Earthhour.org wrote:VOTE EARTH

YOUR LIGHT SWITCH IS YOUR VOTE

This year, Earth Hour has been transformed into the world’s first global election, between Earth and global warming.

For the first time in history, people of all ages, nationalities, race and background have the opportunity to use their light switch as their vote – Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming. WWF are urging the world to VOTE EARTH and reach the target of 1 billion votes, which will be presented to world leaders at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009.

This meeting will determine official government policies to take action against global warming, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol. It is the chance for the people of the world to make their voice heard.

Earth Hour began in Sydney in 2007, when 2.2 million homes and businesses switched off their lights for one hour. In 2008 the message had grown into a global sustainability movement, with 50 million people switching off their lights. Global landmarks such as the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, Rome’s Colosseum, the Sydney Opera House and the Coca Cola billboard in Times Square all stood in darkness.

In 2009, Earth Hour is being taken to the next level, with the goal of 1 billion people switching off their lights as part of a global vote. Unlike any election in history, it is not about what country you’re from, but instead, what planet you’re from. VOTE EARTH is a global call to action for every individual, every business, and every community. A call to stand up and take control over the future of our planet. Over 74 countries and territories have pledged their support to VOTE EARTH during Earth Hour 2009, and this number is growing everyday.

We all have a vote, and every single vote counts. Together we can take control of the future of our planet, for future generations.

VOTE EARTH by simply switching off your lights for one hour, and join the world for Earth Hour.

Saturday, March 28, 8:30-9:30pm.

U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy
Friday, March 27, 2009
By George Russell

Print ShareThisA United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations "information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.

The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.

In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the "Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol." Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.

Getting that deal done has become the United Nations' highest priority, and the Bonn meeting is seen as a critical step along the path to what the U.N. calls an "ambitious and effective international response to climate change," which is intended to culminate at the later gathering in Copenhagen.

Just how ambitious the U.N.'s goals are can be seen, but only dimly, in the note obtained by FOX News, which offers in sparse detail both positive and negative consequences of the tools that industrial nations will most likely use to enforce the greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The paper makes no effort to calculate the magnitude of the costs and disruption involved, but despite the discreet presentation, makes clear that they will reverberate across the entire global economic system.

• Click here for the information note.

Among the tools that are considered are the cap-and-trade system for controlling carbon emissions that has been espoused by the Obama administration; "carbon taxes" on imported fuels and energy-intensive goods and industries, including airline transportation; and lower subsidies for those same goods, as well as new or higher subsidies for goods that are considered "environmentally sound."

Other tools are referred to only vaguely, including "energy policy reform," which the report indicates could affect "large-scale transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail and airports." When it comes to the results of such reform, the note says only that it could have "positive consequences for alternative transportation providers and producers of alternative fuels."

In the same bland manner, the note informs negotiators without going into details that cap-and-trade schemes "may induce some industrial relocation" to "less regulated host countries." Cap-and-trade functions by creating decreasing numbers of pollution-emission permits to be traded by industrial users, and thus pay more for each unit of carbon-based pollution, a market-driven system that aims to drive manufacturers toward less polluting technologies.

The note adds only that industrial relocation "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment." But at the same time it "would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries."

There are also entirely new kinds of tariffs and trade protectionist barriers such as those termed in the note as "border carbon adjustment"— which, the note says, can impose "a levy on imported goods equal to that which would have been imposed had they been produced domestically" under more strict environmental regimes.

Another form of "adjustment" would require exporters to "buy [carbon] offsets at the border equal to that which the producer would have been forced to purchase had the good been produced domestically."

The impact of both schemes, the note says, "would be functionally equivalent to an increased tariff: decreased market share for covered foreign producers." (There is no definition in the report of who, exactly, is "foreign.") The note adds that "If they were implemented fairly, such schemes would leave trade and investment patterns unchanged." Nothing is said about the consequences if such fairness was not achieved.

Indeed, only rarely does the "information note" attempt to inform readers in dollar terms of the impact of "spillover effects" from the potential policy changes it discusses. In a brief mention of consumer subsidies for fossil fuels, the note remarks that such subsidies in advanced economies exceed $60 billion a year, while they exceed $90 billion a year in developing economies."

But calculations of the impact of tariffs, offsets, or other subsidies is rare. In a reference to the impact of declining oil exports, the report says that Saudi Arabia has determined the loss to its economy at between $100 billion and $200 billion by 2030, but said nothing about other oil exporters.

One reason for the lack of detail, the note indicates, is that impact would vary widely depending on the nature and scope of the policies adopted (and, although the note does not mention it, on the severity of the greenhouse reduction targets).

But even when it does hazard a guess at specific impacts, the report seems curiously hazy. A "climate change levy on aviation" for example, is described as having undetermined "negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce," as well as "tourism services." But no mention is made in the note of the impact on the aerospace industry, an industry that had revenues in 2008 of $208 billion in the U.S. alone, or the losses the levy would impose on airlines for ordinary passenger transportation. (Global commercial airline revenues in 2008 were about $530 billion, and were already forecast to drop to an estimated $467 billion this year.)

In other cases, as when discussing the "increased costs of traditional exports" under a new environmental regime, the report confines itself to terse description. Changes in standards and labeling for exported goods, for example, "may demand costly changes to the production process." If subsidies and tariffs affect exports, the note says, the "economic and social consequences of dampening their viability may, for some countries and sectors, be significant."

Much depends, of course, on the extent to which harsher or more lenient greenhouse gas reduction targets demand more or less drastic policies for their achievement.

And, precisely because the Bonn meeting is a stage for negotiating those targets, the note is silent. Instead it suggests that more bureaucratic work is needed "to deepen the understanding of the full nature and scale of such impacts."

But outside the Bonn process, other experts have been much more blunt about the draconian nature of the measures they deem necessary to make "effective" greenhouse gas reductions.

In an influential but highly controversial paper called "Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change," British economist Nicholas Lord Stern, formerly a high British Treasury official, has declared that industrial economies would need to cut their per capita carbon dioxide emissions by "at least 80% by 2050," while the biggest economies, like the U.S.'s, would have to make cuts of 90 percent.

Stern also calls for "immediate and binding" reduction targets for developed nations of 20 percent to 40 percent by 2020.

To meet Stern's 2050 goals, he says, among other things, "most of the world's electricity production will need to have been decarbonized."

Click here for Stern's paper.

By way of comparison, according to the U.S. Department Of Energy, roughly 72 percent of U.S. electrical power generation in 2007 was derived from burning fossil fuels, with just 6 percent coming from hydro-power and less than 3 percent from non-nuclear renewable and "other" sources. And even then, those "other" non-fossil sources included wood and biomass — which, when burned, are major emitters of carbon.

Examiner Editorial: Expanded Americorps has stench of authoritarianism
Examiner Editorial 3/26/09

With almost no public attention, both chambers of Congress in the past week advanced an alarming expansion of the Americorps national service plan, with the number of federally funded community-service jobs increasing from 75,000 to 250,000 at a cost of $5.7 billion. Lurking behind the feel-good rhetoric spouted by the measure’s advocates is a bill that upon closer inspection reveals multiple provisions that together create a strong odor of creepy authoritarianism.
The House passed the measure overwhelmingly, while only 14 senators had the sense and courage to vote against it on a key procedural motion. Every legislator who either voted for this bill or didn’t vote at all has some serious explaining to do.

Last summer, then-candidate Barack Obama threw civil liberties to the wind when he proposed “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the regular military. The expanded Americorps is not quite so disturbing, but a number of provisions in the bill raise serious concerns.

To begin with, the legislation threatens the voluntary nature of Americorps by calling for consideration of “a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people.” It anticipates the possibility of requiring “all individuals in the United States” to perform such service, including elementary school students.

The bill also summons up unsettling memories of World War II-era paramilitary groups by saying the new program should “combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service,” while establishing “campuses” that serve as “operational headquarters,” complete with “superintendents” and “uniforms” for all participants. It allows for the elimination of all age restrictions in order to involve Americans at all stages of life. And, it calls for the creation of “a permanent cadre” in a “National Community Civilian Corps.”

But that’s not all. The bill also calls for “youth engagement zones” in which “service learning” is “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”

This updated form of voluntary community service is also to be “integrated into the science, technology, engineering and mathematics curricula” at all levels of schooling. Sounds like a government curriculum for government-approved “service learning,” which is nothing less than indoctrination.

Now, ask yourself if Congress members who voted for this monstrosity had a clue what they were voting for. If not, they’re guilty of dereliction of duty. If they did, the implications are truly frightening.

Frazzled wrote:No I am protesting coercive PC thought control.

I like how the wackhjobs are protesting proposals to build new wind and solar farms in the California desert. If you can't build a sun farm in the desert, where can you? The nuts are running the asylum.

Frazzled wrote:I am so going to turn on every light, appliance, and electrical device on if I remember and am there. You have to do what you can to protest before the new "volunteer" mandatory requirements for my kids go into effect, replete with uniforms, meeting ceneters, and organiztional leadership.

Earthhour.org wrote:This year, Earth Hour has been transformed into the world’s first global election, between Earth and global warming.

For the first time in history, people of all ages, nationalities, race and background have the opportunity to use their light switch as their vote – Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I am so going to turn on every light, appliance, and electrical device on if I remember and am there. You have to do what you can to protest before the new "volunteer" mandatory requirements for my kids go into effect, replete with uniforms, meeting ceneters, and organiztional leadership.

Young Republicans really getting organised for the next election huh ?

Frazzled wrote:No I am protesting coercive PC thought control.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No I am protesting coercive PC thought control.

No, you're presuming that a person educated in a given way will never have the will to reject that education. It shouldn't matter what a child is taught. If they are intelligent they will see through it. Either way, a pro-environment campaign is hardly related to indoctrination. Certainly not any more than anything I write on the internet is related to indoctrination.

It should also be mentioned that nothing about Americorps isn't actually being changed. The program is simply being expanded. All the features of the organization which are discussed in the second article you quoted already exist in the NCCC.

As for the global warming article, its from FOX. That's all I will say.

Frazzled wrote:
2. Already existing-hardly. If that were the case it would only be a funding increase.
This is how it starts.

Frazzled wrote:
I also attached the underlying UN document.

Frazzled wrote:China has stated if you try to impose tariffs to simulate cap and trade, as that document proposes, China will declare it a trade war under another UN entity GATT.

Frazzled wrote:
Economic adjustments to counter climate change-you mean millions out of work here, for no environmental benefit? Nuts.

KingCracker wrote:My opinion on the global warming is thus. I live in Michigan. Michigan gets REALLY friggin cold. SO if the climate goes up enough Ill be living in the new Florida.

I see, so the argument is, because manufacturing is already leaving this isn't an issue?

Zip Napalm wrote:I'm going to turn on all the lights in the house, let the cars run in the driveway and grill something using charcoal(preferably red meat).

ShumaGorath wrote:Its amusing to watch the conservative response to such a publicity stunt. Its hilariously childish.

Zip Napalm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Its amusing to watch the conservative response to such a publicity stunt. Its hilariously childish.

It isn't a "conservative response".
It's just normal people mocking a pointless publicity stunt.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Zip Napalm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Its amusing to watch the conservative response to such a publicity stunt. Its hilariously childish.

It isn't a "conservative response".
It's just normal people mocking a pointless publicity stunt.

There's a difference between mocking and knocking over your plate because your mom asked you to put it in the sink.

ShumaGorath wrote:Its amusing to watch the conservative response to such a publicity stunt. Its hilariously childish.

Frazzled wrote:I see, so the argument is, because manufacturing is already leaving this isn't an issue?

Frazzled wrote:
How would it help the environment, if the manufacturing is done overseas in areas with even less environmental regulation than here? Its still air pollution/global warming/whatever the excuse is.

dogma wrote:

The notion that overseas manufacturing is unregulated is preposterous. China has some of the most stringent environmental regulations in the world, and India is moving in that direction as a result of the atrocious air quality in places like New Delhi. They've both realized that it doesn't matter how productive their people are if they can't survive without huge consumer markets to provide them with food, medical care, and possession.

Frazzled wrote:
If you believe that I have abridge to sell you. YRules on books are irrelevant. Rules as enforced are completely different. Look at Mexico. Some of the most stringent regulations, yet worst pollution on the continent.

Frazzled wrote:
I should note, reasonable people can disagree on the environment and methods to protect. But crap like "turn your lights off for an hour" is just mocha latte sipping hippy hugger college boy nonsense. Wow, I think I just channelled Richard Nixon, oh wait one more bit we can't let those nattering naybobs get a hold of this country. erp there, its gone now.

(I hope people realize I'm just having fun here-except the nattering naybobs of course, thats completely serious )

dogma wrote:The Chinese executed 2 men because they allowed contaminated milk to be distributed.

If you believe that I have abridge to sell you. YRules on books are irrelevant. Rules as enforced are completely different. Look at Mexico. Some of the most stringent regulations, yet worst pollution on the continent.

I should note, reasonable people can disagree on the environment and methods to protect. But crap like "turn your lights off for an hour" is just mocha latte sipping hippy hugger college boy nonsense. Wow, I think I just channelled Richard Nixon, oh wait one more bit we can't let those nattering naybobs get a hold of this country. erp there, its gone now.

Are you really comparing Mexico's government to China's? The Chinese executed 2 men because they allowed contaminated milk to be distributed. The Mexicans can't even control the drug trade.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I agree its stupid, but it's like quitting smoking. You need to work up the courage to do it first. Maybe resisting a single cigarette gives you the fortitude to do it later. You can't begin to conserve cold turkey, people don't have the willpower. Something so simple as turning off a few extra lights in your home is beyond the scope of millions of people, if you can get them into the "spirit" of helping it can help them change their daily habits as well.

Frazzled wrote:Saving power only goes so far. Save 20% of your total energy consumption? Big deal energy usage has been growing 3% annually.

Frazzled wrote:
And to Shuma. You don't have a clue about me. But I bet you don't actually work for a living in the private sector, do you?

What does that have to do with your knowledge of China, or South America?

And to Shuma. You don't have a clue about me. But I bet you don't actually work for a living in the private sector, do you?

Saving power only goes so far. Save 20% of your total energy consumption? Big deal energy usage has been growing 3% annually.

Wolfstan wrote:
At the end of the day, it's not just the US (just a big and easily seen target), it's the world corporations who are to blame, they all look at profits in the short time, not the long time. Investment 20 years ago could now be seeing huge returns, but no they had to take the easy route to keep investors happy and therefore we will suffer for that shortsightedness, whilst the rich buggers can afford to move to the expensive safe areas.

Wolfstan wrote: It's the same with oil, if your politicians weren't getting so much back handers from the industry you could of been leading the way with fusion power. Yes it would of cost a hell of a lot to research, but once achieved you could of patented the bloody process off to the rest of the world.

dogma wrote:The notion that overseas manufacturing is unregulated is preposterous. China has some of the most stringent environmental regulations in the world, and India is moving in that direction as a result of the atrocious air quality in places like New Delhi. They've both realized that it doesn't matter how productive their people are if they can't survive without huge consumer markets to provide them with food, medical care, and possession.

Frazzled wrote:I should note, reasonable people can disagree on the environment and methods to protect. But crap like "turn your lights off for an hour" is just mocha latte sipping hippy hugger college boy nonsense. Wow, I think I just channelled Richard Nixon, oh wait one more bit we can't let those nattering naybobs get a hold of this country. erp there, its gone now.

(I hope people realize I'm just having fun here-except the nattering naybobs of course, thats completely serious )

sebster wrote:
China also has some of the strongest anti-piracy regulations, but there is a big difference between having a law and having the ability and political will to enforce it. The issue here boils down to the same basic situation as with so many Chinese issues; Chinese bureacracy is inefficient and very corrupt.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
China also has some of the strongest anti-piracy regulations, but there is a big difference between having a law and having the ability and political will to enforce it. The issue here boils down to the same basic situation as with so many Chinese issues; Chinese bureacracy is inefficient and very corrupt.

True enough. But as I mentioned to our resident Texan: China executed 2 people over (yes, this is a bad pun) spilled milk. When it comes to things which anger their citizens the state takes matters very seriously.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
China also has some of the strongest anti-piracy regulations, but there is a big difference between having a law and having the ability and political will to enforce it. The issue here boils down to the same basic situation as with so many Chinese issues; Chinese bureacracy is inefficient and very corrupt.

True enough. But as I mentioned to our resident Texan: China executed 2 people over (yes, this is a bad pun) spilled milk. When it comes to things which anger their citizens the state takes matters very seriously.

No they executed two people because tens of thousands were sickened and IIRC hundreds died. So what, they are still shipping toys here with lead paint on them. They are still burning bad coal and building coal plants by the bushel. They're still basing thousands of missiles across the strait from Taiwan. They're still killing people in Tibet. They're still supporting the nightmare of North Korea. Your faith in the new Fascist power, which is what they have become, is misplaced.

ShumaGorath wrote:


:edit: As an aside, weren't you playing the worlds smallest violin for innocent people held in guantanamo a few threads back? I'm not sure how you're trying to hold the human rights high ground here.

Cap and Trade War
Team Obama floats a carbon tariff.Article

One of President Obama's applause lines is that his climate tax policies will create new green jobs "that can't be outsourced." But if that's true, why is his main energy adviser floating a new carbon tariff on imports? Welcome to the coming cap and trade war.


APEnergy Secretary Steven Chu made the protectionist point during an underreported House hearing this month, when he said tariffs and other trade barriers could be used as a "weapon" to force countries like China and India into cutting their own CO2 emissions. "If other countries don't impose a cost on carbon, then we will be at a disadvantage," he said. So a cap-and-trade policy won't be cost-free after all. Apparently Mr. Chu did not get the White House memo about obfuscating the impact of the Administration's anticarbon policies.

The Chinese certainly heard Mr. Chu, with Xie Zhenhua, a top economic minister, immediately responding that such a policy would be a "disaster" and "an excuse to impose trade restrictions." Beijing's reaction shows that as a means of coercing international cooperation, climate tariffs are worse than pointless. China and India are never going to endanger their own economic growth -- and the chance to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty -- merely to placate the climate neuroses of affluent Americans in Silicon Valley or Cambridge, Massachusetts. And they certainly won't do it under the threat of a tariff ultimatum.

But give Mr. Chu credit for candor. He had previously told the New York Times that "The concern about cap and trade in today's economic climate is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable." He is admitting that one byproduct of cap and trade is "leakage," by which investment and jobs are driven to nations that have looser or nonexistent climate regimes and therefore lower costs. At greatest risk are carbon-heavy industries such as steel, aluminum, paper, cement and chemicals that are sensitive to trade and where business is won and lost on the basis of pennies per unit of product. But the damage could strike almost any industry when energy prices "necessarily skyrocket," as Mr. Obama put it last year.

So in addition to all the other economic harm, a cap-and-trade tax will make foreign companies more competitive while eroding market share for U.S. businesses. The most harm will accrue to the very U.S. manufacturing and heavy-industry jobs that Democrats and unions claim to want to keep inside the U.S. A cap-and-tax plan would be the greatest outsourcing boon in history. And it may even increase CO2 emissions overall, because the developing nations where businesses are likely to relocate -- if they don't simply close -- tend to use energy less efficiently than does the U.S.

Meanwhile, carbon trade barriers would almost certainly violate U.S. obligations in the World Trade Organization. Since carbon energy cuts across so many industries, a tariff would presumably have to hit tens of thousands of products. Any restriction the U.S. imposes on imports can also just as easily be turned around and imposed on U.S. exports, whatever their carbon content.

Run-of-the-mill protectionism is already adopting a deeper shade of green. In January, the president of the European Commission said he may slap tariffs on goods from the U.S. and other non-Kyoto Protocol nations to protect European business. After Mr. Chu's comments, the U.S. steel lobby began calling for sanctions against Chinese steelmakers if Beijing doesn't commit to its own carbon limits, knowing full well that it won't. Look for more businesses to claim green virtue to justify special-interest pleading, a la the 54-cent U.S. tariff on foreign ethanol.

Democrats are already careless about trade -- i.e., the Mexican trucking spat, the "Buy America" provisions in the stimulus, and blocking the Colombia and South Korea free-trade pacts. Now cap and nontrade may lead to a retreat from the open global markets that have done so much to boost economic growth and innovation. The closer we get to the cap-and-trade dreams of Mr. Obama and Congress, the more dangerous they look.

Terrorists have no rights.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Terrorists have no rights.

Soo.... No matter what they have or haven't done they have no rights and you shed no tear for them. Your ability to at once criticize chinas human rights issue then say that everyone captured is a terrorist and deserves what they get despite no proof, utter secrecy, and the release of quite a few innocents so far is confusing at best and frightening at worst. There's a reason trials exist, its to prevent innocents from getting caught in things like years of torture and imprisonment for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As for the cap and trade policies, yes. The whole point is to impose the needed restrictions at home first, and if nations like china and india don't comply the western world will impose trade tariffs on them, essentially charging them what they would have otherwise charged themselves and making it equally uneconomical to not to green. I've said it every time I've mentioned these policies so far. Lets not be coy here, this is about coercing china into adopting policies that it could but uninfluenced likely wouldn't adopt itself. China has the economic muscle to impose cap and trade with relative ease and a deep well of money to invest in doing so with little impact on itself. Imposing cap and trade over the western markets (the markets that buy chinese goods) then imposing carbon tarrifs would have two effects. It would either bring manufacturing homes back to the western nations, or it would cause the eastern ones to go green.


Free trade without regulation is a race to the bottom. Compete with third world slave labor and chinese deregulation and you're just sprinting towards a third world lifestyle for your own country. Cap and trade may accelerate job flight, but not doing so doesn't prevent it. We can not prevent it because its simply more cost effective to ship these jobs to markets that have no health, workers rights, or payment laws. It will never not be. Carbon trade is a strongarm method of both improving planetary emissions standards and reducing job flight through trade tariffs.



The mills aren't coming back. Our steel industry has been dying for a while now, we have no paper industry, our automotive industry is dying the death it deserves for not being able to keep up with MORE expensive foreign outfits like germany and japan, and our chemical industries have been shipping offshores for decades due to less stringent safety and environmental laws. Manufacturing isn't the only form of job there is. It's just the easiest to hand over to foreign untrained slave work.

The last time we had a trade war in the middle of a recession it became The Great Depression. Which actually corresponds with the proposed budget. Oh

ShumaGorath wrote:

In a very real way this is different then the america first isolationist protectionism employed during the depression. How much do you actually understand about economic history? Conservative talking points are cute, but only when they conform to the way the world actually works. Which is increasingly rare.

Do you mean years of classes taken or years worked in the field? How about you spankie - have any experience-well at all?