WatchSonoma Watch

Santa Rosa adopts compromise greenhouse gas emission plan


The Santa Rosa City Council has adopted a sweeping plan that tries to strike a balance between meeting aggressive greenhouse gas emission goals and minimizing the burdens on local businesses.

The Climate Action Plan, a dense 231-page document, is meant to serve as a road map for how the city can meet its state-mandated goals and local emission reduction targets by 2020 and beyond.

The plan contains 114 “action items” that range from things the city has already doing, such as enforcing green building standards, to others that will take some work to reach, including setting up a network of low-speed electric vehicles or joining a public power agency.

The council, like the Planning Commission before it, tried to navigate a path between business leaders, who urged them to back off aggressive local targets they fear could jeopardize a fragile economic recovery, and environmentalists, who pushed for tougher regulations they feel are urgently needed to curb global warming.

The result is a plan that contains far more voluntary measures than mandatory ones, but which was touted by most of those involved in the process as an important starting point that demonstrates what they described as the city’s leadership on environmental issues.

“It’s not perfect but it is a great first step and we should be very proud that Santa Rosa is the first (city) in Sonoma County to embrace this,” said Councilwoman Susan Gorin.

In the final version, instead of requiring businesses with more than 50 employees to subsidize transit passes for workers, the plan merely recommends they do so.

Another change removed an outright ban on drive-thru windows, replacing it with softer language recommending the city consider a ban someday.

Councilman Gary Wysocky couldn’t support that change. With transportation accounting for 51 percent of the community’s greenhouse gas emissions, Wysocky called it “counterintuitive” to allow more drive-thrus in the city.

Wysocky, an avid cyclist, questioned a city consultant’s conclusion that a drive-thru ban wouldn’t have a measurable impact on emission levels.

“What do you do at drive-thrus? You idle,” he said. “You can’t convince me that you are not increasing GHG emissions.”

The plan passed 6-1, with Wysocky voting against it.

The council approval was the culmination of a two-year effort, funded by a $200,000 federal grant, to establish a plan with several goals. The main one is to help the city meet its state and local emission reduction targets. California has pledged to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a 15 percent reduction from 2007 levels. Santa Rosa set an even more aggressive standard in 2005 by aiming to reduce is emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2015, or 42 percent below 2007 levels.

By the time city planners, whose ranks have been sharply reduced by budget cuts, got around to finalizing the plan this year, however, they concluded the 2015 goal was unattainable.

“Once we actually delved into the project … we realized that we couldn’t do everything in three years,” planner Gillian Hayes told the council Tuesday.

So they moved the goal posts, and the plan now calls for meeting the goal by 2020, which is still more aggressive than the state standard.

Business groups, fearful private industry would be saddled with additional costs or regulations, urged the council to rethink the local goals.

“We’re very concerned about setting targets that are more stringent than what the state requires,” said Jonathan Coe, president of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce.

Coe warned that some elements of the plan were “fraught with challenges and potential burdens” to business.

But others warned that removing too many of the “teeth” from the plan may harm its effectiveness.

Abby Young, an environmental planner with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, said the draft plan was one of the best she has reviewed.

“This plan actually has a lot of teeth,” Young said. “It’s not just a visionary plan that sits on it shelf.”

But Young warned that if too many of the mandatory requirements included in the draft plan were made voluntary, the plan might fall short of one of its main goals: streamlining the permitting process for large development projects.

A recent state law requires developments expected to generate 1,100 or more metric tons of greenhouse gases to analyze the environmental impact of those emissions. Such studies can be complex and costly, so the state provided an alternative. Projects that could show they adhered to a “robust” climate action plan would be exempted from the requirement, Young said.

Remove too many mandatory requirements and the plan might lose some of its effectiveness, she said.

But some council members said they were more concerned about the impact mandatory requirements could have on business and the economic recovery. “The teeth scare me a little bit,” said Vice Mayor John Sawyer.

Councilman Scott Bartley said a proposal to require houses and buildings to be retrofitted for energy efficiency at the time of resale — a measure stripped out by the Planning Commission — is an example of an idea that could do more harm than good.

“There is no way we’re going to burden our real estate market with that at this time,” Bartley said. “We can’t do it.”

Wysocky said he was troubled by the “false supposition that environmental measures always harm the economy.” They can, but they don’t always, he said.

There is clear evidence, he said, that the Sonoma County Energy Independence Program is helping put more people in the construction trades to work than would be without it.

Several residents decried the plan as part of an international conspiracy to strip people of property rights and claimed global warming is a hoax.

Hayes, the city planner, said she is pleased with the balance the plan ultimately struck.

“Santa Rosa is an environmental leader, and while we want to foster business and economic vitality, we are still concerned with doing that in the right way,” Hayes said.

30 Responses to “Santa Rosa adopts compromise greenhouse gas emission plan”

  1. FiscalConservate says:

    Every generation has the big lie,followed by the big power grab,followed by tyrany.


    Nasa and the DOE have already overwhelmingly de-bunked the global warming hypothisis. Why does the agenda continue? Simple…Power and Control of the few over the many.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  2. Robert says:

    The Climate Action Plan, a dense 231page document..

    Probably cost at least $1,000 a page to write and Gaia knows how many trees have been cut down to print and implement it!!

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  3. Canthisbe says:

    “Lawmakers are working to block an unprecedented power grab by the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Water Act (CWA) and control land alongside ditches, gullies and other ephemeral spots by claiming the sources are part of navigable waterways.

    These temporary water sources are often created by rain or snowmelt, and would make it harder for private property owners to build in their own backyards, grow crops, raise livestock and conduct other activities on their own land, lawmakers say.

    “Never in the history of the CWA has federal regulation defined ditches and other upland features as ‘waters of the United States,’” said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the ranking committee member, and Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.”
    Another example of the people in government attempting to take over control of every aspect of your life and expand their power.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  4. Canthisbe says:

    “Wysocky said he was troubled by the “false supposition that environmental measures always harm the economy.” They can, but they don’t always, he said.

    There is clear evidence, he said, that the Sonoma County Energy Independence Program is helping put more people in the construction trades to work than would be without it”.

    The Sonoma County Energy Independence Program managed to scoop up around $6 Million in federal, state and local taxpayers money not counting tax credits for energy related work.


    By pulling $6 Million out of the private sector and using it to create some jobs, did the SCEIP create any net jobs or did it just eliminate private sector jobs and replace them with government jobs?

    Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2

  5. Reality Check says:


    Even when enviros have a point, they reveal their goals to be about much more than environmental ends. As you say, not all low- or no-C02 sources of energy count in their mandates. They are forming an economic cartel in which government will dispense emissions permits to industries of its choosing.

    The public should be scared, very scared. Instead, it reelects the same people who will guarantee a lower standard of living for all but a few.

    Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3

  6. Steve Klausner says:

    HOV lanes are a mandate from the Federal Government. They will only contribute to a state’s highway expansion program if it includes HOV lanes. I’d rather they built toll lanes. At least then, if I really had to get somewhere on time, I could use them.

    HOV lanes are a social engineering experiment that didn’t pan out, but we are stuck with them forever.

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3

  7. GAJ says:


    Thanks for the fantastic link.

    I can personally attest that the regulatory and litigious environment in California grew exponentially in the 25 years I owned a labor intensive small business and was one of the major drivers in our decision to sell to a much larger firm with the administrative horsepower to deal with it.

    Last I heard the firm, (mostly based in the Southeast), regrets its decision to make us a very good offer in 2008.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  8. Canthisbe says:

    “Even from an environmental perspective, increased industrial growth in California might be a good thing. The state’s benign climate allows it to consume fossil-fuel energy far more efficiently than most states do, to say nothing of developing countries such as China. Keeping industry and middle-class jobs here may constitute a more intelligent ecological position than the prevailing green absolutism”.

    The New Class Warfare
    California’s superwealthy progressives seem intent on destroying middle-class jobs.


    Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1

  9. GAJ says:


    The fact that geothermal and hydro energy are put in the same category as power generated by coal by these geniuses is all you need to know.

    And Nuclear?


    Get rid of my Nat Gas stove-top, water heater, BBQ and clothes dryer to “fit” into the agenda propagated by these loons?

    Not going to happen.

    I’m assuming that the “clean” Nat Gas buses Santa Rosa has been running for decades must be scrapped.


    Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

  10. Reality Check says:

    Achieving CO2 emission goals will require substantial changes in how Americans live their lives, and cost far more than any politician cares to disclose.

    Yet, Californians continue to elect those who favor these changes. Why? I don’t know. But it’s not because Americans are anxious to change their lifestyles or pay more for energy. Quite the opposite.

    Democracy only works when the electorate is well informed.

    Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3

  11. Working Fish says:

    Remember PHD stands for Piled Higher and Deeper.

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

  12. Steveguy says:

    Wading in again. Great points by Kay, Jim and others. Especially Joe.

    We get a new freeway that finally happened ( the ‘greenies’ opposed ANY freeway expansion aback in the day ) and we CAN@T use it properly, by some lame rule that any new lanes on freeways MUST be HOV lanes.

    I would rather open all lanes to everyone, as the HOV lanes make my plumber, electrician, cable guy, sales person, whoever to wait on the same old 2 lane ‘freeway’ and it costs EVERYONE more, including Mother Earth !

    Mother Earth would be disgusted how the supposedly ‘ GREEN ‘ HOV lanes actually waste more fuel, and INCREASE the pollution !

    Besides them slowing down traffic when they have to cross 3 lanes of traffic for some off-ramps.

    It’s a disaster for commuters, and a disaster for Mother Earth. Why have a hypocritical rule ? Maybe they want 2 lanes of HOV each direction, so we have to take a train.

    Oh my. I am almost speechless, but I can type. I should go speak with others, and I didn’t realize that Sawyer was against One Bay Area. Vote for him ! One Bay Area my arse, I have lived in Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo, Milpitas (yes) San Jose, Santa Rosa and Windsor and Healdsburg. Even more places. One Bay Area with all the same plan ? Those are all different places. Same ‘PLAN’ ?

    Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2

  13. Joe says:

    We put out more green house gasses sitting idle on 101 during commute hours because of the phoney car pool lane, get rid of it, we also sit waiting at more red lights in this city, so quit crying about the drive tru’s, and its only a few cars per hour, not like the thousands sitting on the roads idling at commute time!!!!!

    Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3

  14. Jim Bennett says:

    BTW, it is noteworthy how the PD downplayed the legitimacy and numbers of all the concerned citizens.
    Didn’t report that they were all put on LEGAL NOTICE!


    Thumb up 23 Thumb down 5

  15. Jim Bennett says:

    GAJ: Cheap energy is not in ICLEI’s vocabulary.

    We have to forfeit common sense and a presumption of good will and understand the Agenda.

    To understand, search:
    Scroll down to ‘ICLEI Primer’ your town and freedoms threatened.
    This isn’t a Left/Right thing.
    It’s a humanity thing.

    Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5

  16. Jim Bennett says:

    It’s very important that we recognize what Kay pointed out.
    Besides, why don’t they stick up for us?
    Since when do bills trump, supersede, negate our Constitution?
    Our local extremists CHOSE to blow past even those rediculous guidelines!

    Houston, we have a problem.

    Our public servants are hell bent on adhering to this oppression who’s premise is rooted in contrived pseudo science.
    Do you think their constituents would be willing to forfeit everything we hold dear based on a lie?
    Did anyone ever even pose The Question of out time?
    Have a debate?
    Take it to a vote?
    In fact, this unauthorized government within a government just takes and takes.
    Takes our Freedoms and Liberties.
    Takes our personal and fiscal financial health.
    Takes away our personal and our community’s sovereignty, our voice.
    It took me years to get through my thick skull that it didn’t matter how well I tried to articulate, submit information as to what their ICLEI membership REALLY represented to us and their Oath.

    It’s like they are members of a religious cult, and WE are outsiders.
    Their relationship with ICLEI IS just like a cult, it has all the components:
    -Their own bible.
    -Their own language.
    -Their own ideology.
    -Their own goals
    -Their sense of superiority; like the non-adherant are somehow ‘lesser-than’ thou.
    -Their assurance that if adherant, their future will be secure (fear).
    -Their own motivational rah-rah meetings.
    -Their feeling of being part of a winning team, something bigger than themselves.
    They should have that Freedom, IF.
    They hadn’t taken an Oath to uphold the Constitution. And IF.
    It wasn’t so profoundly damaging so many.

    Alabama last week past legislation forbidding any association with Sustainable Development/Agenda 21/ICLEI et all.
    LOTS of Americans are realizing what is REALLY goin’ on with public officials that seem to be dancing to different music.
    Here’s a little humor that illustrates who’s really the ‘deniers’.

    Thumb up 26 Thumb down 4

  17. Rome is Burning says:

    The World According To Gorin-a place where government regulates EVERYTHING. Why? Because “we the people” do not know what is good for us-only the “Gorinists” know what you want, need, and will get. As business people continue to plead for less regulations, Gorin leads the charge for more. Who needs business? Government will take care of all of us-right Susan? Vote for Sawyer-save “us”.

    Thumb up 28 Thumb down 4

  18. David Calvi says:

    The city talks about reducing greenhouse emissions yet at the same time they embrace the Peggy Sue car show? they welcome 100′s of pre 1970 smog belching cars to our streets to cruise around and foul our air.
    Today’s cars have 95% fewer emissions than cars of the 70′s and earlier. for that reason alone “Peggy Sue” should be banned in Santa Rosa. Please park these cars in a museum where they belong, permanently.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 27

  19. Joyce Garcia says:

    @ Steve Guy: It only takes a search engine, 20 minutes to click and browse to see what these people are up to! Link after link, city after city they have implemented these rules and regulations.

    I don’t know who’s more ignorant, these blowhards PHD’s or the people who sit back complaining about another law, but accepting what comes their way because they believe they are necessary!

    My education consists of maybe a year of high school and even I know these people are blowing smoke up our butts!

    Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3

  20. joe right says:

    Bitch about a drive through-and take no action to time the stop lights?Pretty obvious, they have not got a clue.

    Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1

  21. Kay Tokerud says:

    The “several” critics, about 15, outnumbered the rah rahs at the council meeting. Jenny Bard, greenie-in-chief, went home seeing they were outnumbered before her name was called to speak. The most important thing for people to know is that the Climate Action Plan exceeds the State “guidelines” (they’re not mandates!) by about 22%. And the amount of greenhouse gases (what a farce) they are supposedly reducing is twice the recommended amount the State has recommended. This will be a job killer.

    This plan is pure, unadulterated United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. ICLEI guided the creation of this plan to conform exactly to the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide written by the United Nations and ICLEI. Sustainable Development is designed to achieve social and economic “equity” with the rest of the world. In other words, the United States has to be taken way down to be equal to the average lousy country. They blame the “affluent middle class lifestyle” for global warming even though that theory has been thoroughly debunked.

    Green is a new religion, Gaia, where the earth is God. I’m not kidding. A spiritual God is never mentioned in their documents but rather they are worshipping a hunk of physical matter. When the churches get a load of this there will be a backlash like they have never seen. You should have heard Fred Kruger going on at the meeting blaming mental illness and even terrorism on global warming. Watch the streaming video on the city’s website if you don’t believe me.

    Meanwhile, pressure is mounting against ICLEI and UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. Alabama just passed a State Law banning ICLEI and Agenda 21 from their State. Others are sure to follow. This fight is just starting and I expect neither side will back down. I, for one, am ready to fight.

    It’s going to get interesting. Unfortunately for the green side, UN Agenda 21 is not in accordance with the US Constitution but rather is a blueprint for a totalitarian state. Yes, that’s right, it’s more consistant with Communism. That’s where they will be hurt when people find this out in large numbers.

    Actually, their stealth plan is brilliant in that they have gotten away with it for 20 years already. The Progressive wing of the Democrat Party is the Socialist Party hiding within the Democrat Party. In Europe they would just call themselves the Socialist Party but we only really have two parties. Saying the greenies are socialists is too nice, it’s really more like Communism. Social equity, social justice, and balancing individual rights with the undefined rights of the community is communism. Unelected regional boards and commissions are the shadow government and must be purged from the United States. Susan Gorin is part of the shadow government as Santa Rosa’s representative on ABAG. Four council members voted to NOT have her on ABAG but she was installed against their vote. What do you call that?

    Sawyer is the only council member so far who has publicly stated opposition to the ONE BAY AREA PLAN because it strips decision making from local governments. Vote for him for County Supervisor.

    Thumb up 23 Thumb down 6

  22. Joyce Garcia says:

    “Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.”

    These words come to me each time I listen to the “experts”, Washington elite or our local council members.
    This is not about clean air, the greater good of the “community” or the word of the year…in this this ”sustainability”…this is about those who consider themselves “wise” patting one another on the backsides as they believe that we…the common folk are too stupid to think for ourselves! And as they continue to impress each other with their unproven theories, they are following the leader down a path that is ruled by power and control….and this is what this is about people….power and control….all you have to do is follow the links to some of the hot air these resolutions, ordinances and laws they write!

    Page 17 – Environmental Credits…Environmental Credits are tradable measures or units representing GHG emissions including carbon credits, carbon offsets, renewable energy credits or any other environmental attribute.” – SERIOUSLY? Taxing the air we breathe?

    “Community Impact Risk – Page 27 – In addition to direct programmatic risk, there are risks related to community and participant impact. For example, if there is a high rate of tax delinquency, a local government may need to initiate foreclosure proceedings on properties to meet its bond payment obligation……” – Hummmmm….LAND GRAB!


    For all their concern about community participation…try going to a meeting and you will be one of a handful from the community…the majority of those in the room WILL BE stakeholders, city staff, planners and those who are on the board pushing this insanity!

    Until we start participating in our future, get on these boards and committees, attending these meetings and stand up for what is RIGHT….these puffed up “intellects” will continue to make rules we will have to live by based on their THEORIES!

    Like my dad use to say: “You can have all the book knowledge the world has to offer, but if you don’t have common sense, all that knowledge is a waste.”

    Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1

  23. Follower says:


    You need to be more forward thinking. The “plan” is to scale back this selfish, decadent lifestyle we have become accustom too because it’s destroying the planet. .. no, REALLY! IT IS!

    And the time may come when we will have no choice but to ration power in the interest of reducing green house emissions and it may become necessary to remotely shut off your Air Conditioner for the good of “the people”.

    Unless of course you have contributed to the proper campaign and have received a “waiver” as a token of appreciation. Then you’ll be one of “the people”.

    You know… like Obama-Care “waivers”.

    Those “people”.

    Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2

  24. Disaffected Voter says:

    The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is another one of those stalinistic governmental agencies that destroys jobs, business and the economy by its heavy handed regulations and absurd adminstrative procedures and regulations.

    This district sees doom everywhere. In fact, the district should be put out of business. The air quality in the Bay Area has never been better.

    We need economic growth not economic stagnation. We need jobs not job killing business regulations.

    This district and most of the other repressive regulatorily bodies in California need to be pared back to bare bone or eliminated.

    Santa Rosa’s 231 page bureaucratic plan is another disaster for business and the residents of Santa Rosa. Call it voluntary. Tomorrow it will be the law and like the German laws in the 1930′s lives will be severely affected and not in a good way.

    Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1

  25. Reality Check says:

    Explain, please, why an employer should be required to subsidize the transportation costs of employees? Yes, I know, for now this is a recommendation only. The mandate comes later.

    If one was serious about reducing C02, the first step would be to put the interests of consumers of fossil fuels on the side of reduced consumption, that is, users pay the added costs. Sticking the bill to a 3d party diverts the burden from the user. It’s counter-intuitive to say the obvious.

    But the game being played here is to hide the costs from the public, and pretend the bill will be borne by someone else. It’s modern government at its finest.

    Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1

  26. Jim Bennett says:

    This ICLEI ‘Plan’ is in the same property rights eroding spirit as the ‘Mandatory Green Building Retrofit Program’. That ‘Program’ was defeated (for now) thanks to an exhaustive flier campaign that the Santa Rosa Neighborhood Association lodged, it included the Mayor Susan Gorin’s phone number. Based on the smoke coming off her phone, the City decided to sweep it under the rug. The Climate Action Plan.
    A thick book of property rights and small business oppression, is the same ICLEI directive. Except this time, very few People know about it, by design.
    The worst component of the ‘Plan’ seeks to eliminate all natural gas powered appliances, HVAC and gasoline powered lawn equipment, leaf blowers, all of it!
    It is ill-founded in every way.
    1) It is rooted in flawed contrived anthropagenic ‘global warming’ pseudo science.
    2) It’s ability to effect any measurable
    change on same doesn’t pass the common sense that a child could employ
    (it will effect measureable change on the ability for many to afford their home, rental property, apartments, etc.).
    3) Eliminates our freedom of choice in our energy options. Lending to a further utility monopoly. Also lending to the technocracy of control that is the ‘Smart Grid’. Clean burning natural gas is cheap and plentiful. Those words aren’t in ICLEI’s vocabulary.
    4) Home owners will be incurred expense often into many thousnds of dollars.
    It’ll be great for the ‘Public-Private Partnerships’ that are PG&E, the N. Bay Labor Council.
    This deal stinks from beginning to end.
    Why don’t the People know about the Plan’s ramifications? Why isn’t it taken to a vote?
    If you’re just hanging on to your single family home and you have to change your appliances/HVAC/service panel with a bureaucrat and clip board at your door sniffin’ around reconciling what she sees with Code Enforcement, you’ll be asking the same thing.

    This is why after years of begging, informing and talking about what ICLEI represents to our community, the Constitution and their Oath. We finally put the City on Legal Notice at Council Tues. night. Because they won’t listen to us. We served them with a Misprision of Treason Notice and a Writ of Quo Warranto Notice/Demand challenging their authority.

    They don’t listen to us because they don’t work for us.

    This electricity monopoly represents a LOT, ICLEI knows it. I wish all the citizens did too.

    Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1

  27. John Angus says:

    The only gas emmision is Susan Gorin and her ilk. Keep her from any elective office before she goes through the drive in of liberals. She is a wealthy liberal. The worst kind you can have.

    Her neighbor.

    Thumb up 36 Thumb down 4

  28. Steveguy says:

    I waded through the document. Dry cleaners and ATM’s required for a development ?

    Replacing gas appliances ( which are far cheaper to run ) with electrical ones ? Gas clothes dryers, stoves and water heaters are much cheaper to run. Maybe even enough to offset any ‘rise’ in GHG emissions.

    And Public power companies ? I trust PG and E far more than our Board of Stups to manage the energy production and distribution systems. Besides the FACT that they want to build costly ‘green’ energy production, when we get most of our power from the greenest of all electrical generating sources- The Geysers. Case in point- The new chicken poo electricity generating plant for the Water Agency, at a cost FAR above any other type of generation, but what the heck, IT’S GREEN !

    There is also a future requirement to have ‘smart appliances’, meaning that ‘they’ can cut off your use remotely.

    The whole monstrosity can be viewed on the City’s site. http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/20120120_Draft_CAP.pdf

    Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2

  29. Dave Madigan says:

    If the City wants to really cut greenhouse gas emissions, they need to seal up the City Council Chambers and keep all that hot air inside!

    I’ll be out cooking on my barbecue today, I’ll be burning wood in my fireplace, I’ll be running my lawnmower and chainsaw.

    Oh….I almost forgot…I’ll be patronizing every drive thru window that I can find!

    Come arrest me!

    Thumb up 33 Thumb down 8

  30. GAJ says:

    A completely idiotic document that ignores the fact that we get all our electricity from the Geysers which for some insane reason does not qualify as a “renewable energy source.”

    Thumb up 34 Thumb down 2

Leave a Reply