Friday, December 31, 2004

Global Warming and Kyoto

Genius proposes a somewhat draconian solution for global warming. It's a refreshing change from the "holocaust denial" of some right-wing commentators but goes further than is prudent and, more importantly, further than necessary.

Genius suggests that we should treat oil (and presumably other fossil fuels) similarly to cocaine or other harmful substances and simply use all necessary means to prevent "pushers" from harvesting it. If only life were that simple. We did of course come up with a (hopefully) successful cold turkey solution to the use of CFCs but this was relatively non-controversial, the science was clear-cut and undeniable and the economic costs minor. Global warming is complex and ubiquitous and the economic impact of cutting down on fossil fuels is substantial. More importantly the opposition to freezing oil production will not come only from third world oil despots but also from Western oil companies. If we contemplate a preemptive strike against the middle-east oilfields must we launch our first cruise missiles from the gulf of Texas?

Genius rightly calls for more evidence before deciding on a future course of action but it is notoriously difficult to predict human actions 100 year ahead. This link gives a good summary of the current evidence. The IPCC originally split the question into two parts -
(1) What is the likely future increase in human CO2 emissions with time
(2) What will be the global temperature response to thechanged levels of CO2 emissions.

The first question was addressed by the IS92 model scenarios. These modelled global fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions to 2100 under different population, economic and technical assumptions. The scenarios do not anticipate any specific policies (such as Kyoto) but do involve assumptions of future technologies impacting on nuclear, Biofuel and solar prices and supply. The mid-range scenario (IS92a) is the most likely and this would lead to the following by 2100
(1) a trebling of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
(2) a temperature increase of 2.5 C degree
(3) cumulative (1990 to 2100) CO2 fossil fuel emissions of 1500 Gt
(4) a "committment" to a further 2.5 degrees of warming even if all fossil fuel consumption stopped at 2100.
(5) an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 730 ppmv (cf 360 ppm 1990).
(6) a sea level rise of 64cm by 2100.

The second question the effect of increased CO2 emissions is complex. Not all CO2 emitted remains in the atmosphere and atmospheric warming is a complex process. The question is addressed by a second set of models whuch operate over a longer time span. IPCC introduced a second set of scenarios which envisage stabilising atmospheric CO2 concentrations at various levels. The S650 scenario stabilises CO2 concentrations at levels from 350-750 ppmv (mid-range 550 is just on twice the pre-industrial level). Greenpeace suggests that this could lead to a temperature rise of 2.0 C degrees from 1990 to 2100 and a further 0.6 degrees long-term. Sea-level rise would be about 33cm by 2100 or about 1m long term. Effects on agriculture and natural ecosystems would be material (we are long past the point of doing anything about that) but not catastrophic. We can achieve this by keeping total CO2 emissions to 2100 materially below the IS92a prediction of 1500 GtC and reducing more drastically in subsequent years eventually reaching a value of about 3 GtC/yr. We can make up for inadequate cuts in one decade with proportionately deeper cuts in the following decade and so we can afford to negotiate sound policies, do the science and allow orderly economic transitions.

Global CO2 emissions are currently about 6.2 GtC per year from a population of 6.4 billion. Annex 1 (industrialised) countries account for 3.7 GtC from a population of 1.1 billion. A post-Kyoto regime would then express future limits as a fraction of these levels. Future industrialised countries can be brought in by pro-rating the base (2000) populations to the mean limit for current Annex 1 countries. If we then adopted standard limits of 80%, 70%, 50%, 30% and 15% of the baseline by 2030, 2050, 2100, 2150 and 2200 respectively China would, for example, probably come into the scheme around 2030 with a notional baseline of 4370 GtC/yr and hence an initial target of 3496 GtC/yr from 2030. If China's emissions grow at a rate equal to gdp growth (about 10%) over the same time they would have grown to about 5000 t/ha by 2030 and so China's participation would be essential. On the other hand a more stringent target than that suggested would be unfairly restrictive to the emerging economies. If we assume the above structure and make reasonable assumptions as to GDP growth in non-Annex 1 countries then the total emissions to 2100 are close to 1090 GtC which corresponds to the IPCC S650 stabilisation scenario.

The scenario outlined is a natural progression from Kyoto. It makes relatively minor savings (compared to IS92a) in
the first half of the twenty first century but requires more substantial cuts subsequently. Kyoto will lead to the establishment of a "Carbon market" and to the imposition of Carbon taxes by at least some governments. It will also simplify/reinforce the use of countervailing sanctions against "unfair competition" from non-Kyoto countries should this happen. A large part if not all of the global economy will operate a regime where CO2 emissions carry a known cost and this will favour the emergence and development of alternative energy, energy saving and CO2 sequestering technologies in an economically rational way.

DPF takes exception to my use of the term "holocaust denier" to describe "global warming sceptics". I can only reiterate here that I consider "holocaust denier" morally neutral as it makes no value judgement that the holocaust was "a good or even remotely defensible thimg" but merely a mistaken belief that it did not happen. It is guilty of gross error, obstinate refusal to consider evidence and absurdity but nothing else. The holocaust denier is above all absurd in his reusal to face the obvious. There are of course many global warming sceptics who ask entirely legitimate questions and, of course, the evidence for global warming is much less clear-cut than that for the holocaust yet there are some global warming "deniers" who refuse to accept evidence in front of their eyes, treat every disagreement between "experts" as a refutation of the scientific concensus and every agreement betwen those experts as evidence of conspiracy that they cut a figure scarcely less absurd or pathetic than the classic holcaust denier.

61 Comments:

Blogger Genius said...

> Genius rightly calls for more evidence before deciding on a future course of action... This link gives a good summary of the current evidence.

To be clear - what I am calling for is not the stats on temperature but instead the stats on how many will die what will be the damage to the capacity of the earth etc. the result must be compared to the costs of any solution including a Kyoto system and my more drastic solution. Anyway, the earth's temperature rising is neither good nor bad in itself - it is the change over that could cause harm.

> Further than is prudent and, more importantly, further than necessary.

That has not been established.
Besides I propose a second solution (one I think will be far more effective) to be used probably in tandem with a demand side solution. The big question for you and others is WHY are we not doing anything at all on the supply side? They are not mutually exclusive.

> If we contemplate a pre-emptive strike against the middle-east oilfields must we launch our first cruise missiles from the gulf of Texas?

We have not flattened Columbia. And yes lots of drugs are grown in the developed countries (like USA) but the USA and other countries still work hard to oppose drug production in other countries and solutions are varied as opposed to perfectly fair and uniform.

Personally I think, if anything, it is LESS fair to stop a drug producer exporting drugs (the poor fellows grew it) than oil (they dug it up from the ground and you are not talking about little farmers here you are talking about states and big companies).

> More importantly the opposition to freezing oil production will not come only from third world oil despots but also from Western oil companies.

1) Oil production would not have to freeze. It would reduce at whatever rate you desired.
2) many people in developed countries with money and power support the use of drugs and oppose attempts to stem the flow.
3) big oil companies oppose you no matter what solution you suggest.

> On the other hand a more stringent target than that suggested would be unfairly restrictive to the emerging economies.

You are intentionally placing a specific goal above that of preserving the environment. Besides one could easily argue in many ways the kyoto system is not fair.

SO I wonder

1) Why place various social aims of Kyoto above that of environmental protection?
And your comments made me think

2) Why don’t we at least have a think about NOT indexing it against future population? After all it is a major aim of environmentalism to not have huge populations on earth - and it would be more accurate that way.

4 January 2005 at 12:22 AM  
Blogger Greyshade said...

Genius

Evidence on outcomes of climate change - particularly with regard to natural disasters will be very difficult to quantify. Fatalities often depend on societal development (warning systems, infrastructure quality, response capability) as much as the severity of the event (eg cyclones). I agree that the severity of outcomes depends on the rate of change as much as the magnitude.

I don't have anything against supply side solutions but would only overide the national sovereignty of any state (supplier or consumer) in extremis. if an agreed solution can be negotiated peacefully we have a duty to give it a chance. The drug analogy fails because the "enemy" would not be opposed governments and "establishment" corporations not a few rag-tag drug barons. My reference to launching cruise misiles from the Gulf of Texas was an attempt to point out that the USA is currently on the pro-oil side.

The ISO92a (business as usual) scenario will lead to fossil fuel consumption rates that are certainly not sustainable (if only because of resource depletion) and which will cause levels of global warming and sea-level rise by the end of the century which would pose some threat to natural ecosytems and agriculture. There would be further increases in global warming and sea level for some time after emissions ceased or slowed (emissions continue to rise under ISO92a).

I believe that my subsequent analysis of global warming does suggest that forcably cutting oil production to zero would be "more drastic than necessary". I have no objection to cuts achieved by concensus except to note that it is counterproductive to replace oil and/or natural gas with coal as coal produces more CO2 per MJoule.

As regards emergent/developing economies the issue of justice is important but so is practicality. Annex 1 nations (including USA) currently cause 60% of global CO2 emissions with a combined population of

5 January 2005 at 3:31 PM  
Blogger Greyshade said...

Continued from above...

We can expect well over half the World's population to be living in "industrialised economies" by the middle of the century and most of the World by the end of the century (compared with 1/6 now). These newly industrialised countries will, if we do nothing, increase their emissions to levels similar to the pre-Kyoto levels of the Annex 1 countries. This will give us something very similar to IS92a. We therefore need to bring them into the system as there emissions increase.

I suggest that emergent economies should be brought into the system at a notional baseline prorated from the Annex 1 mean on the basis of 1990 population. This means that no country receives any credit for population increases after 1990 (as at present for Annex 1 countries) but would still allow size differentiation. We accept that Australia should have a higher CO2 allownce than New Zealand by the same logic we must accept that China shoud eventually have a higher level than the USA. This is not just a matter fo following a "social agenda" if we don't allow China (or whoever) a fair break they have no reason to cooperate with us at all.

5 January 2005 at 5:26 PM  
Blogger Genius said...

> but would only overide the national sovereignty of any state (supplier or consumer) in extremis.

Well personally I dont see state soverignty as a sacred cow in fact I think it is a sad thing it ever became one. We should move towards having effectively only one country, for multiple reasons I think it is absolutely vital.

> My reference to launching cruise misiles from the Gulf of Texas was an attempt to point out that the USA is currently on the pro-oil side.

One of the main reasons why it is pro oil BECAUSE it is the target of the anti oil lobby. deal with them carefuly and you can get them onside.

> Annex 1 nations (including USA) currently cause 60% of global CO2 emissions

Dont confuse amount and increace. How much of the INCREACE in emissions will they cause? Rather less than 50% I expect. That is what you are taking action against with this treaty.

> If we don't allow China (or whoever) a fair break they have no reason to cooperate with us at all.

It depends on what you mean by a fair break. that is a entirely politically defined thing. Besides I doubt they will see it as fair when they have to pay for it since if china is still growing at 10% and europe is growing at lets say 1% then oil prices in china will have to be HUGELY higher than those in europe. You should establish the restrictions on them now - if they wont accept them now then they probably wont accept them then.

Supply side is better because you control the oil at the source - it is the fairest method because oil price goes up for everyone exactly the same. besides it avoids the problem of having to tell governments to punish themselves.

5 January 2005 at 7:51 PM  
Blogger Greyshade said...

Genius

I think we may be getting hung up on semantics. I agree a consistent Carbon Tax or other control mechanism would be the preferred solution but would not call this a "Supply-side measure" it can just as easily be applied within consumer nations. Whatever we do, though, requires international agreement. Kyoto has achieved a substantial agreement in which most Annex 1 signatories have agreed to act against narrow national interest for the greater good.

Amount and increase in emissions. Annex 1 countries are (mostly) committed to reductions in emissions and will certainly contribute less than 50% to increases (probably less than 0%) but they are using more than their fair share. Newly emergent economies cannot be expected to accept restrictions that are much more stringent than those applied to comparable sized Annex 1 countries.

oil prices in China will have to be HUGELY higher than those in europe> Kyoto sets national targets in absolute terms not indexed by growth or population. It's over to signatory states as to how they comply (or they can pay the penalty by buying up C Credits). The relationship between growth and energy consumption is obvious when you compare industrialised and "third-world economies" but much less obvious in comparisons between industrial or post-industrial economies.

You should establish the restrictions on them now> I agree we need agreement ASAP on how to set a fair baseline for admission of emergent economies. We can't actually let them in on those baselines as this would give them huge tradable credits in the first commitment period.


Supply side is better> see my first para. It only works if countries agree to a suitable tax (or whatever) including a mechanism to set the rate.

National sovereignty may be a pain but it exists and that means the USA, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, France, China or whoever may chose not to accept any restrictions we may decide on. If the defector(s) are small countries coercive solutions are possible but morally questionable. If the defector is a major World power they are not even possible.

6 January 2005 at 11:09 AM  
Blogger Rich said...

Might be easier to build dykes / move further from the coast / change crops / move from an agricultural to a knowledge economy.

(actually we in NZ will have to do the latter whatever happens - as countries in Asia and Africa become the efficient primary producers they have the potential to be our competitive advantage is going to disappear - whether or not our climate becomes less favourable to agriculture).

6 January 2005 at 2:35 PM  
Blogger Genius said...

> would not call this a "Supply-side measure"

Oh these are two different things. I think the demand side controls should be designed in such a way as to get support from all sides particularly the US, (of course small countries are much easier to run rough shot over) AND be as effective as possible (ie result in the minimum output of CO2).

In addition supply side controls such as buying oil fields or controls on exporting oil from states will provide an additional way to ensure the objectives are achieved.

> But they are using more than their fair share.

that is all a matter of opinion one might say if there was less oil - oil prices would go up for everyone.. Fair?
Or if we set Kyoto limits everyone would have a common limit fair?
Or if we taxed everyone for their energy consumption it would be fair right?
All sound "fair" in their own way but have totally different outcomes. Fairness is thus a matter of opinion. In fact the only useful definition is "whatever can be negotiated".

> It's over to signatory states as to how they comply

But either way it will cost money to some countries and make money for others. Those that it costs money for will find it ever more irritating - a veritable treaty of Versailles. The best way is to take at least some of it out of their hands - then it is not as "in their face".

> ASAP on how to set a fair baseline

I think they should have to start reducing emission growth anyway. They don’t have to reduce it in absolute terms if that is impossible to achieve - but at a minimum they need to have enough pressure so that they have to apply taxes and so forth. This cements the system. And avoids a sudden "shock".

> National sovereignty may be a pain but it exists and that means the USA, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, France, China or whoever may chose not to accept any restrictions we may decide on.

So you gather the support of the appropriate countries.

> If the defector(s) are small countries coercive solutions are possible but morally questionable.

By the same token it is morally questionable to prevent the spread of WMD or drugs. But to not do so could easily amount to suicide.

Both WMD and drugs would be big business if it was not for the fact that we are willing to use significant pressure against those that breach accepted norms.
Similarly there are many ways to free load or create a race to the bottom between nations. I think to hold the ground those pressures will have to become stronger and stronger. I expect if China takes over it will take a more agressive role than the US in this regard.

> If the defector is a major World power they are not even possible.

Indeed - you have to get them on side. BUT major world powers will tend to see the public interest as long as it does not weaken their relitive position. The failure of the environmental movement to get the US onside is a inditement of them.

---

> As countries in Asia and Africa become the efficient primary producers they have the potential to be our competitive advantage is going to disappear - whether or not our climate becomes less favourable to agriculture).

I hope so - I saw aiming to be a big farm and international tourist curiosity as a particularly brillient long term strategy.

6 January 2005 at 10:52 PM  
Blogger Greyshade said...

Rich
Therer are lots of uncertainties in all the thimgs you list and lots of other things we wouldn't ever think of - we are thinking an awfully long time ahead (2-300) years to see the full impacts of our current emission decisions so it's hardly surprising that you see a lot of change (and unpredictability over that time span).

The IS92a type scenario would probably do notning that couldn't be handled by techncal means by 2100. If, however, we keep on pumping out still-increasing CO2 levels after 2100then any thing might happen - including the Domesday scenario of West Antarctic Icesheet collapse with catastrophic consequences.

Genius, i agree Kyoto was not the best solution but it's the solution we have and we can make it work. The key countires to get on side now are USA and China (I think India and other important emergents will follow relatively easily). I agree fairness is subjective and comes down to "what you can negotiate" but think that these future limits will be roughly proportionate to 1990 populations. That's enough to guarantee a track to a concentration stabilisation scheme (eg S650) which would keep short, medeium and long term global warming in reasonable bounds.

7 January 2005 at 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But Kyoto is no solution, even if ratified it is dubious whether it would make any difference. Why isn't nuclear energy a more viable option? Has it been tainted, as GE research and stem cell research has, with negative propaganda from the left? The two main objections I have heard are what to do with nuclear waste and the psiibility of catastrophic Powerplant failure.

The first issue can be dealt with as soon as we achieve a cost effective way to leave earths atmosphere. It has always surprised me that Environmentalists could be against extra space travel research. Surely the vast emptiness of the universe is a perfect trash can? Why pollute our planet when we can pollute another barren one? Hell, you could even heave it toward the sun, incinerate the waste.

The second objection is countered with improving technology, that invariably makes things safer. Who is afraid of the internal combustion engine nowadays? Though the people I have this discussion with are usually of the opposite view, technology simply amplifies the damage.

Kimble

14 January 2005 at 2:55 PM  
Blogger Greyshade said...

Kimble.
Nuclear energy is a complex issue. It MIGHT provide a viable, cost-effective solution to energy problems but don't bet the farm on it. Extra-terrestrial disposal of waste is neither cheap nor all that safe (every launch is a potential catastrophe). The major drawback, though, is that nuclear energy may not be a very large reserve. Most current reactors use natural (U235) fissile isotopes or artificial isotopes (Plutonium) produced in earlier fuel cycles. This measn that
(1) only about 1/1000th of the energy in natural Uranium is available.
(2) only very high yield ores are economic to mine.

Suitably high grades of Uranium ore constitute a significantly smaller energy resource than oil or natural gas.

It is possible to design reactors that convert all or most of the natural U238 to Plutonium while burning the U235/Pu mix. These are called Fast Breeder reactors and make it possible to burn a much higher proportion of the natural Uranium in an ore. These technologies, however lead to a "plutonium economy" where there is high terrorist / proliferation risk.

There are many other technologies which may become available in renewables, CO2 mitigation, and even nuclear fusion but we cannot assume thatthey will emerge at the right time or cost to solve our problems. Annex 1 nations must expect to reduce their emissions below current Kyoto levels over the next 1-200 years and will undoubtedly do so. Emergent economies (China, India, South East Asia) represent the next major challenge and we need to adress this ASAP.

14 January 2005 at 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a extra income today site. It pretty much covers ##KEYWORD## related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

5 October 2005 at 6:41 AM  
Blogger gastips said...

Nice Blog! Its great how useful the internet can be with its wealth of information. I will try and visit you blog on a regular basis to help you out.

If you want any Gas Saving Tips feel free to visit us gas prices

See ya soon.. :)

12 October 2005 at 1:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, I really like this one. I have a website that talks mostly about six figure income opportunity You should check it out sometime.

14 October 2005 at 4:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yo, This blog is pretty neat. You should check out mine sometime. It pretty much covers online income tax class related stuff.

21 October 2005 at 10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

great Blog. I have found a site you may find useful with information on travel europe . at travel europe

3 November 2005 at 4:38 AM  
Anonymous Money Making Website said...

Greyshade,
Great post. I found your post a good read. You may be interested in Powerseller Package.

Any recommendations for the best infromation about Powerseller Package? Nice one.

12 November 2005 at 4:26 AM  
Anonymous Online Business said...

Hi Greyshade,

I was busy looking for information on Ultimate Ebooks and I came across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ". Very interesting. If possible, have you got any ideas of where to find the best resources on Ultimate Ebooks.

Regards

12 November 2005 at 6:10 AM  
Anonymous Second Income said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Online Business. I found some good stuuf on Online Business but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

14 November 2005 at 7:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

john caulfield

14 November 2005 at 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a **shirts** site. It pretty much covers ##KEYWORD## related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

14 November 2005 at 10:04 AM  
Anonymous Online Business said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Money Making Website. I found some good stuff on Money Making Website but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

15 November 2005 at 5:03 AM  
Anonymous Online Business said...

Hi Greyshade, very interesting post.

I'm not too familiar with blogs, but I found your post " Global Warming and Kyoto " a good read. I was actually looking for information on Powerseller Package and found your post. Any recommendations for the best infromation about Powerseller Package?

Nice one.

15 November 2005 at 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Online Business said...

Greyshade,
Great post. I found your post a good read. You may be interested in Powerseller Package.

Any recommendations for the best infromation about Powerseller Package? Nice one.

16 November 2005 at 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Money Making Website said...

Greyshade,
Great post. I found your post a good read. You may be interested in Google Adsense.

Any recommendations for the best infromation about Google Adsense? Nice one.

18 November 2005 at 6:58 AM  
Anonymous Online Business said...

Hi Greyshade,

I was busy looking for information on Online Business and I came across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ". Very interesting. If possible, have you got any ideas of where to find the best resources on Online Business.

Regards

18 November 2005 at 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Money Making Website said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Powerseller Package. I found some good stuuf on Powerseller Package but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

19 November 2005 at 10:46 PM  
Anonymous Ultimate Ebooks said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Powerseller Package. I found some good stuff on Powerseller Package but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

20 November 2005 at 2:49 AM  
Anonymous Powerseller Package said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Free Ebooks. I found some good stuuf on Free Ebooks but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

22 November 2005 at 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Ultimate Ebooks said...

Greyshade,
Great post. I found your post a good read. You may be interested in Ultimate Ebooks.

Any recommendations for the best infromation about Ultimate Ebooks? Nice one.

23 November 2005 at 10:15 PM  
Anonymous Second Income said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Second Income. I found some good stuff on Second Income but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

24 November 2005 at 9:02 AM  
Anonymous Ultimate Ebooks said...

Hi Greyshade,

I see you share my interest in Ebay Ebooks. Your input would mean a lot to me. If you would be so kind to visit my site and give me your feedback, I would most appreciate it.

Thanks

25 November 2005 at 12:41 PM  
Anonymous Google Adsense said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Money Making Website. I found some good stuff on Money Making Website but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

26 November 2005 at 11:01 AM  
Anonymous Money Making Website said...

Hi Greyshade,

I was busy looking for information on Google Adsense and I came across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ". Very interesting. If possible, have you got any ideas of where to find the best resources on Google Adsense.

Regards

29 November 2005 at 9:52 AM  
Anonymous Ultimate Ebooks said...

Greyshade,
Great post. I found your post a good read. You may be interested in Second Income.

Any recommendations for the best infromation about Second Income? Nice one.

1 December 2005 at 5:58 PM  
Anonymous Ultimate Ebooks said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Second Income. I found some good stuuf on Second Income but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

2 December 2005 at 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Ultimate Ebooks said...

Hi Greyshade, very interesting post.

I'm not too familiar with blogs, but I found your post " Global Warming and Kyoto " a good read. I was actually looking for information on Powerseller Package and found your post. Any recommendations for the best infromation about Powerseller Package?

Nice one.

3 December 2005 at 10:48 AM  
Anonymous road said...

We Sincerely Desire Your Financial Independence and Will Do All That We Can to Help You Achieve Success!

3 December 2005 at 9:18 PM  
Anonymous Second Income said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Powerseller Package. I found some good stuuf on Powerseller Package but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

4 December 2005 at 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Second Income said...

Greyshade,
Great post. I found your post a good read. You may be interested in Second Income.

Any recommendations for the best infromation about Second Income? Nice one.

7 December 2005 at 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Online Business said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Ultimate Ebooks. I found some good stuuf on Ultimate Ebooks but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

8 December 2005 at 9:18 AM  
Anonymous home-based business said...

We Sincerely Desire Your Financial Independence and Will Do All That We Can to Help You Achieve Success!

8 December 2005 at 10:15 PM  
Anonymous income for life said...

Merry Chrismas and Happy Holidays to all!!

9 December 2005 at 7:06 AM  
Anonymous Money Making Website said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Money Making Website. I found some good stuff on Money Making Website but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

9 December 2005 at 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Money Making Website said...

Greyshade,
Great post. I found your post a good read. You may be interested in Ultimate Ebooks.

Any recommendations for the best infromation about Ultimate Ebooks? Nice one.

10 December 2005 at 10:33 AM  
Anonymous be your own boss said...

We Sincerely Desire Your Financial Independence and Will Do All That We Can to Help You Achieve Success!

10 December 2005 at 8:12 PM  
Anonymous global said...

We Sincerely Desire Your Financial Independence and Will Do All That We Can to Help You Achieve Success!

11 December 2005 at 8:41 AM  
Anonymous internet business said...

Merry Chrismas and Happy Holidays to all!!

11 December 2005 at 8:50 PM  
Anonymous Money Making Website said...

Hi Greyshade, very interesting post.

I'm not too familiar with blogs, but I found your post " Global Warming and Kyoto " a good read. I was actually looking for information on Money Making Website and found your post. Any recommendations for the best infromation about Money Making Website?

Nice one.

13 December 2005 at 3:20 PM  
Anonymous Second Income said...

Hello Greyshade,

I am based in the UK and I stumbled across your post " Global Warming and Kyoto ".
I'm quite keen on finding any useful information on Second Income. I found some good stuff on Second Income but I wondered whether you may have any advice on the best resources out there.

Thanks in advance.

14 December 2005 at 2:47 PM  
Anonymous Money Making Website said...

Greyshade,
Great post. I found your post a good read. You may be interested in Powerseller Package.

Any recommendations for the best infromation about Powerseller Package? Nice one.

16 December 2005 at 9:23 AM  
Anonymous make money said...

Merry Chrismas and Happy Holidays to all!!

16 December 2005 at 5:33 PM  
Anonymous Google Adsense said...

Hi Greyshade,

I see you share my interest in Ultimate Ebooks. Your input would mean a lot to me. If you would be so kind to visit my site and give me your feedback, I would most appreciate it.

Thanks

17 December 2005 at 5:50 PM  
Anonymous scott edwards said...

Congradulations on your blog! NOW, check this out, You can join a program that starts at only $7 then the costs go down. Down, Down, Down. It only takes 5 minutes to set up your international account!

To find out more visit: make money while you sleep site. It successfully exposes FREE information and covers make money while you sleep related stuff.

5 February 2006 at 1:25 AM  
Blogger Scott A. Edwards said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! You really are very talented and deserve an honest compliment, congradulations! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a mlm site/blog. It successfully covers mlm related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time, Scott.

7 February 2006 at 2:13 AM  
Blogger Scott A. Edwards said...

The brand NEW! Safelist Autosubmission software XP - blasts your ads to 3.6 Million Safelist recipients at the click of one button.

Automatic-Mailer XP! - 50,000 hits guaranteed to your website every month! - Posts unlimited number of ads - Create unlimited number of profiles - Posts whenever you want! 24/7 - Schedule autosubmission when you are not at home - Sends Html & Text Advertisements.

Order today. Our Software also includes: - Autovalidation feature that automatically validates all your Safelists validation codes - mailbox cleaner feature that automatically keeps your mailboxes clean!

NOW That's an incredible Deal, isn't it? Get Your Astonishing Automatic - Mailer XP Software today!
Click here: AUTO-MAILER

23 February 2006 at 2:46 PM  
Anonymous Rick J said...

I have been following a site now for almost 2 years and I have found it to be both reliable and profitable. They post daily and their stock trades have been beating
the indexes easily.

Take a look at Wallstreetwinnersonline.com

RickJ

18 April 2006 at 9:21 PM  
Anonymous second income said...

Hi Greyshade,

Why would I want to give 100 people like you, F*ree access to my $97 value life changing product? Because I am launching my new product and need social proof of it's ability to make money, even for newbies to the internet.

Discover how you can make money from internet marketing before this unique time limited promotional offer is withdrawn.

Yours in Success
Buddy

4 July 2006 at 5:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you!
[url=http://udnbivoc.com/ptoc/tirc.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://caflxnws.com/vnhv/ofal.html]Cool site[/url]

5 November 2006 at 3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great work!
My homepage | Please visit

5 November 2006 at 3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great work!
http://udnbivoc.com/ptoc/tirc.html | http://kfkzzurs.com/oqwk/rlik.html

5 November 2006 at 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi! I really like your "ebay feedback" discussion. I am just starting selling on ebay. I am trying to sell "ebay feedback" at my ebay store at http://stores.ebay.com/onlineincomegenerators.com?refid=store so if you're looking for digital items on ebay, stop buy!

12 March 2007 at 4:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home