Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
EPA: The Government Needs to Tell Car Makers What to Build
Old 04-30-2009, 12:12 PM   #1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,617
EPA: The Government Needs to Tell Car Makers What to Build

Yesterday I heard this NPR interview with the new EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson. There's no doubt about her vision for government's role.
-- First she glosses over the immense costs of her decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. The Clean Air Act, which EPA is using as the legal vehicle to implement these CO2 limits, is entirely inappropriate. That Act is designed to address air quality on a regional basis--when, say, carbon monoxide levels in LA are at unsafe levels, the government is allowed to step in to limit sources of CO, until the level are reduced to safe levels in that area. So, how can this possibly work with CO2? Putting aside the whole (huge) issue of whether CO2 is a health threat, the CO2 levels are the result of worldwide CO2 production (natural and manmade). EPA restrictions on US CO2 output will not have any impact on Chinese or Russian CO2 emissions, so I guess the more they put out, the higher the levels will go and the more the EPA will issue fines to ranchers and everyone else in the US who produces CO2. "You boys cut that out! Billy, if you throw another mudball I'm going to spank your brother!"

-- At about 3:05 in the intervew she starts into the auto industry. (Paraphrased) "We need a single national roadmap . . . that tells automakers what type of cars that they need to building for the American people". Really. I thought the American people got to communicate this directly to the automakers through their purchasing decisions. I don't think the American people want the government taking away their voice in this issue. The (sympathetic) NPR interviewer asks if that's really the government's proper role, "it doesn't sound like free enterprise." EPA Adminstrator Jackson's response has to be heard to be believed.

At least no one can claim to be surprised about where we are heading.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-30-2009, 12:30 PM   #2
Recycles dryer sheets
Abreutime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 323
Everyone needs to hold their breath, together, for 30 seconds. All you FIREd folks can do sets of 4, every hour.
__________________

__________________
Abreutime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2009, 12:47 PM   #3
Recycles dryer sheets
Abreutime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 323
"Well... It it it is free enterprise in a way. Um, you know, first and foremost the free enterprise system has us where we are now <chuckle chuckle snort> and so some would argue that the government already has a much larger role than we might have when Henry Ford when rolled the first cars off the assembly line." Then she says we do indeed need new laws.

Yes, these regulations are the embodiment of free enterprise. She can't even make that argument without laughing.
__________________
Abreutime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2009, 05:48 PM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: E. Wash
Posts: 1,060
Samclem
Thanks for posting this. I have already fired off emails to my Senators that they need to bring this progress under control or they will find Lisa Jackson running the show.
If you review her bio and articles you will find her as one of the more radical enviromental advocates for govenment control of all things.
nwsteve
__________________
nwsteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 10:10 AM   #5
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 595
Yup... a crisis is always the time when certain people will try to seize as much govt power as they can. They will swear to you that it is only "for your own good". From what I have seen of our elected officials, I do not believe them to be so much smarter than me or anyone else.

So let's see here... the govt gets to tell US automakers what sorts of cars they are allowed to make. If that happens to coincide with what people WANT to buy, then that will go well. But what if to meet govt decrees the automakers come up with a whole line of gas efficient green cars that are uglier than the pontiac Aztek, and take 15 sec to get to 60mph? Does the govt then start making laws that US citizens can ONLY buy US cars? Or make the import taxes on foreign cars so high that we are forced to buy US anyway?

Where the govt intrudes the free market dies... that is the truth of it. Personally I hope they all go bankrupt as they should. Then maybe younger, stronger, smaller auto companies will take their place. There are many small auto companies in the US that would love to be able to fill that void... and no govt coersion or tax dollars would be needed to MAKE it happen...
__________________
armor99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 12:18 PM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by armor99 View Post
So let's see here... the govt gets to tell US automakers what sorts of cars they are allowed to make.
No, the government is telling the car companies that they must make something. That is inclusive of anything else they want to build as long as it meets safety and environmental regulations (which has been the case for decades).
The whole argument is based on a false premise.
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 07:37 PM   #7
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
-- First she glosses over the immense costs of her decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. T
Don't you worry. They're getting ready for that fight.

Just so you know what to expect in terms of a cost / benefit threshold, here is what Obama said this Wednesday . . .

Quote:
If the temperature of the planet goes up five degrees, you're now looking at coastlines under water. You're now looking at huge, cataclysmic hurricanes, complete changes in weather patterns. Some places will get hotter; some places will get colder.

Our economy would be disrupted by tens of trillions of dollars.
CNN.com - Transcripts
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 07:47 PM   #8
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
The Clean Air Act, which EPA is using as the legal vehicle to implement these CO2 limits, is entirely inappropriate.
Didn't the Supreme Court tell the EPA it had to regulate green house gases?

Quote:
In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/wa.../03scotus.html

The Bush EPA slow walked the requirement and the Obama EPA fast tracked it. Ultimately I don't think EPA regulation is the end game. Any regulation that comes out of the EPA will be tied up in the courts for decades. That's not what the administration wants. Instead they are using the threat of EPA regulation to coax and coerce recalcitrant Congressmen from coal heavy states to support legislation that is presumably more agreeable than what the EPA might do.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 08:01 PM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by armor99 View Post
Yup... a crisis is always the time when certain people will try to seize as much govt power as they can. They will swear to you that it is only "for your own good". From what I have seen of our elected officials, I do not believe them to be so much smarter than me or anyone else.

So let's see here... the govt gets to tell US automakers what sorts of cars they are allowed to make. If that happens to coincide with what people WANT to buy, then that will go well. But what if to meet govt decrees the automakers come up with a whole line of gas efficient green cars that are uglier than the pontiac Aztek, and take 15 sec to get to 60mph? Does the govt then start making laws that US citizens can ONLY buy US cars? Or make the import taxes on foreign cars so high that we are forced to buy US anyway?

Where the govt intrudes the free market dies... that is the truth of it. Personally I hope they all go bankrupt as they should. Then maybe younger, stronger, smaller auto companies will take their place. There are many small auto companies in the US that would love to be able to fill that void... and no govt coersion or tax dollars would be needed to MAKE it happen...
Mandating mpg via CAFE or forcing automakers to build efficient cars won't work by themselves - it's just more doing things for appearances or other reasons from the same brilliant folks who brought you E85.

We need to increase the cost of gasoline 50˘ gallon every year until it's $4-5/gallon. The higher cost will be via federal gas taxes imposed at the pump. And then the free market will work in our long term interests.
  1. If we do nothing, gas will become more expensive, ultimately much more expensive - not a question of if, just when.
  2. And we have a revenue shortfall now, and it is only going to get worse with the current recession, increasing deficits/debt and runaway entitlement programs. We are all going to be taxed more anyway, so we might as well accomplish something specific like energy policy while we are at it. If it's unfair to low-income folks, that can be offset with via income tax rates.
Buyers will know gas prices are going to increase steadily, which will induce them to demand more efficient cars and thereby induce automakers to build more efficient cars. Consumers and manufacturers will have the opportunity (adequate time) to adjust accordingly, instead of waiting for the next sudden increase in gas costs where US automakers don't have the products people suddenly demand (again). Higher gas costs have caused this behavior all over the world - in Europe and most of Asia. What is the downside of reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Flame away...
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 08:05 PM   #10
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
No, the government is telling the car companies that they must make something. That is inclusive of anything else they want to build as long as it meets safety and environmental regulations (which has been the case for decades).
The whole argument is based on a false premise.
Just a shell game.... The govt will set up the safety and environmental laws in such a way to ensure what sort of cars they are making. Consider this analogy. Imagine a chess board. The govt says you can move your pieces any way you want, as long as you follow a very long and complex set of rules. I would suspect that by the time you got through reading all of the rules involved of what you could NOT do, you would discover in short order that there was only a path or two left in which your pieces could move.

Or to put this more simply, the govt would be pulling a Henry Ford "Any colour - so long as it's black." when referring to his Model T.
__________________
armor99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 08:18 PM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
We need to increase the cost of gasoline 50˘ gallon every year until it's $4-5/gallon. The higher cost will be via federal gas taxes imposed at the pump. And then the free market will work in our long term interests.
No self respecting politician is ever going to vote for something so transparent as a gasoline tax. That's just crazy talk. Every time people fill up their tank they'll be reminded of why they're not going to vote for you in the next election. It's much better to support a Cap and Trade program under which industry buys emission allowances from the government, or from other industrials who have banked vintage credits, that allow for a pre-determined, and declining, aggregate amount of emissions thereby inducing scarcity and encouraging investments in cleaner technology or certain designated carbon offset projects.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 10:25 PM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by armor99 View Post
Just a shell game.... The govt will set up the safety and environmental laws in such a way to ensure what sort of cars they are making.
So why haven't they done this already with the environmental and safety regulations in place now?
Yes, there will be higher CAFE standards. No, I don't see the government telling anyone they can't build a hummer or something of that sort.
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2009, 11:20 PM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Instead they are using the threat of EPA regulation to coax and coerce recalcitrant Congressmen from coal heavy states to support legislation that is presumably more agreeable than what the EPA might do.
Ah, so the EPA will make up and then enforce bizarre and crippling regulations as a means to maybe get Congress to tell them to do things in a less crazy way. Meanwhile, while the game continues, where does that leave all of us who drive cars, ride trains, use electricity, and participate in the real economic activities in this country? Just pawns in the game, I suppose. The EPA has adopted the "we had to destroy the village to save it" technique.

I've heard others say EPA was doing this to hold the economy and public hostage to get Congress to write a law the administration likes. It just seems to be the most cynical tactic imaginable.

We recently had a candidate who decried the cynicism of Washington and said he was going to change it. Where did that man go? I guess "change" could be an increase or a decrease.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 12:49 AM   #14
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Didn't the Supreme Court tell the EPA it had to regulate green house gases?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/wa.../03scotus.html

The Bush EPA slow walked the requirement and the Obama EPA fast tracked it.
If the court mandates that the EPA do something impossible, then I'd hope the executive branch would take steps to at least do something reasonable. And, clearly, enacting meaningful regulations on the most significant greenhouse gasses is impossible. Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas (per unit and cumulatively) than is CO2--it is responsible for approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes approximately 3.6%, while methane contributes about 0.36%--but each unit of methane warms the earth 21 times as much as each unit of CO2. Now, we can debate as to whether (weather?) the water vapor is a forcing a feedback function, but there's no doubt that it is in the atmosphere heating things up, and by God the EPA should be doing something about that! And the methane! Why the hell the EPA has not clamped down on the sale of beans is quite beyond me.

Maybe the former EPA chief was simply trying to figue out how to comply with the idiotic SOCUS mandate. That seems like a brilliant course of action compared to butchering the economy for the sake of a political goal.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 07:39 AM   #15
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
No self respecting politician is ever going to vote for something so transparent as a gasoline tax. That's just crazy talk. Every time people fill up their tank they'll be reminded of why they're not going to vote for you in the next election.
Fair enough, unless they tie the gas tax to offsets in income taxes. I concede there is no easy answer, but it's clear from Europe and parts of Asia that if gas costs more, people demand more efficient cars. How did politicians in Europe and parts of Asia do it without being thrown out? Probably broad energy policies with stated long term goals, so all politicians were unpopular for a time - they look smarter than we do right now, and they certainly did last summer.

It's frustrating to think our politicians might play with CAFE or just force automakers to supply more efficient cars without doing anything to get customers to demand more efficient cars. People who bought Suburbans & Excursion walked right by Cavaliers, Aveos and Focus(es) to do so. Just forcing automakers to make small cars will kill off the D3 for sure with the next gas price spike if not sooner, and gas will go up --- not if, just when...
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 10:21 AM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
No self respecting politician is ever going to vote for something so transparent as a gasoline tax. That's just crazy talk. Every time people fill up their tank they'll be reminded of why they're not going to vote for you in the next election. It's much better to support a Cap and Trade program under which industry buys emission allowances from the government, or from other industrials who have banked vintage credits, that allow for a pre-determined, and declining, aggregate amount of emissions thereby inducing scarcity and encouraging investments in cleaner technology or certain designated carbon offset projects.
As far as I know, there is one exception. The Online Office of Congressman John B. Larson - AMERICA'S ENERGY SECURITY TRUST FUND

Quote:
This bill would impose a per-unit tax on the carbon dioxide content of fossil fuels beginning at a rate of $15 per metric ton of CO2 and increasing by 10% each year,
Only 267 to go!

I'm sure that opponents of cap-and-trade will point out that it would increase gasoline, natural gas, electricity, and lots of other prices. I'll agree that cap-and-trade has more political legs. But I think that a simple carbon tax is much better public policy, and I'm not sure that it's that much tougher politically. I'd sure like to see someone with more clout try pushing the tax idea.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 09:20 PM   #17
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas (per unit and cumulatively) than is CO2--it is responsible for approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes approximately 3.6%, while methane contributes about 0.36%--but each unit of methane warms the earth 21 times as much as each unit of CO2. Now, we can debate as to whether (weather?) the water vapor is a forcing a feedback function, but there's no doubt that it is in the atmosphere heating things up, and by God the EPA should be doing something about that! And the methane! Why the hell the EPA has not clamped down on the sale of beans is quite beyond me.
Quote:
EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.
So methane is covered.

My understanding is that human activity doesn't impact water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, except by way of the positive feedback loop you mentioned.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 10:21 PM   #18
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post

Quote:
The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels
This is inaccurate. There's nothing "unprecedented" about the present CO2 level, and these levels also are fairly poorly correlated with global temperatures. Over the last 250 milion years (see chart below) CO2 has averaged approx 1000 PPM. Today, the level stands at just 387 PPM. So, if the EPA now believes it has a mandate to "correct" the CO2 levels to what they were before man began producing it, they need to switch gears and embark on a campaign to double or triple C02 levels over the next decade.

Or, maybe the IPCC and the EPA have picked a particular moment as their CO2 baseline that represents an historic anomaly, a period of especially low CO2 levels. Why would they do that?



At any rate, the problem the EPA is supposed to be addressing is climate change, not CO2 levels. If water vapor causes climate change, then I demand they do something about water vapor, too. It's been a hundred days already--do something!! Another modest proposal: It's time to put the robber baron oil companies to work reducing global warming. Oil prices are low now, it is the perfect time to act. The plan: The government should buy and immediately release millions of gallons of fuel oil onto the world's oceans. This thin film of oil will immediately reduce the rate of evaporation from our oceans and begin the process of lowering earth's temperature. There's no more economical and effective way to slow the introduction of this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. As anyone knows who has ever put a small amount of cooking oil into a floor drain to slow evaporation of the water from the trap, this idea will work. It should also be expected that the shimmery coating (aside from being darn pretty) will increase the albedo of the sea's surface, further reducing solar gain and concomitant temperature rise. Also, with governments buying up and dumping into the oceans millions of gallons of fuel, we can expect the price of fuel to go up--another win! Nothing reduces US production of greenhouse gases more effectively than higher fuel prices.

And, to solve two problems at once, I'd propose that we do our first release of fuel oil off the coast of Somalia. If a conflagration ensues, we may be rid of the pirates.

Or, to continue the precedent set by the administration and the EPA in this matter, we can take bold action that so seriously and adversely impacts others that they are moved to act. To do this, we just pump the oil into US waters and explain to our neighbors and the UN that we are doing what we can, in our own little way, to stop global warming close to home. This, hopefully, will prompt them to do something we want. I guess.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 10:57 PM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
Quote:
If water vapor causes climate change, then I demand they do something about water vapor, too.
It does not.
Water vapor stays in the atmosphere for a period of days (as little as hours, possibly as much as a couple weeks).
We can put more water vapor in the air, and will get more rain somewhere else.
And since we can affect the amount of CO2 in the air, and can't affect the amount of water vapor that stays in the air for more than a few days, seems pretty straight forward.
I agree this is 'bigger' than anything the EPA has tried to address in the past.
However, the EPA has never regulated in the manner of 'you can't HAVE x pollutant in your air/water'. It has regulated HOW MUCH of a pollutant you can put into the air/water. It is doing the same thing here. Seem well within the standards to me.
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2009, 11:16 PM   #20
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
It does not.
I'll agree that we don't know if water vapor provides a forcing function to TTFKAGWBNKACCBIIWSTOPIANGH*, or if it is feedback-driven. But it would be absolutely incorrect to say that the presence of water vapor does not result in higher global temperatures.

*The Thing Formerly Known as Global Warming But Now Known As Climate Change Because It Inconveniently Was Shown That Our Planet Is Apparently Not Getting Hotter.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
E-R forum music makers ? mh Other topics 9 07-07-2008 07:58 PM
The Electric Car - Domestic Auto Makers chinaco Other topics 3 05-22-2008 07:33 AM
How do market makers work? twaddle Stock Picking and Market Strategy 22 01-27-2008 08:13 PM
Apartment / Portable Ice Makers? BigMoneyJim Other topics 9 02-08-2006 04:41 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:50 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.