Preparing for the Paris climate change conference

This December the UN seeks again to reach a global agreement to cut carbon dioxide output. The new agreement will take the form of a legally enforceable protocol and legal instrument attached to past agreements. It will come into force in 2020. The advocates wish to limit the earth to a 2 degree temperature rise, and believe that if the world cuts human generated carbon dioxide emissions by enough this precision in temperature control can be achieved. There is little comment on the other variables which might have an impact on the weather and climate in 2050 and 2100.

We now know the offers of the three main players. China, the world’s largest source of human CO2 emissions (25% of world total) has indicated that it should reach peak output of carbon dioxide by 2030. In the meantime it will build up renewable electricity generating capacity to limit the rise in carbon output it plans.  The USA (11% of world total) under Mr Obama wishes to make a   contribution, and has offered to cut its emissions by 28% in 2025 compared to a 2005 base level.  The EU (9% of world total) acting on behalf of all member states is enthusiastic about the process. It has offered a “binding, economy wide, domestic greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of at least 40% by 2030”. This is compared to a 1990 base.

The fact that China’s emissions will grow mean that advocates of this policy will be disappointed by the offers so far made collectively by the main creators of greenhouse gases. Once again the response of the world is asymmetric, with the EU offering the biggest cuts. This will continue to expose the EU to the need to substitute dearer energy for cheaper energy, and will limit EU competitiveness. Whilst markets are understandably concentrating on the tribulations of the Euro, the EU’s climate policy is also going to have quite an impact on EU costs, and divert  more industry out of the EU altogether. At least this process will cut the EU’s carbon footprint but it will also  boost the footprint of those places that sell us the industrial products that become displaced.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

36 Comments

  1. Peter a
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 5:42 am | Permalink

    John, you must really have a grin on your face when you pose these topics. Just reading the title made me fulminate over my poached eggs (not a pretty sight!)

    Where to start? Perhaps with the proposed limit to 2 degrees temp rise when there has been no discernable increase in 18yrs..

    There’s too much to write John, how am I meant to finish before the global warming induced apocalypse, as predicted by Charles?

    • oldtimer
      Posted July 8, 2015 at 8:31 am | Permalink

      +1

      PS I wonder how much that extra CO2 in the atmosphere, over the past 18 years, has contributed to the greening of the sub-Sahara observed in satellite images.

      • Hefner
        Posted July 8, 2015 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

        If you had read the original National Geographic article, you would know.

  2. Old Albion
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    “The advocates wish to limit the earth to a 2 degree temperature rise”

    Plenty of room for manouvre there then. The Planet’s temperature hasn’t risen at all for two decades. Though as I type ‘scientists’ are re-working their data to alter that…..

    • Peter Stroud
      Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      Absolutely. The entire predictive science behind CAGW is flawed, because the computer codes are completely useless: but no matter. The IPCC scientists continue to produce arguments involving much arm waving, and more unverified hypotheses: such as – the excess energy due to increasing CO2 has gone to the depths of the oceans. Clearly, where it cannot be measured.

    • Peter Stroud
      Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      The entire predictive science behind CAGW is flawed, because the computer codes are completely useless: but no matter. The IPCC scientists continue to produce arguments involving much arm waving, and more unverified hypotheses: such as – the excess energy due to increasing CO2 has gone to the depths of the oceans. Clearly, where it cannot be measured.

  3. Ian wragg
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    Yet another reason why we should leave this Soviet inspired nonsense. China and Russia are expecting a cooling period and are preparing for it. Yesterday the Met Office declared warmer drier summers at the end of the century. They can’t get todays weather correct.
    When the lights go out over Europe then maybe the sheeple will revolt.

  4. Ted Monbiot
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    The saddest outcome of this process is that hundreds of billions are being diverted from being spent eleswhere on projects such as clean water, electrification and disease eradication in nations that desperately need more money spending on such things.

    Without substantial immediate reductions from China and India there is no point in the others reducing their CO2 outputs as overall levels will not reduce enough to alter temperatures, according to their own theory.

    The UK with its radical Climate Change Act and the EU with its proposals to enthusiastically reduce CO2 outputs further, are just exposing themselves to world trade competition where companies will continue to relocate to nations where energy costs are far lower taking jobs and prosperity with them.

    This conference takes place without any mention or explanation of the failure of the global average world temperature to obey the predicted rapid rises from 2000 that their science said was to happen.
    They are now reduced to measuring to two decimal places from 1998 in order to claim that a particular year post 2000 was “the hottest on record”
    Its a plateau with no statistically significant nor discernable temperature rise.

    Incidentally measuring to this tiny amount is outside even the IPCCs own advice on statistical error.
    Yet dopey media journalists swallow their statements without any questioning and repeat their words as if they were significant.

    • CdBrux
      Posted July 8, 2015 at 8:17 am | Permalink

      I think your first paragraph is very important and needs to be said more – those, along with population and food supply – all linked – seem to get pushed aside at the moment. This is not to say we shouldn’t be limiting CO2, but it’s not our only concern. Indeed if population rise was dramatically slowed then CO2 emission growth would surely of its own slow as well.

      As someone who lives in a city then other polluants like NOX (i.e. diesel exhaust fumes) also deserve a higher priority and also would possibly lead to CO2 reduction.

      • dennisambler
        Posted July 9, 2015 at 9:21 am | Permalink

        “This is not to say we shouldn’t be limiting CO2”

        Why should we? It is doing nothing to global temperatures. If it really were trapping heat, why does it get cold at night when there is no sun. Simplistic maybe, but difficult to answer.

        CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not “carbon”.

    • stred
      Posted July 8, 2015 at 9:03 am | Permalink

      There will certainly be an awakening when the largely brainwashed population finds their power bills increasing rapidly over the next few years, while their often leaky old houses require around £10k just to improve the walls from 2.2 to 0.3 U value under tightening regulation.

      Food for thought.- Current electricity price, largely coal and gas- (MWh) £ 41.25 day ahead, £43.75 year ahead. Reduced running and mothballing of coal station by summer 2015- Guardian 2.4.2015.

      Press release DECC 4.12.2013. from the Right Hon Ed Davey. UK on track to double renewables to 30% by 2020 at cost of £40bn. ‘Investors are queuing up…’
      He also said ‘ this is consistent with plans to reduce..bills by £50 by 2014. The ‘strike prices’ are listed as- large solar- £120, biomass conversion( for US wood pellets)- £105, biomass with CHP-£125, ofshore wind- £155 to 140, onshore wind-£95-90, Scottish island wind £115, wave and tidal £305, gasification anaerobic etc £140 to 155.

      Re Greenwise 4.12.2013. The solar trade association’s Ray Noble said, ‘ they are not changing the ROCs, which give the industry until 2017 to build solar farms… after 2017 any small contribution from the reduced strike price will still allow solar farms to be built, as the increased energy price, partially caused by subsidies to wind and nuclear, will make grid parity even easier.’

      The strike price is a contract for difference. JR is a numerate ex banker. Perhaps he and some other suitable MPs could look at the DECC document URN 14D/355 CFD auction advice 25 .9.2014 and see whether they can understand this incredibly complex method of calculation what we will be paying on our bills.

      • stred
        Posted July 8, 2015 at 9:07 am | Permalink

        oops – of what we will be paying.

  5. Lifelogic
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    “The advocates wish to limit the earth to a 2 degree temperature rise, and believe that if the world cuts human generated carbon dioxide emissions by enough this precision in temperature control can be achieved.”

    They are clearly unscientific, religious loons trying to play God, but not having a clue. They are unable to predict the climate even for the next week or month. They did not even predict the 18 years of no recent warming – yet still they push their expensive (and positively damaging) insanity.

    It is all about politics and religion. The schools, BBC and governments have indoctrinated the population into this belief system and now still have to make the right noises. They cannot now therefore admit they were talking and teaching exaggerated drivel. The group think lunacy thus continues. Still lost of conferences in interesting places to go to.

    Only a few month left for humanity according to Prince Charles – who certainly does far more than his bit for C02 output with his £1M + travel PA.

    • Richard1
      Posted July 8, 2015 at 8:07 am | Permalink

      According to the actor Robert Redford – not hitherto know for any expertise on this subject – the December summit is the last chance to save the planet. Moderate weather he informs us, is becoming extinct. In my part of Eastern England this am it is currently 14C with a light rain. I await tornadoes and climate change induced flooding with trepidation.

  6. alan jutson
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    So the EU is backdating the start line to 1990 which was before the Euro and a host of other policy mistakes.

    Perhaps they should look at everything after 1990 and start again.

    If only immigration had a limit of a 2% rise over 40 years.

    Global warming, Climate change, what will they call it next.

    • turbo terrier
      Posted July 8, 2015 at 11:41 am | Permalink

      Alan.

      How about: One almighty world cock up

    • Edward2
      Posted July 8, 2015 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      Well Alan you will not be surprised to know that they are already moving towards the next title: Climate Forced Extreme Weather. CFEW or extreme weather for short.
      Being unable to show there is any actual warming taking place on the globe since 2000 as they predicted, the religion has had to currently regroup around the Climate Change banner.
      A meaningless phrase which has the ability to be difficult to disprove.

      But extreme weather is much easier to rally behind.
      Every significant weather event will now be used as proof.
      So wetter or dryer, hotter or colder will be said to be proof as will every flood, every tornado hurricane or storm or heatwave.
      Despite statistics showing no more extreme weather events now than at any other time the bandwagon rolls on.
      But with 24/7 news channels desperately looking for any exciting event it is easy to think there are more such events today than ever before, but there are not.

    • Hefner
      Posted July 8, 2015 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

      Just a guess: Could it be that 1990 was chosen as it was the year of the first IPCC report? So, nothing to do with the EU?

  7. Shieldsman
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    COP 21 will result in lots of idle promises by China and India to curtail their CO2 emissions later this Century but not at least after 2030.
    The principal of the UN is that the developed Countries (in Europe & North America) should pay for the rest of the World to convert to renewable energy.
    No doubt the wind turbines (with port facilities being built at Hull) and paid for by the UK taxpayer will be given away to African and Asian countries.

    Everytime a natural severe weather event occurs the doomsters cite global warming/climate change. The fact is the World is overpopulated and people are living in the wrong (meteorological) places subject to storms.

    Overpopulation results in migrants seeking a better life.

  8. Roy Grainger
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    And I imagine China will duly report peak carbon output in 2030 just as they promised. Easy to do given it is impossible to measure accurately let alone verify. However, we will enthusiastically don the hair shirt and genuinely try to reduce by imposing fuel poverty on UK citizens.

  9. PayDirt
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    The 2degC number is important as these are legally binding promises and precision is critical. However for these ideas to be worth anything (a) when and how the 2degrees are measured needs to be in the legal document and (b) how the various promised percent reductions are calculated needs to be pinned down. There is so much room for obfuscation that when the world’s legal eagles sit down in 2020 or whenever, they will be arguing the toss and any penalties will be chimerical (unlike the recent US imposed fines on various “deliquents”).

    • dennisambler
      Posted July 9, 2015 at 9:51 am | Permalink

      2 deg C is meaningless and has no scientific basis. It was first mooted in 1975 by the economist William Nordhaus and later picked up by Greenpeace and then the Potsdam Institute, whose director has recently been advising the Pope. It was Professor Schellnhuber who got the 2 degC figure adopted by the EU.

      It is not actually possible to have a global surface temperature with any meaning, as Nasa’s own web site describes and was authored by James Hansen. It is still there:

      “GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)”

      “To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted.

      Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT ?
      A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the
      temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours,
      hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the
      highest and lowest temperature of the day ? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.

      Q. What SAT do the local media report ?
      A. The media report the reading of 1 particular thermometer of a nearby weather
      station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that
      location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT.

      Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful ?
      A. The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to
      visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is
      measured, in other words, to nobody.

      Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
      A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that
      are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with
      the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also
      called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the
      initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the
      inaccuracies of the model become relevant.

      For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of
      roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58
      F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.”

      The scientists claim the science is settled but this document was produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre in 2005:
      “Stabilising climate to avoid dangerous climate change — a summary of relevant research at the Hadley Centre” 5 January 2005

      What constitutes ‘dangerous’ climate change, in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, remains open to debate.

      Once we decide what degree of (for example) temperature rise the world can tolerate, we then have to estimate what greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be limited to, and how quickly they should be allowed to change.

      These are very uncertain because we do not know exactly how the climate system responds to greenhouse gases.

      The next stage is to calculate what emissions of greenhouse gases would be allowable, in order to keep below the limit of greenhouse gas concentrations. This is even more uncertain, thanks to our imperfect understanding of the carbon cycle (and chemical cycles) and how this feeds back into the climate system.”

      The science had already been settled for years and IPCC AR4 was on the stocks prior to publishing in 2007.

      On the basis of all this uncertainty we have suicidal energy policies and a drive for global governance via the UN and “carbon ” taxation. Satellite measurements have shown no global rise in temperature for almost 19 years, with an increasing CO2 component in the atmosphere.

  10. Richard
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    A rapidly increasing world population presents a far greater danger to our planet than EU per capita carbon dioxide output.

    • turbo terrier
      Posted July 8, 2015 at 11:43 am | Permalink

      Richard.

      Try telling the Pope

  11. A different Simon
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Will be interesting to see what China do with their own baby boomers when they get old with nobody to look after them as a result of the 1 child policy .

    At least for them their population is reducing . They don’t have an equivalent of a Cameron inviting all and sundry to move there .

    The UK has previously unilaterally committed to CO2 reductions greater than the rest of Europe .

    I am filled with absolute dread at the grandstanding Amber Rudd and Cameron will engage in in Paris .

    To date , the centrepiece of the UK’s CO2 reduction policy has been de-industrialisation .

    What future will their be for British children leaving school now without domestic industry ?

    Will be revealing to see whether in The Budget , the Govt make a commitment to changing the planning system to facilitate exploration and production drilling and frac’ing for shale gas .

  12. agricola
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    I’m all for breathable air and we have made a lot of progress, but those who think our tinkering on the fringe of climate can make any measurable difference are howling at the moon.

    Understand this, our climate is subject to constant change and has been for millions of years. There are factors totally outside our control, such as asteroid hits, sunspot action, and volcanoes that can make the effect of a coal fired power station totally insignificant.
    Against all the natural influences on our climate we are being conned into believing that man is measurably guilty and that he should be heavily taxed to rectify it.

    It is another area in which we are welded to the shirt tails of the EU, and fail to have low cost answers of our own. Shale gas, the burning of which can be filtered, is seemingly hoist on the petard of a luddite Lancashire council. The basic requirements of the nation should not be subject the whims of local environment activists. Government needs to get a grip.

    I am all in favour of not wantonly fowling our environment, but there are solutions that do not jeopardize our industrial competitiveness, and reduce our energy using citizens to penury.

    Apart from shale gas, the next fifty years energy requirements can be covered by nuclear generation, either on the scale we have seen in the past or has anyone ever considered smaller units such as those that drive our submarines. Our research energy should be concentrated on bringing Nuclear Fusion to a viable level, but I would guess there will be a fifty year gap.

    Just as the EU has entered it’s death throes, so has the green lobby been found wanting. Lets have a government initiative to resolve our future energy needs at a price the nation can afford.

  13. Atlas
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    … now I know what is was to live through the theological turbulence of the later Middle Ages – what with the Global Warming fanatics acting as if they were the only font of knowledge.

  14. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    In the 1950s it suited the British Government, its British Medical Association, its media and its industry to pour scorn on all environmental threats despite warnings by largely American academics with a list of qualifications stretching half-way across book covers.

    Those books were placed by librarians and booksellers alongside books on UFOs, Witchcraft and home-made tie-dye tee-shirts. Such authors were Doom-Merchants and weirdos as described by one senior Labour Politician at the time accompanied by phlegm gargling tobacco smoke chortles of his peers.

    If indeed carbon emissions are key to our survival then it would seem too late to remedy. Who over the age of 55 in the UK cannot remember those hazy crazy lazy days of winter where we coughed our way to school in the cold fog and smog walking in smoke dirtied snow. The days when our teachers using public transport still managed to get into school with snow two feet high. Snow must be more viscous now. The air is much cleaner. But China now , like we in the past, needs to build smoky industries and mis-categorize the good book. They too need to eat.

  15. fedupsoutherner
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Rumours are abounding here in Scotland that DEFRA are considering bending over backward to help developers get around the legislation on subsidies for wind farms if it should come to fruition. The Scottish government has also implied that it will pay for the subsidies instead. Surely this was never what DEFRA was set up for and who has given them permission to spend public money on this waste of space???? A top QC in Scotland has looked at the information available and said this is indeed what it looks like will happen. Can you clarify John?

  16. fedupsoutherner
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    While they all pontificate in Paris (swilling their champagne and enjoying the fine life) about so called climate change or whatever other name they wish to put to it to encompass every likely event with the weather, perhaps they might consider what effect their decisions will have on our wildlife and our environment. Take a look at the following link and weep. As they try to ‘save the planet’ they are actually destroying it beyond repair. Never mind, they can always blame it onto climate change! Many species are being decimated and some even made extinct by their actions on renewables of all kinds. It is a crime against the planet and one they should be made to pay for dearly.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11718550/Why-are-greens-so-keen-to-destroy-the-worlds-wildlife.html

    • Hefner
      Posted July 8, 2015 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

      Christopher Booker is not doing his homework: he should by now have learnt that there are other sources of biofuels than palm oil. But keep repeating a only 10% true statement to ignorant people, and they will swallow it, hook and line.

      But the important is to satisfy his readers.

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted July 8, 2015 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

        That maybe so but they still take up an awful lot of land that could be put to better use. It is not just Christopher Booker reporting on endangered species and the threat of life to humans from misuse of land. The World Council for Nature is saying much the same and so are many other naturalists. Just saying that things are down to ‘climate change’ is a very closeted opinion.

  17. forthurst
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    The global warming cult took off the runway whilst global temperature increases correlated with rising CO2; now that the there has been no significant warming for half the existence of the satellite record, or that there is, therefore, no direct correlation between CO2 and global temperature, or, in other words, AGW lacks scientific authority never mind proof, the cult from which many thousands derive financial gain and millions, correspondingly suffer financial loss and worse, shows no sign of coming back down to Earth.

    Recent ‘record’ temperatures at Heathrow, a place of runways, have been publicised. It is possible to purchase a parrafin space heater on Amazon for £400; for many times that amount, a ‘Trent’ parrafin space heater, available from Derby produces very substantially more heat, and this is the model they prefer at Heathrow whose temperature raising success is then claimed as ‘evidence’ of AGW: what rubbish. These sorts of misleading irrelevances are used constantly to keep the cult airborne.

    We should be far more concerned about the huge damage the AGW cult is causing to industry and to the environment, affecting the lives of millions.
    We have to put up with the windmill eyesores, higher fuel prices, loss of employment and uncertainty of future electricity supply; thousands are being driven off their agricultural lands and away from their homes to create biofuel plantations so that we in the West can enjoy overpriced power generation and inefficient fuel at the pump.

    There are grave dangers in universal reliance on forms of global government such as the UN since such entities can suffer capture by determined special interest groups whose ideas are then greatly magnified by ignorant politicians to cause global damage.

  18. turbo terrier
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    The most effective thing that CMD could do is to announce the closing of the DECC and that England will decide on what is best for them. EU energy policies are crippling British industries and their exporting power. This is the only thing that will erode the £1.5 trillion debt. It is the elephant in the room and nobody seems to be addressing the real impact on the country.

    As much as the Chancellor did a good job today the one thing he left out was the complete stopping of all subsidies and other payments to RE projects and land owners. If he really wants to raise taxes it surely has to be the softest target as the turbines are there and very hard to hide as are solar panels.

  19. turbo terrier
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    CMD and Amber should be bringing to the attention the words of Professor Jack Ponton FREng of the Scientific Alliance Scotland in reply to a report on record wind generation

    However, the claim that in June Scottish wind generation could have
    provided electricity for 1.7 million homes is actually unimpressive.
    Installed wind capacity in Scotland is about 5.6GW. Were this to operate at
    its nominal output it could provide electricity for more than 10 million
    homes. But of course it does not, and this makes these claims both
    irrelevant and fatuous.
    The true measure of the usefulness of a generation system is not what it
    produces when, for example, the wind happens to be blowing, but what it can
    produce when consumers require it. In June the UK’s 12GW of wind turbines operated at an average output of about 2.5GW.
    However, on 6 June they were producing about 7.5GW, more than the National
    Grid could handle, and so the operators were paid, on that one day, £2
    million to turn them off.
    On the other hand, on 20 June they were producing only 0.14GW, ie just over
    1 one per cent of their notional output and about 0.5 per cent of demand.
    It is quite pointless to assert that Scottish wind power could supply all
    of Scotland’s homes on unspecified and unpredictable six days in one summer
    month when it could supply essentially none at some other times when there
    is very little wind, often on the coldest days in winter.

    What in real terms is this all costing the country and industry?

    Couple that with the reported rip off by the big six energy companies surely enough is enough. The Re industry have had a very good extended run but still they carry on bleating.

    The classic line from the Clint Eastwood fim Josey Wales comes to mind. “Don’t wee down my neck senator and tell me its raining” just about sums it all up. It has got to stop. One day please God the world will wake up to the greatest scam of all.

    >

  20. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted July 9, 2015 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    Nigel Lawson was on The Daily Politics today. He said that the biggest worry about the UK economy was its persistent balance of payments deficit. He said that the most important single act to turn this round was to extract gas from the vast shale deposit in Lancashire.

    Do you agree?

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page