• About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support
    • Feedback
  • Log In
  • Register
↓
 

The Progressive Wing

You Are The Revolution

  • Home
    • About Us
      • Contact Us
      • FAQ
    • Members
  • Candidates
  • Organizations
  • Media
Home→Tags Climate Change

Tag Archives: Climate Change

1/30-31 News Roundup & Open Thread

The Progressive Wing Posted on January 30, 2023 by BennyJanuary 30, 2023

Join us for conversation after the jump.

Continue reading →
Posted in 2024 Elections, Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter | Tagged Bureau of Indian Affairs, Climate Change, Florida, Tyre Nichols | 57 Replies

3/16-17 News Roundup & OT

The Progressive Wing Posted on March 16, 2022 by BennyMarch 16, 2022

The Ides of March have come and gone.

The Impacts of Green New Deals on Latin America

In response to an accelerating climate crisis, activists and policymakers have in recent years urged governments to move away from fossil fuels and at the same time create new clean energy jobs, particularly for workers in the oil, gas, and coal sectors. These proposals fall loosely in the category of “Green New Deals,” which references the government stimulus packages launched by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to rescue the U.S. economy during the Great Depression of the 1930s. While some of these Green New Deals are market-driven reform packages with an emphasis on decarbonization, others propose more significant economic and social transformations.

The European Green Deal, initiated at the end of 2019, aims to combine a transition to clean energy with an emphasis on economic equity. A similar initiative in the United States, associated most visibly with a resolution introduced at the beginning of 2019 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in the House and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) in the Senate, has inspired some elements of the Biden administration’s economic stimulus bills as well as some stand-alone legislation that has not yet passed Congress. In 2020, the South Korean government made a Green New Deal part of its official policy with an emphasis on boosting renewable energy and creating jobs in that sector.

The Global South is both present and absent from these initiatives. It is absent in that mainstream Green New Deals focus on the reactivation of economic growth in their own countries or regions, and the global South is scarcely mentioned. And yet the Global South is very much present as well, for many of the materials required in clean energy infrastructure come from this vast region. In other words, Green New Deals depend on a resource flow from lower-income countries without taking responsibility for the possible impacts that may have on local or transnational ecosystems and societies.

Latin America plays a disproportionate role in this resource flow. For centuries, the continent submitted to the extensive extraction of precious metals and other valuable resources by colonial powers, what Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano described as the “open veins of Latin America.”

That era is not over. Since 1970, according to a 2020 article in the journal Dialogos, the extraction of resources from Latin America has increased fourfold, greater than the global average. A significant portion of these resources leaves the continent as exports.

A transition away from fossil fuels currently requires a vast amount of minerals to build the infrastructure of renewable energy. According to the World Bank, the extraction and refining of minerals such as lithium, graphite, and cobalt will increase by 500 percent by 2050. More than 50 percent of the world’s supply of lithium, a key component in solar panels and the batteries in electric cars, can be found in the Lithium Triangle, a vast area of salt flats spanning Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of the world’s copper, another key component in “sustainable” energy infrastructure, can be found in Peru and Chile.

“The majority of Latin American economies import at a higher price than they export,” points out Miriam Lang of the Universidad Andina Simon Bolivar in Ecuador in a recent workshop cosponsored by the Ecosocial Pact of the South and Global Just Transition. “In other words, they are decapitalizing in material terms without generating positive economic returns. This reinforces the idea of an unequal ecological and economic exchange.”

The increase in extraction of natural resources from Latin America—fossil fuels but also minerals like lithium and raw materials like balsa wood—has a direct and negative impact on the communities where the extraction takes place. “This energy transition is being promoted to avoid the natural disaster of climate change,” notes Esperanza Martinez, a biologist and lawyer with Ecological Action in Ecuador. “But in the Global South we see that these actions have nothing to do with natural disasters. These are manmade disasters.”

The extraction, for instance, has taken a huge toll on the natural world. Biodiversity has declined worldwide since 1970 at a rate of 68 percent, according to the World Wildlife Fund. But the figure for Latin America and the Caribbean is an astonishing 94 percent.

Enrique Viale, the president of the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers, draws a parallel to the development debates of the 1970s when the countries of Latin America were pushed toward making considerable sacrifices in the name of economic growth. “Today, in the name of the energy transition, everything is approved,” he says. “We’re going to build new nuclear plants: because of the energy transition. We’re going to do offshore oil and gas drilling: in the name of the energy transition. All for the energy transition of the Global North, we are going to sacrifice our territory yet again. Before it was in the name of development, and now it’s in the name of the energy transition.”

Meanwhile in the Global North, the Green New Deals recognize the urgency of climate change and the necessity of combining economic justice with decarbonization. But they do not propose complete economic transformation. “I would call the European Green Deal a passive revolution,” observes Ulrich Brand, head of the Research Network Latin America at the University of Vienna. “It’s an attempt by elites to change the resource base of the economy, the energy base, without changing the power structure or the dominant logic of capitalist growth and accumulation.”

As it stands, the transitions envisioned by the Green New Deals run the risk of simply shifting the burdens of tackling climate change from vulnerable communities in the north to those in the south. “We can’t just shift zones of sacrifice around,” notes Rajiv Sicora, senior policy advisor for U.S. Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY). “To eliminate them altogether, we’ll need global cooperation on genuinely democratic models of development.”

The U.S. Green New Deal

The Green New Deal in the United States is largely aspirational. It has appeared in the form of a nonbinding resolution in Congress but not as a piece of legislation. It has influenced parts of the Biden administration’s climate policies, but the most significant portions of that agenda have not passed Congress. And it serves as a rallying cry for U.S. progressives—and a lightning rod of criticism from the right wing—though it translates into very different programs depending on which activists you consult.

“There are some ways that the Green New Deal has already made a tangible contribution,” Rajiv Sicora reports. “The Biden administration has set some ambitious goals, though they’re not in line with a U.S. fair-share approach to global emissions nor do they deal with the climate debt to the Global South. The administration, for instance is trying to get to fully renewable electricity generation by 2035. Another direct influence is the Civilian Climate Corps, which is modeled on the Civilian Conservation Corps of the New Deal that put unemployed young men during the Depression to work building parks, planting trees, and doing ecological restoration projects. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez played a central role in defining what that proposal would look like if it were implemented.”

The administration, he continues, “has also placed a genuine emphasis on environmental justice, at least within borders of the United States. It has set a goal of distributing at least 40 percent of the benefits of climate investments to historically marginalized communities, those who have borne the brunt of the impacts of extraction and the combustion of fossil fuel, and the other harms and injustices of our economy.” This Justice40 initiative, he adds, “synthesizes decades of work by the environmental justice movement led by Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities in the United States.”

Although the administration has yet to push its major economic bill, Build Back Better, through Congress, it did manage to pass an infrastructure bill last year. “They’re trying to claim that this infrastructure bill is climate-friendly,” Sicora adds. “But it invests more in car and highway infrastructure than in public transit, which is outrageous.”

He contrasts the administration’s approach with the more transformative Green New Deal, “which uses an emergency framework and stresses the importance of improving the material lives of everyday people and the need to fundamentally restructure our economy. The Green New Deal envisions creating millions of unionized jobs. To do this, we have to mobilize a holistic government response over the next decade.”

The differences between the more transformative Green New Deal and the Biden administration begin with the scale of funds. Bernie Sanders, when he ran for president in 2020, “put out a detailed and visionary Green New Deal platform that called for investing $16 trillion over 10 years,” Sicora continues. “President Biden in contrast started out with a $2 trillion proposal that was part of his signature legislation, Build Back Better.” The climate spending in that bill has been reduced to $550 billion, and still the Democratic Party has not managed to get Build Back Better passed in Congress. “And the leadership of the Democratic Party has not had a strategy to mobilize people at a grassroots level to push for this, or to overcome the resistance of corporate-backed Senators,” he adds.

Another major difference involves the drivers of the transition. For the Biden administration, the private sector is the leading edge of the efforts to scale up wind and solar. For advocates of a Green New Deal, “the public sector should be the driver of this transition,” Sicora explains. “The public sector can do it faster, and ensure high standards and democratic participation. We can develop the economic planning capacity to phase down fossil fuels at the same time as we scale up renewables.”

This emphasis on the public sector extends to three bills associated with the Green New Deal: on public housing, on cities, and on public schools. Sicora has worked closely on the schools bill. “Every school in this country should be safe, comfortable, and zero-carbon,” he says. “But right now, school facilities across the country are literally falling apart, and health harms and climate disasters are an everyday threat to Black, Brown, and low-income students. Public schools, as Rep. Bowman says, are the heartbeat of our communities. They’ve suffered from neglect and disinvestment for decades, but it’s hard to think of a single institution that touches the lives of more people.”

The three bills also illustrate the organizing strategy of Green New Deal advocates. “We’re also talking about what coalitions we need to pull together to win radical change,” he concludes. “We need teachers fighting alongside workers who would benefit from retrofitting schools and alongside student climate activists. Even if these bills aren’t close to passage right now, we can use them as powerful organizing tools, and we’ve seen those coalitions start to come together to push for related funding in the Build Back Better package.”

The European Green Deal

The European Green Deal, first introduced in December 2019, promises “economic growth decoupled from resource use” and envisions increasing the share of renewables to 40 percent of overall energy use, renovating 35 million buildings to make them more energy efficient while creating 160,000 new Green jobs in the construction sector, and boosting organic farming as part of a “Farm to Fork” program that aims to make agricultural production, distribution, and consumption more sustainable.

The EU has pledged to spend as much as 30 percent of its long-term budget, which would amount to around $700 billion, to reduce carbon emissions by 2030. As part of the plan, a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism would effectively apply a tariff on carbon-intensive goods coming into the EU. A Just Transition Mechanism of around $85 billion over six years would help poorer regions of the bloc meet the plan’s goals. Within this mechanism, a “public sector loan facility” would combine grants from the EU budget with financing from the European Investment Bank.

“I see the Green Deal in continuity with the Green economy formulated after the financial crisis of 2008-9,” observes Ulrich Brand. “It is explicitly a growth strategy to transform the EU into a just and wealthy society with a modern, resource-efficient competitive economy. It is a growth strategy designed to give Europe a competitive edge.”

This is not, Brand is quick to add, a complete transformation of the European economy. “It is an attempt to transform the energy basis of the economy but not its political economy,” he explains. “For instance, the plan is to have a certain number of electric cars by 2030, which means it’s not about restructuring the whole transportation system.” Also, the success of the plan is predicated on large-scale resource extraction from the Global South.

More progressive versions of the Green Deal exist in Europe that differ from the official policy in four important respects. First, more progressive versions put the state, rather than private capital, at the center of restructuring the economy. Second, in place of a paternalistic approach, the more progressive versions insist on a just transition in which workers secure good jobs, particularly those in high-carbon certain industries that are being restructured or phased out. Third, not only should the economy be electrified but also certain branches such as automobiles, air transport and the chemical sector should be reduced and reorganized. Although there is some consensus around such reorganization, Brand notes, there is more disagreement about challenging the growth imperative of capitalist economics.

Read the rest here.

More news, tweets, perspectives in the comments below.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Climate Change, Latin America, Ukraine

11/8-9 News Roundup & Open Thread

The Progressive Wing Posted on November 8, 2021 by BennyNovember 8, 2021

Hello birdies…a little analysis on climate change. Surprising findings…not.

Countries’ climate pledges built on flawed data

Across the world, many countries underreport their greenhouse gas emissions in their reports to the United Nations, a Washington Post investigation has found. An examination of 196 country reports reveals a giant gap between what nations declare their emissions to be versus the greenhouse gases they are sending into the atmosphere. The gap ranges from at least 8.5 billion to as high as 13.3 billion tons a year of underreported emissions — big enough to move the needle on how much the Earth will warm.

The plan to save the world from the worst of climate change is built on data. But the data the world is relying on is inaccurate.

“If we don’t know the state of emissions today, we don’t know whether we’re cutting emissions meaningfully and substantially,” said Rob Jackson, a professor at Stanford University and chair of the Global Carbon Project, a collaboration of hundreds of researchers. “The atmosphere ultimately is the truth. The atmosphere is what we care about. The concentration of methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is what’s affecting climate.”

At the low end, the gap is larger than the yearly emissions of the United States. At the high end, it approaches the emissions of China and comprises 23 percent of humanity’s total contribution to the planet’s warming, The Post found.

As tens of thousands of people are convening in Glasgow for what may be the largest-ever meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), also known as COP26, the numbers they are using to help guide the world’s effort to curb greenhouse gases represent a flawed road map.

That means the challenge is even larger than world leaders have acknowledged.

“In the end, everything becomes a bit of a fantasy,” said Philippe Ciais, a scientist with France’s Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences who tracks emissions based on satellite data. “Because between the world of reporting and the real world of emissions, you start to have large discrepancies.”

The UNFCCC collects country reports and oversees the Paris agreement, which brought the world together to progressively reduce emissions in 2015. The U.N. agency attributed the gap that The Post identified to “the application of different reporting formats and inconsistency in the scope and timeliness of reporting (such as between developed and developing countries, or across developing countries).”

When asked if the United Nations plans on addressing the gap, spokesman Alexander Saier said in an email it is continuing its efforts to strengthen the reporting process.

“However, we do acknowledge that more needs to be done, including finding ways to provide support to developing country Parties to improve their institutional and technical capacities.”

The gap comprises vast amounts of missing carbon dioxide and methane emissions as well as smaller amounts of powerful synthetic gases. It is the result of questionably drawn rules, incomplete reporting in some countries and apparently willful mistakes in others — and the fact that in some cases, humanity’s full impacts on the planet are not even required to be reported.

More news, perspectives, and tweets in the comments below. Come join in!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Climate Change, COP26

5/22 TGIF – Long Weekend News Round-up and Open Thread

The Progressive Wing Posted on May 22, 2020 by BennyMay 23, 2020

Politicians still separate climate issues from the wedge ones, not seeing the intersectionality.

Here Are the Corporate Lobbyists on the DNC Committee That Blocked the Climate Debate https://t.co/LmCctGL8ha

— Jamal Raad🌲 (@jamalraad) May 22, 2020

Perez had come out against amending the rules to allow for a climate debate in a June blog post, although he later unilaterally changed other sanctioned debate qualifications, such as the individual donor threshold. At the time of the climate protests, Sludge reported the DNC was accepting large donations from fossil fuel executives, placing the party outside of the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge endorsed by every leading Democratic presidential candidate.

Who, then, are the DNC members of the Resolutions Committee who first voted against recommending a climate debate?

The DNC does not make the membership lists of its standing committees available to the public, but Sludge obtained a full DNC committee roster as of September 2019 from a DNC member.

The 28-member Resolutions Committee contains at least five members with backgrounds in advancing corporate interests: three current corporate lobbyists, one of them a co-chair of the committee and another a News Corp lobbyist put forward by Tom Perez; one past electric utility lobbyist and drug industry consultant, who established a Democratic precedent of corporate PAC fundraising; and one principal with a consulting firm whose current clients include large corporations and whose past clients include BP. The committee also includes Symone Sanders, a senior advisor for Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

Crucially, at least 13 of the standing committee’s 28 members are at-large DNC members, which means they were put forward as a slate by Perez and approved by a voice vote, not individually elected. Of these 13, ten committee members voted against a climate-focused debate when the matter was voted on by the full DNC membership, as tracked by a publicly-viewable spreadsheet released by Michael Kapp, a pro-transparency DNC member from California, as well as Kenji Yamada, also from California. (The previous roll call of the 17-8 Resolutions Committee vote to not recommend endorsing a climate debate is not available online.)

The party Charter states that the Resolutions Committee “shall receive and consider all resolutions proposed by a member of the DNC on matters of policy proposed for adoption, by the Democratic National Committee, and shall report in writing.” However, no written records of deliberations around party resolutions are made available online or to anyone outside of a DNC member who requests them, and video is not recorded and put online for later viewing of committee proceedings.

The Resolutions Committee is co-chaired by Hon. Lottie Shackelford, an at-large DNC member who was mayor of Little Rock, Arkansas from 1987-1988. As one of three senior advisors at consulting firm Global USA, Shackelford’s past lobbying clients include Allstate Insurance, Hyundai, and from 2000-2008, a coalition of Big Bank trade groups called FM Watch.

According to records maintained by ProPublica, Shackelford and Global USA lobbied for several months in 2006 for Strategic Communication Company on “Taxes pertaining to oil and gas companies.” Shackelford did not respond to an email inquiry requesting more information about this lobbying activity, or seeking comment on how her committee evaluates and discusses potential conflicts of interest among members with corporate clients.

The committee’s other co-chair is Stuart Appelbaum, a DNC member from New York who is the current chair of the DNC Labor Council. Appelbaum is president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) and was appointed by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to the state’s Regional Economic Development Councils.

Both co-chairs, Shackelford and Appelbaum, voted against approving a climate-focused presidential debate in the full DNC member vote in August 2019.

Below is a rundown of several other members of the Resolutions Committee and their affiliations with corporations that engage in lobbying.

Charlie King—at-large DNC Member

King is a partner at lobbying firm Mercury Public Affairs and a former senior advisor to New York Gov. Cuomo’s re-election campaign. Mercury was hired by 68 clients to lobby the federal government in 2019, including the Government of Qatar and defense company United Technologies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, receiving a total of $9.5 million in lobbying fees. In 2018, reporter Lachlan Markey found eight additional foreign-registered clients signed by Mercury after it succeeded in getting Russian aluminum parent company En+ removed from the Treasury Department’s sanctions list.

Mercury Public Affairs had several lobbying clients last year in the energy and natural resources sector and the oil and gas industry, including natural gas company PennEast Pipeline ($120,000), methanol maker Yuhuang Chemical ($420,000), and EnVen Energy Ventures ($80,000), an oil and gas exploration and drilling company in the Gulf of Mexico. This year, EnVen and Yuhuang continue to use Mercury for lobbying, and the public affairs firm keeps large clients in industries adjacent to fossil fuel production. Last year, these clients included the South Carolina Ports Authority ($160,000), Hyundai motor company ($240,000), and defense contractor General Dynamics ($290,000).

King explained his vote against a climate-focused debate to the San Francisco Chronicle in September 2019 as a vote to keep other fundamental civil rights issues in the spotlight, saying, “I can’t remember the word ‘poverty’ mentioned in any of the debates. For us to elevate to one critical issue over every other critical issue, I just can’t do.” King’s firm did not respond to an email inquiry for comment on how he addresses conflicts of interest with fossil fuel clients in his work on the Resolutions Committee.

Hon. Tony Coelho—at-large DNC member

Coelho is a former U.S. representative from California who in 1986 was elected House majority whip. After being named chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 1980, Coelho pioneered aggressive party fundraising from corporate PACs that had business before Congress. In 1985, a profile in The New Republic reported that he fought to retain tax breaks enjoyed by independent oil and gas drillers, lining up their financial support for the Democratic Party.

After resigning his House seat in 1989 due to a brewing loan scandal, Coelho later lobbied the federal government as a founding partner of Vectis Strategies in 2013 and 2014 for electric provider Edison Utilities. His many corporate board seats have included being elected chair of consulting services company ICF in November 1998 and commercial bank Esquire Bank.

Joanne Dowdell—at-large DNC member

Dowdell, who ran as a Democratic candidate for a U.S. House seat in New Hampshire in 2012, has been since April 1, 2016 a registered lobbyist for News Corp, where she is senior vice president of global government affairs. Dowdell was one of several corporate lobbyists put forward as at-large DNC members by Perez in an October 2017 “purge” of party leaders who had supported Perez’s rival, then-Rep. Keith Ellison, and greater transparency measures within the DNC. At the time, Bloomberg reported, “A DNC aide who asked not to be identified defended including the lobbyists, saying they were all carry-overs from the last presidential election cycle and were renominated because of their service to the party.”

Symone Sanders—at-large DNC member

A senior adviser to the Biden campaign and previous press spokesperson, Sanders had called a climate-focused debate “dangerous territory in the middle of a Democratic primary process,” saying it “would fundamentally change the game” of what the campaigns had been told. Sanders defended her position on Twitter in the days before the full DNC member vote, saying she does not represent the Biden campaign as part of her responsibilities on the DNC’s Resolutions Committee. Sanders then voted with the majority against holding a climate debate.

Craig Smith—at-large DNC member

A Democratic strategist since Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign, Smith is currently a principal at PSB, a research firm and consultancy for businesses, governments, and politicians. PSB’s current corporate clients listed on its website include the California Chamber of Commerce, Coca-Cola, Ford, pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline, McDonald’s, and Microsoft. At the time of the firm’s 2001 sale to advertising giant WPP, PSB’s corporate clients also included American Express, BP, and Novartis. Founded by pollster Mark Penn, the firm is known for its services to centrist Democrats such as Joe Lieberman’s 2004 presidential bid and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s runs in 2001 and 2005, as well as Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Five DNC officials have not responded to multiple requests for comment over the past several months on how DNC members implement the party Charter’s commitment to a political ethics where officials “shall refrain from acting in their official capacities when their independence of judgement would be adversely affected by personal interest or duties.”

https://prospect.org/politics/corporate-lobbyists-on-the-dnc-committee-blocked-climate-debate/

Good thing it is a long weekend ahead. What’s on your radar? Join us in the comments below!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Climate Change, DNC, Open Thread, Sludge

Register

Recent Posts

2.1-3 Open Threads

February 1, 2023 7:19 am | By orlbucfan | 134 comments

1/30-31 News Roundup & Open Thread

January 30, 2023 4:09 pm | By Benny | 57 comments

1/27-29 Weekend News & Open Thread

January 27, 2023 7:34 am | By Benny | 110 comments

1/25-26 News Roundup & Open Thread

January 25, 2023 7:19 am | By Benny | 66 comments

1/23-24 News Roundup and Open Thread

January 23, 2023 10:59 am | By jcitybone | 93 comments

1/20-22 News Roundup & Open Thread

January 20, 2023 7:54 am | By LieparDestin | 88 comments

1.18-19 Open Threads

January 18, 2023 7:43 am | By orlbucfan | 61 comments

1/14-16 MLK Jr Holiday Weekend Open Thread

January 14, 2023 8:51 am | By Benny | 45 comments

1.12-13 Open Threads

January 12, 2023 9:15 am | By orlbucfan | 13 comments

1.9-11 Open Threads

January 9, 2023 1:53 pm | By orlbucfan | 73 comments

Recent Comments

  • jcitybone on 2.1-3 Open Threads
  • orlbucfan on 2.1-3 Open Threads
  • orlbucfan on 2.1-3 Open Threads
  • orlbucfan on 2.1-3 Open Threads
  • orlbucfan on 2.1-3 Open Threads
  • orlbucfan on 2.1-3 Open Threads
  • orlbucfan on 2.1-3 Open Threads
  • orlbucfan on 2.1-3 Open Threads

2022 Progressive Candidates

The Squad

  • Becca Balint (VT-Rep) – WON
  • Jamaal Bowman (NY-16) – Profile – WON
  • Cori Bush (MO-01) – Profile – WON
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) – Profile – WON
  • Ilhan Omar (MN-05) – WON
  • Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) – WON
  • Rashida Tlaib (MI-12) – Profile – WON

House

  • Greg Casar (TX-35) – WON
  • Maxwell Frost (FL-10) – WON
  • Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04) – WON
  • Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) – WON
  • Ro Khanna (CA-17) – WON
  • Summer Lee (PA-12) – WON
  • Mark Pocan (WI-02) – WON

Senate

  • John Fetterman (PA) – WON
  • Katie Porter (CA) – 2024
  • Raphael Warnock (GA) – WON

 

State & Local Races

  • Anna Eskamani (FL-HD-47) – WON
  • Christina Jones (Raleigh, NC City Council District E) – WON

Search TPW

Archives

©2023 - The Progressive Wing
↑