Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Uncategorized

A Matter of Fact: The IEA’s updated net zero scenario is still unrealistic

Published

11 minute read

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

Canada can lead the world with reliable, affordable energy supply and clean technology as countries work to reduce emissions

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has updated its net zero scenario, pushing for governments to implement more aggressive climate policies on the energy industry.  

The IEA itself acknowledges the scenario is “a pathway, but not the only one” for the energy sector to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050. 

The agency acknowledges the world is not on this trajectory, but the Government of Canada uses the net zero scenario as the basis for policies like its proposed oil and gas emissions cap, which will hurt Canadians without environmental gain 

“We’re the fourth-largest oil producing country, and we’re the only ones that are saying oil and gas is not here to stay. That’s a huge roadblock for all of us,” Gurpreet Lail, CEO of Enserva, the national trade organization representing energy service and supply companies, told the Globe and Mail during the World Petroleum Congress last week. 

Canada can lead the world with reliable, affordable energy supply and clean technology as countries work to reduce emissions. But the sector needs to be allowed to thrive rather than being phased out while it is needed.  

Here are the facts.  

Fact: The IEA net zero scenario is not a forecast 

The IEA’s updated net zero scenario envisions that the world does not need any new coal, oil and natural gas projects. By 2030, it imagines world oil demand will drop by 23 per cent, natural gas demand by 18 per cent, and coal demand by 44 per cent.  

It’s difficult to see how this could actually come about, given that even with accelerating investment in low carbon energy resources the world’s consumption of oil, gas and coal is as high or higher than it has ever been. And rising.  

The IEA reports both oil and coal demand are at record levels. The agency itself projects the world’s total energy consumption – which increased by 15 per cent over the last decade – will increase by a further 24 per cent by 2050.

On the world’s current trajectory, the IEA says oil, gas and coal will still account for 62 per cent of world energy supply in 2050, compared to 78 per cent in 2021.   

“There’s no evidence that oil demand is going to peak any time soon,” Arjun Murti, former partner with Goldman Sachs, said at the recent Global Business Forum in Banff.

“Oil is not in its sunset phase.” 

Fact: The IEA net zero scenario is unrealistic 

The IEA’s net zero scenario includes components that are unrealistic.  

For example, it says electricity transmission and distribution grids need to expand by around two million kilometres each year to 2030. But it also acknowledges that today, building these grids can take more than a decade, putting that scale and timeline already out of reach.   

The net zero scenario also hinges on a “unified effort in which governments put tensions aside and find ways to work together.” But the IEA also acknowledges the world today is “a complex and low-trust geopolitical environment.”  

Consider that Russia is trying to boost trade with Asia as economic ties with the West shrivel over Moscow’s actions in Ukraine, according to Reuters News. In just one example, state-owned Gazprom plans to start gas deliveries to China through the Power of Siberia pipeline in 2025 and expand that service in 2030 with Power of Siberia-2.    

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine accentuated the world’s reversal away from the concept of globalization, where everyone benefits from the global economy, leading energy analyst and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Yergin said on a recent ARC Energy Ideas podcast 

“The era of globalization was what I call the WTO consensus: we’re all in this global economy together. In China, hundreds of millions of people come out of poverty. India enters the global economy, standards of living go up and you get really impressive economic performance,” Yergin said.  

“Well, that era is ending and it’s heading pretty fast now as we move into this new era of great power competition, which hopefully does not become great power confrontation.” 

Energy is at the heart of the “new map,” as Yergin calls it. 

Responsibly produced, reliable energy from Canada can benefit world energy security while helping reduce emissions. That is why it is essential the sector is not phased out through government policy. 

Fact: Canadian energy and clean technology can help reduce world emissions 

One of the fastest and most effective ways to reduce emissions is to switch from coal-fired power to power generated from natural gas, traded globally as LNG.    

Consider that between 2005 and 2019, emissions from the U.S power sector dropped by 32 per cent because of coal-to-gas switching, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.   

Natural gas from the LNG Canada project alone could reduce emissions in Asia by up to 90 million tonnes annually, or the equivalent of shutting down up to 60 Asian coal plants, the project says.  

That’s a reduction of more than the entire emissions of the province of British Columbia, which were 64 million tonnes in 2022.    

Expanding Canada’s LNG exports to Asia could reduce emissions by 188 million tonnes per year, or the annual equivalent of taking all internal combustion engine vehicles off Canadian roads, according to a 2022 study by Wood Mackenzie.   

One of the reasons LNG from Canada has a lower emissions intensity than LNG from other jurisdictions is the success producers have seen reducing methane emissions. It’s an opportunity for technology exports. 

The IEA views cutting methane emissions from oil and gas as a critical component of achieving climate targets.  

The latest data shows that oil and gas producers in Alberta decreased methane emissions by 44 per cent between 2014 and 2021, a 10 per cent drop from 2020. The sector is expected to surpass the target of reducing methane emissions by 45 per cent by 2025.   

“I don’t know of any other jurisdiction that is as far forward in terms of its methane management as Canada,” says Allan Fogwill, chief operating officer of Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada.  

“There’s nothing to suggest we couldn’t have similar impacts in the United States, the Middle East, or former Soviet countries that also are involved in oil and natural gas production.” 

Fact: Canada’s carbon capture and storage leadership can benefit the world 

The IEA says “rapid progress” is required to deploy more carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) projects to reduce emissions.  

This is another area where Canada’s energy sector can take the lead 

Since 2000, CCS projects in Saskatchewan and Alberta have removed more than 47 million tonnes of emissions, or the equivalent of taking more than 10 million cars off the road. This work has helped inform development of major CCS projects globally including Northern Lights in Norway.  

Canada has five of the world’s 30 commercial CCS facilities, accounting for about 15 per cent of global CCS capacity even though Canada generates less than two per cent of global CO2 emissions, according to the Global CCS Knowledge Centre.  

Among CCS projects under development in Canada is one of the largest in the world, proposed by the Pathways Alliance of oil sands producers.  

The first phase of the Pathways CCS project will connect 14 oil sands facilities to a CO2 storage hub in northern Alberta. The target is to reduce emissions from operations by 22 megatonnes by 2030 on the way to net zero in 2050. 

Fact: Oil and gas still needed in IEA net zero scenario 

Even in the IEA’s net zero scenario, in 2050 about 14 per cent of world energy needs are still supplied by oil and gas.   

This includes non-combustion uses like petrochemical feedstock and asphalt, which crude from Canada’s oil sands is particularly well suited to supply. Researchers with Queen’s University recently found that asphalt from Alberta’s oil sands can extend pavement lifespan by 30 to 50 per cent.    

The world needs more Canadian oil and gas, not less.   

Uncategorized

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Must Resign. Now

Published on

Subscribe to Malone News

US House COVID committee determined that the WHO acted on behalf of the Chinese CCP during the COVID crisis

On December 02, 2024, The US House of Representatives “Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic” released a 500+ page report covering their findings from two years of investigations, which will be read into the congressional record 04 Dec 2024. Malone.News has previously covered and published the corresponding press release.

With this essay, we now turn to an underreported aspect of this report; collusion between the World Health Organization (under the direction of Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus) and the Central Communist Party of China (CCP) to advance the interests of the Chinese CCP at the expense of other WHO member states and global health. Based on these official US Congressional Select Committee findings, WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus must now resign as he has failed to fulfill and comply with both the scope and intent of the UN/WHO charter and also failed to comply with the version of the International Health Regulations guiding the activities of himself and the WHO in the context of the greatest infectious disease public health crisis ever encountered since the formation of the WHO. As the committee clearly documents, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ and WHO’s corrupt and biased malfeasance and mismanagement directly contributed to exacerbating the severity of the initial phase of the Coronavirus Pandemic.

On the basis of this report, Malone.News calls upon President Elect of the United States Donald Trump to condemn the WHO and Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus for their corrupt and biased pro-CCP actions during the Coronavirus Pandemic. We specifically recommend:

  • the immediate resignation of WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus,
  • to prioritize initiating the process of defunding and terminating US relations with the World Health Organization as soon as possible after assuming the office of POTUS,
  • to withdraw from negotiations relating to the WHO “Pandemic Treaty,” and to
  • to clearly and unambiguously indicate that the amendments to the International Health Regulations recently illegally approved under direction of WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus be declared non-binding, null and void due to a failure of Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to comply with WHO/UN policies and procedures for amending the International Health Regulations.

On 23 May 2017, The World Health Assembly elected Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of Ethiopia as the new Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), during the Assembly’s 70th session. He began a five-year term on 1 July 2017 and succeed Margaret Chan in the role. The WHO has a long, rich, and well-known history of corruption.

Dr. Margaret Chan Fung Fu-chun is a Chinese-Canadian physician, who served as the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) from 2006 to 2017. Chan previously served as Director of Health in the Hong Kong Government (1994–2003) and representative of the WHO Director-General for Pandemic Influenza and WHO Assistant Director-General for Communicable Diseases (2003–2006). In 2014, Forbes ranked her as the 30th most powerful woman in the world. In early 2018 she joined the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). She was widely criticized for her handling of the 1997 H5N1 avian influenza outbreak and the 2003 SARS outbreak in Hong Kong, and the 2014-2016 West African Ebola outbreak.

I (Robert Malone) have had direct personal experience with Dr. Chan during the 2014-2016 West African Ebola outbreak, and witnessed her attempts to shake down my small biotech client at the time (New Link Genetics) for financial contributions to the WHO in exchange for supporting the advancement of the Ebola vaccine candidate then owned by New Link (purchased from Public Health Canada for slightly more than 100,000 USD), and which was later licensed to Merck Vaccines (with my assistance). This type of activity is considered standard WHO practice and accounts for at least some of the substantial dark funding that the WHO receives from the pharmaceutical industry and other special interests. Merck subsequently obtained FDA market authorization for the PHAC/New Link Ebola vaccine product after considerable developmental support was provided by US DoD/DTRA and HHS/BARDA. I personally lead the development of and served as primary author of the awarded USG contract bids that capitalized much of this Ebola vaccine support, and also served as initial capture and project manager. A US Army officer and leader of the DoD Ebola vaccine team (not myself) was subsequently appointed project manager for the USG Warp Speed Moderna “vaccine” project.

In contrast, the Ebola vaccine candidates supported and promoted by NIH/NIAID were unsuccessful. US DoD/DTRA was explicitly required by the Obama White House to allow HHS to take credit for that success due to political considerations relating to the involvement of DoD in exploiting vaccine surveillance activities to locate and then assassinate Osama Bin Ladin.

Dr. Tedros’ selection process began before September 2016, and the Assembly considered three nominees: Dr. Tedros, as he is known; David Nabarro (UK); and Sania Nishtar (Pakistan). The 70th WHA convened from 22-31 May 2017, in Geneva, Switzerland, and selected Dr. Tedros as Director-General WHO with the strong support of Mr. Bill Gates.

Previously, Tedros served as Chair of the Global Fund and of the Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership Board (RBM) and created the Global Malaria Action Plan, which expanded the RBM’s work beyond Africa to Asia and Latin America. He also served as Ethiopia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Health (2012-2016 ). Tedros has links to the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (“TPLF”), a group designated as a terrorist organization by the Ethiopian government. Tedros was a senior capo for TPLF, a gangster mafia that ruled Ethiopia from 1991-2018. During that time, he served as Health Minister and Foreign Minister, cementing his credentials as a member of the inner circle of what was one of if not the most corrupt, brutal and genocidal regimes to set foot on this planet in the past 30 years. Tedros’ political career began by aligning with TPLF, a hard-left organization. He served as Ethiopia’s health minister and foreign minister under the TPLF-dominated ruling coalition. The Ethiopian government has turned against Tedros, accusing him of supporting TPLF and failing to show integrity and professionalism. In 2020, Ethiopia’s military accused Tedros Adhanom of supporting and trying to procure arms and diplomatic support for TPLF, which is fighting federal troops. The Ethiopian government has called on WHO to investigate Tedros’ actions and declined to back his re-election as WHO’s Director-General in May 2022.

The 75th meeting of the World Health Assembly reelected Dr. Tedros as WHO head (unopposed) by unanimous acclimation for a second term beginning 16 August 2022. No nation put up a candidate against him despite his controversial handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and close relationship to China (CCP).

When the Biden administration rejoined the WHO in January after President Trump had elected to withdraw from the WHO, Dr. Anthony Fauci said that Tedros was his “dear friend.” Tedros reportedly referred to Fauci as “my brother Tony.”

As reported at the time by Fox News

Craig Singleton, adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told Fox News, “The WHO Director General election stood as one of the first multilateral tests for the Biden administration, which has prioritized multilateralism and the United Nations in particular as a vehicle to promote U.S. interests on the world stage. The administration has put forward candidates for other international organization elections, such as the International Telecommunications Union, but has yet to provide an explanation for its decision to not challenge Tedros.”

Singleton continued, “This misstep raises serious questions about Washington’s efforts to push back against China’s growing U.N. activism, which includes Beijing’s efforts to promote leadership candidates throughout the UN system which are deferential to China’s interests.”

Observers say the U.S. lack of activism in the election process means it lost a major opportunity to wield influence over the future of the organization. The nomination deadline ended at the end of September.

This unfortunate history provides yet another example of the Biden/Harris administration’s actions that functionally supported Chinese CCP activities and agendas.

Dr. Tedros recently jammed through modifications of the International Health Regulations during the 77th meeting of the World Health Assembly without official US governmental objections while blatantly disregarding established protocol and process for legal amendment approvals, which Malone.News previously covered here.

The 78th meeting of the World Health Assembly is scheduled to convene in Geneva from Monday, May 19, 2025 to Tuesday, May 27, 2025, and approval of the proposed WHO/International “Pandemic Treaty” is anticipated during that meeting.


The following is a summary of the findings of the US House COVID committee findings regarding Tedros, WHO, and the proposed Pandemic Treaty. For detailed supporting text, please see the report section titled “The Implementation or Effectiveness of Any Federal Law or Regulation Applied, Enacted, or Under Consideration to Address the Coronavirus Pandemic and Prepare for Future Pandemics”, subsection “I. Overreliance on the World Health Organization,” pages 171 to 188.

Key findings from this section of the report include:

  1. The World Health Organization Failed to Uphold Its Mission and Caved to Chinese Communist Party Pressure.
    1. The WHO Ignored Taiwan Despite It Warning of COVID-19 in December 2019
    2. The WHO Denied Human-to-Human Spread of COVID-19 Based Solely on CCP Propaganda
    3. The WHO Prolonged Naming COVID-19 a PHEIC and Pandemic Because the CCP Insisted the Spread was Under Control
    4. The WHO Delayed and Denigrated Serious Countermeasures, Like Travel Restrictions, Because of CCP Pressure
    5. The WHO Continued to Praise CCP Failed Efforts to Combat the Pandemic, Despite a Globally Recognized the Cover-Up
    6. The WHO Failed to Condemn the CCP’s Aggressive Tactics Against Whistleblowers, Journalists, and Americans
    7. The WHO Posted False Information Regarding the Origins and Notification of COVID- 19’s Emergence
  2. The Chinese Communist Party Violated Articles Six and Seven of the International Health Regulations with No Repercussions.
    1. The CCP violated IHR Articles Six and Seven and needs to be held accountable.
    2. Article 6 of the IHR says that “[e]ach State Party shall notify WHO…within 24 hours…of all events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern.”666 In order for an outbreak to require notification it must: (1) have serious public health consequences, (2) be unusual or unexpected, (3) have risk of international spread, and (4) pose significant risk to international trade.667 COVID-19 met all these criteria well before the WHO was formally notified of the outbreak by China. Further, Article 7 of the IHR states that if a “State Party has evidence of an unexpected or unusual public health event…it shall provide to WHO all relevant public health information.”668 The CCP failed to notify the WHO in a timely manner and subsequently concealed valuable information—harming the global response and leading to unnecessary illness and death.
  3. The World Health Organization’s Report Regarding the Origins of COVID-19 Was Incomplete, Misleading, and Parroted Chinese Communist Party Propaganda.
    1. Apart from the initial mismanagement of the virus, the WHO produced a report on the origins of COVID-19 that did nothing but continue the CCP’s propaganda.675 The WHO attempted to organize an investigation into the origins of the virus, yet from the very beginning it was evident the CCP was completely in control.
    2. The “Terms of Reference for the China Part” [hereinafter “Terms of Reference”] was a document that laid the ground rules for the WHO’s investigation. These terms were inherently flawed, provided significant discretion to the CCP, and continued to parrot CCP propaganda.676 Some examples included:
      1. Supporting CCP propaganda by stating the investigation would also evaluate the “possibility the virus may have silently” started outside of Wuhan.
      2. Dodging responsibility by “build[ing] on existing information and augment, rather than duplicate, ongoing [CCP]…efforts.”
      3. Phony scientific independence by giving the CCP final right of refusal on the “composition of the international team.”
    3. In January 2021, an international team traveled to Wuhan, China to review evidence of when and how the virus might have emerged.678 In March 2021, the WHO team released a report, entitled “WHO-Convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part,” [hereinafter “WHO Report”] outlining four possible origin scenarios:
      1. direct zoonotic spillover is considered to be a possible-to-likely pathway;
      2. introduction through an intermediate host is considered to be a likely to very likely pathway;
      3. introduction through cold/food chain products is considered a possible pathway; [and]
      4. introduction through a laboratory incident was considered to be an extremely unlikely pathway.
    4. A significant restriction, was the CCP’s complete control over every single aspect of the investigation team’s itinerary and access to information. Upon arriving in Wuhan, the WHO team quarantined for two weeks in hotel rooms and were further restricted to certain areas of the hotel after quarantining.
    5. The investigators were restricted from dining with their Chinese counterparts, a seemingly insignificant detail, yet denied the WHO team the opportunity to engage in informal, human-to-human, conversation that can provide invaluable information.
    6. In Wuhan, Chinese scientists stated they had reviewed the medical records of approximately 76,000 patients from more than 200 medical institutions.692 When the WHO team requested raw numbers and data, Chinese scientists only presented analysis.
    7. Of the 76,000 medical records examined, 92 patients from October, November, and early December 2019 curiously showed symptoms suggesting COVID-19, yet none tested positive for antibodies according to medical records.
    8. The WHO Report’s conclusion included four hypotheses: that the virus jumped directly from animal to human; it spread via some (one not identified) intermediate animal; it was transmitted via the food chain, especially frozen products; or it came from a laboratory. These were concluded via a show of hands, in a room with Chinese counterparts—many of whom report directly to the CCP—that had already ruled out a lab accident and suggested the pandemic started somewhere outside of China. The theory that the virus came from a lab was voted as “extremely unlikely” and wasn’t recommended for further research.
    9. This was very clearly not a thorough, complete, or impartial investigation. The CCP Ministry of Foreign Affairs even admitted, “China firmly opposes certain countries’ attempts to…hold China accountable.” Yet, even though the rest of the world understands this report is a sham, the CCP presents it as the definitive assessment concerning the origins of COVID-19. So much so, the Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. sent the Select Subcommittee a letter attempting to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation into the origins of COVID-19, citing to the WHO origins report.
  4. The WHO team was not allowed to review any raw data or conduct their own analysis.

     


Malone News previously covered the original WHO COVID investigation findings here.

The original WHO report key findings included the following, which are contradicted by the House Select subcommittee’s findings. This quote clearly demonstrates that the WHO was compromised by placing the interests of the Chinese CCP above those of other member states and global health.

“For each of these possible pathways of emergence, the joint team conducted a qualitative risk assessment, considering the available scientific evidence and findings. It also stated the arguments against each possibility. The team assessed the relative likelihood of these pathways and prioritized further studies that would potentially increase knowledge and understanding globally.  The joint team’s assessment of likelihood of each possible pathway was as follows:

• direct zoonotic spillover is considered to be a possible-to-likely pathway;

• introduction through an intermediate host is considered to be a likely to very likely pathway;

• introduction through cold/ food chain products is considered a possible pathway;

• introduction through a laboratory incident was considered to be an extremely unlikely pathway.”

The full 2021 WHO report can be downloaded from this link.

 


Please consider a paid subscription to Malone News to help change Americans’ hearts and minds and get the truth out beyond the echo chamber of the woke. We reach hundreds of thousands daily – but it takes time, money, and resources. Every bit helps – so consider becoming a subscriber.

 


Thanks for reading Who is Robert Malone! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share 

Continue Reading

Business

Ottawa’s avalanche of spending hasn’t helped First Nations

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tom Flanagan

When Justin Trudeau came to power in 2015, he memorably said that the welfare of Indigenous Canadians was his highest priority. He certainly has delivered on his promise, at least in terms of shovelling out money.

During his 10 years in office, budgeted Indigenous spending has approximately tripled, from about $11 billion to almost $33 billion. Prime Minister Trudeau’s instruction to the Department of Justice to negotiate rather than litigate class actions has resulted in paying tens of billions of dollars to Indigenous claimants over alleged wrongs in education and other social services. And his government has settled specific claims—alleged violations of treaty terms or of the Indian Act—at four times the previous rate, resulting in the award of at least an additional $10 billion to First Nations government.

But has this avalanche of money really helped First Nations people living on reserves, who are the poorest segment of Canadian society?

One indicator suggests the answer is yes. The gap between reserves and other communities—as measured by the Community Well-Being Index (CWB), a composite of income, employment, housing and education—fell from 19 to 16 points from 2016 to 2021. But closer analysis shows that the reduction in the gap, although real, cannot be due to the additional spending described above.

The gain in First Nations CWB is due mainly to an increase in the income component of the CWB. But almost all of the federal spending on First Nations, class-action settlements and specific claims do not provide taxable income to First Nations people. Rather, the increase in income documented by the CWB comes from the greatly increased payments legislated by the Liberals in the form of the Canada Child Benefit (CCB). First Nations people have a higher birth rate than other Canadians, so they have more children and receive more (on average) from the Canada Child Benefit. Also, they have lower income on average than other Canadians, so the value of the CCB is higher than comparable non-Indigenous families. The result? A gain in income relative to other Canadians, and thus a narrowing of the CWB gap between First Nations and other communities.

There’s an important lesson here. Tens of billions in additional budgetary spending and legal settlements did not move the needle. What did lead to a measurable improvement was legislation creating financial benefits for all eligible Canadian families with children regardless of race. Racially inspired policies are terrible for many reasons, especially because they rarely achieve their goals in practise. If we want to improve life for First Nations people, we should increase opportunities for Canadians of all racial backgrounds and not enact racially targeted policies.

Moreover, racial policies are also fraught with unintended consequences. In this case, the flood of federal money has made First Nations more dependent rather than less dependent on government. In fact, from 2018 to 2022, “Own Source Revenue” (business earnings plus property taxes and fees) among First Nations bands increased—but not as much as transfers from government. The result? Greater dependency on government transfers.

This finding is not just a statistical oddity. Previous research has shown that First Nations who are relatively less dependent on government transfers tend to achieve higher living standards (again, as measured by the CWB index). Thus, the increase in dependency presided over by the Trudeau government does not augur well for the future.

One qualification: this finding is not as robust as I would like because the number of band governments filing reports on their finances has drastically declined. Of 630 First Nation governments, only 260 filed audited statements for fiscal 2022. All First Nations are theoretically obliged by the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, 2013, to publish such statements, but the Trudeau government announced there would be no penalties for non-compliance, leading to a precipitous decline in reporting.

This is a shame, because First Nations, as they often insist, are governments, not private organizations. And like other governments, they should make their affairs visible to the public. Also, most of their income comes from Canadian taxpayers. Both band members and other Canadians have a right to know how much money they receive, how it’s being spent and whether it’s achieving its intended goals.

Continue Reading

Trending

X