s insurers were on the hook for the full amount, not 75 measly million, it wouldn’t have happened. In the very rare chance that it did, the insurance company would have made them have stuff in place to stop it quickly. IE to minimize the insurance company’s risk. They would have made BP have relief wells ready to go on all drilling just in case. Government intervention DIRECTLY caused the disaster.

      1. BP didn’t buy any insurance, so BP could do whatever it wanted.

        But your solution is good: drill a relief well ahead of time. However, it doesn’t take an insurance company to get that accomplished: the government can just require it.

    5. Charles, your statement is a bit like blaming people for being unemployed. It ignores the root cause of the problem – the fact that they’re not working because the government regulations and controls over the economy destroyed the jobs they used to have. The government then gives the unemployed endless handouts which the sheeple take and reciprocate by voting for them.

      Then they wonder why they lack self-esteem although they’re doing nothing productive with their lives. When will they realize there’s no free lunch – TANSTAAFL…

  7. Haiti truly is an eerie moonscape. It’s made even more startling when you straddle the Dominican/Haiti border.

  8. “Foreign Policy largely missed one of the central features of all of the ecological catastrophes it highlighted: defective or non-existence property rights.”

    … or defective or non-existent environmental regulation? Seems like this article could equally support an argument for more robust governmental intervention in areas where it’s currently weak.

    1. I agree. But people see what they want to see.

      Why does it surprise anyone that in places with ineffective government, the strong openly crap on the weak? Even more important, why do libertarians believe crapping on your neighbors is ok, if you spread it among enough people that no one can figure out how defacated on their head.

      1. “Even more important, why do libertarians believe crapping on your neighbors is ok, if you spread it among enough people that no one can figure out how defacated on their head.”

        Says the tax-and-waste liberal.

    2. JRD: In the environmental arena, property rights solutions tend to be cheaper and win/win, whereas top-down centralized government solutions are inefficient, cost more, and are lose/win.

      1. I disagree, Ron. Few, if any, pollution problems in modern societies can be addressed by property rights. A handful can be potentially addressed by a cap-and-trade policy (fisheries, emissions into the air or water), but it is certainly not clear whether these methods are better than a tax-based system or regulation, or some combination.

        Of course, most libertarians reject all of these solutions.

        1. Read a freekin book for crists sake. Everything that comes out of your mouth couldn’t be more wrong.

    3. You need basic common law, property rights, justice and many other levels before you can have any sort of effective enviromental controls. The Nigerian EPA would just be another bribe funnel if you plopped it into the middle of a Nigeria oil field.

  9. The reason for the oil spill is because Bush and his oil cronies didn’t require the installation of a $500,000 acoustic switch which is law in Norway and Brazil.

    And BP is very stupid if they were only looking at the $75 million, and not the cleanup costs and public outrage.

    1. “And BP is very stupid if they were only looking at the $75 million, and not the cleanup costs and public outrage.”

      Or BP’s lawyers are very stupid for thinking only the $75 million would apply: every lawyer knows the difference between the law, and how it’s practiced.

    2. Wrong. It had the acoustic switch. It didn’t work because the RAM’s failed. Nice try though.

      I plug failed. simple as that. You can not test the plug from the back side so you have to trust it. It is rare but they do fail.

      1. Well if you’re an oilfield engineer then your answer doesn’t inspire much confidence in drilling, because according to all the news sites, there was no acoustic switch.

        Did all BP’s oil engineers believe there was an acoustic switch in the schematic, or did the media get this wrong?

        1. “Well if you’re an oilfield engineer then your answer doesn’t inspire much confidence in drilling, because according to all the news sites, there was no acoustic switch.”

          Ya because they never lie on the news. Because BP has had it’s story told in the media.

          It is standard for all offshore work. All modern, non third world dictator owned, rigs have them. I guarantee that Transocean isn’t going to risk their multi-million dollar rig because they don’t want to spend 500k on an acoustic switch. They buy it once and then reuse it till it needs to be rebuilt. Then they use it some more. It isn’t a consumable.

          The drilling company is the one who is responsible for all equipment from the top of the well to the rotary table. The drilling company is this case was Transocean. If it was the switch at fault do you not think BP would be trying to blame Transocean for this?

  10. I have to question the list. It left off the horrific early 90s Central Park catastrophe. Rosanne Barr, Rosie O’Donnell and that Bernhard woman all skinny dipping in the daytime.

  11. just beacuse we love christian louboutin,also we think it will made you be more sexy.IN christian louboutin sale,you can get your luxury christian louboutin shoes at cheap price.christian louboutin shoes

  12. The “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” is mostly media hype, and to the extent that it is a real problem, is hardly in the same league as the other 4.

  13. And BP is very stupid if they were only looking at the $75 million, and not the cleanup costs and public outrage.

  14. So you think if BP owned the sea it would do better? You can’t just say private property will save us. You have to think of who the private property owner is.

    1. That’s a dumb retort. If BP fully owned the risk of a spill instead of a $75 million cap, they’d be more careful no?

      1. Why does one have to own the sea to be responsible for the spill?

        Why not be responsible because you don’t own the sea?

  15. So, aren’t property rights created and enforced by governments? So, really, a more effective government in conjunction with market forces would be beneficial, is what you are trying to say.

    But, no, to keep in line with the patent libertarian rhetoric, you have to frame it so the ‘government is the problem.’ No, poorly run governments–and all forces they let run amok– are the problem.

    1. A+

    2. Governments that are bought and paid for are the problem. If the US government was owned by the “right” people instead of the Evil Unions and Poor Dark People(tm) then we’d have paradise on earth.

      1. Translated as “i prefer MY tyranny to your tyranny”

        All government is inherently bad because it is not consensual.

  16. So to sum…

    Bad governments often create environemental problems but there are some commons problems that need government action to fix.

  17. If the cause of problems is systematically put on government, you are reading Reason.
    If the cause of problems is systematically put on corporations, you are reading The Nation.

    All so predictable.

  18. threadjack,

    Quite often I mention that oil prices are going to be heading MUCH higher, but those who haven’t been paying attention always contest that.

    Well note this

    Et voila: China is now the largest energy user in the world, the International Energy Agency announced this week. The country consumed 2.252 billion tons of “oil equivalent” last year. The U.S. — formerly the largest — managed to burn just 2.17 billion tons.

    So it goes? another inevitable milestone of Asian growth and Western decline. Like most facets of this takeover, the changing of the guard has been swift:

    Yet, here is one of the most convincing charts we’ve ever seen? a riff off one Frank Holmes — another Symposium speaker — has been toting around for years:

    “40% of the world’s population — China and India — uses two barrels of oil per person per day,” Frank Holmes beamed in his presentation yesterday. “In the U.S., we use 25.”

    If you’ll allow us to paraphrase Frank, that appears to be one of the few slam-dunk investment theses of this generation. China and India need only become half the energy consumers we are in the U.S.

    AND oil prices will jump HUGELY

  19. Total world oil consumption is 85 or 86 million barrels per day. You can easily look this up — similar figures are given by the International Energy Agency, the CIA World Factbook, Nationmaster, and others.

    “”40% of the world’s population — China and India — uses two barrels of oil per person per day,” Frank Holmes beamed in his presentation yesterday. “In the U.S., we use 25.””

    Let’s do the numbers. Population of China 1.3 billion, India 1.1 billion, total 2.4 billion people using 2 barrels each daily for a total of 4.8 billion barrels a day. U.S. population 310 million, using 25 barrels each daily for a total of 7.75 billion barrels a day. We’re already over 12 BILLION barrels a day when real world consumption is 86 MILLION barrels a day. Do you think there’s a possibility, just a chance, that this guy is bullshitting?

    1. Note that it says oil equivilant.

      Also the charts come from the Wall Street Journal.

      1. +1 for reading comprehension.

  20. BP’s risky behavior was encouraged by the congressionally mandated $75 million cap on liability on damages to natural resources and economic losses suffered by private parties resulting from offshore drilling spills.

    The $75 million cap should not have worked as an incentive to take risks as it would not apply in that case. It only applies is you can should that you were taking appropriate precautions against the risk and it happened nonetheless.

  21. Talking about property rights and tragedies of the common is all well and good, but honestly, who do you think is going to enforce property rights on the middle of the Pacific Ocean?

  22. Eh bien, je suis un bon poste watcher vous pouvez dire et je ne donne pas une seule raison de critiquer ou de donner une bonne critique ? un poste. Je lis des blogs de 5 derni?res ann?es et ce blog est vraiment bon cet ?crivain a les capacit?s pour faire avancer les choses i aimerais voir nouveau poste par vous Merci
    ????? ???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.