Big Sky Debate Page
EVEN IF WE LACK THE TECHNOLOGY TO DEFLECT AN ASTEROID TODAY, THE THREAT WILL LEAD TO SPENDING WHATEVER TIME AND MONEY IT TAKES TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM-Morrison ‘06
Download 1.79 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- EVEN IF WE CURRENTLY LACK THE TECHNOLOGY, THE THREAT WILL PROVIDE THE IMPETUS TO SOLVE ASTEROID DEFENSE-Morrison ‘06
- WE CAN DEAL WITH ASTEROID THREAT; WE JUST NEED AN AGENCY TO TAKE THE LEAD-Garretson Kaupa ‘08
- WE SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR INTERCEPTOR TECHNOLOGY TO DEVELOP-Shapiro et al ‘10
- EVEN IF ALL WE CAN DO IS CALL FOR EVACUATION, WE NEED RESEARCH ABOUT NEOS-Shapiro et al ‘10
- THE US MUST PLAN FOR THE NECESSARY STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH AN NEO IN ADVANCE-Chapman ‘07
- A/T: LEGAL QUESTIONS/INTERNATIONAL LAW THE RIGHT TO SURVIVAL IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER LEGAL RIGHTS AND REPRESENTS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL COMMON INTEREST OF HUMANITY-Seamone ‘02
- INTERNATIONAL LAW IS ON THE SIDE OF PLANETARY DEFENSE-Kunich ‘97
- THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR INTERNATIONAL PLAN OR COOPERATION-Garretson Kaupa ‘08
- IF NECESSARY, THE US COULD WITHDRAW FROM TREATY OBLIGATIONS TO DEFEND THE EARTH-Kunich ‘97
- UNITED STATES MUST LEAD THESE EFFORTS, IF EVEN BY COMMITTEE INTERNATIONALLY-Friedman ‘10
- A/T: EXISTING SURVEYS SOLVE WE CANNOT STOP SIMPLY BECAUSE A SURVEY IS COMPLETED-Shapiro et al ‘10
- WE NEED MORE THAN EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS, WHICH WILL ONLY GIVE TIME TO EVACUATE-Choi ‘10
- NASA IS CLOSE TO CONGRESS’S GOAL BUT THERE ARE THOUSANDS MORE NEOS TO FIND-Hsu ‘10
- A/T: NUKES/WEAPONS IN SPACE NOT ALLOWED NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS IN SPACE WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY-Kunich ‘97
- PLANETARY DEFENSE SYSTEMS ARE NOT MILITARY DEVICES-Kunich ‘97
- THE OUTER SPACE TREATY’S CALL FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES DOESN’T PRECLUDE PLANETARY DEFENSE AGAINST NEOS-Kunich ‘97
- THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR NEO DEFLECTION WILL NOT INCREASE PROLIFERATION-Barbee Fowler ‘07
- A/T: MORE IMMEDIATE THREATS WHILE OTHER THREATS MAY BE MORE IMMEDIATELY PRESSING, THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF AN NEO COLLISION IS WORLDWIDE-Shapiro et al ‘10
- A/T: CONSISTENT ORBITS COMETS AND ASTEROID ORBITS ARE DISRUPTED BY GRAVITATIONAL PULL-Easterbrook ‘08
EVEN IF WE LACK THE TECHNOLOGY TO DEFLECT AN ASTEROID TODAY, THE THREAT WILL LEAD TO SPENDING WHATEVER TIME AND MONEY IT TAKES TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM-Morrison ‘06 [David; senior scientist @ NASA Astrobiology Institute; Asteroid and Comet Impacts: The Ultimate Environmental Catastrophe; Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences; Aug 2006; pp.2041-2054] Although these first small steps are being taken by space agencies, we are a long way from the technology to deflect an asteroid, especially not one of the most dangerous class, which are larger than 1 km (see AIAA 2004 for a current review of defence options). However, it seems reasonable to expect that if such a large asteroid is discovered, one whose impact could kill more than a billion people and destabilize world civilization, the space-faring nations would find a way to deflect it and save the planet. Given such a specific threat, almost any level of expense could be justified. This effort would represent the largest and most important technological challenge ever faced, and whether it is successful or not, world civilization would be forever changed. EVEN IF WE CURRENTLY LACK THE TECHNOLOGY, THE THREAT WILL PROVIDE THE IMPETUS TO SOLVE ASTEROID DEFENSE-Morrison ‘06 [David; senior scientist @ NASA Astrobiology Institute; Asteroid and Comet Impacts: The Ultimate Environmental Catastrophe; Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences; Aug 2006; pp.2041-2054] Such prediction is possible because asteroids pass close to the Earth many times before they hit. A survey can pick them up decades or more before their final plunge toward impact, and asteroids do not (except in Hollywood) change orbits capriciously. We have neither the desire nor the capability to find them a few hours, or even a few weeks, before impact. A long-term warning of an impact can, however, permit relocation of the population and key infrastructure from the target area. Better yet, the threatening asteroid can, in principle, be diverted so that it misses the Earth entirely. While we have not yet developed this technology, I expect that several decades of warning of an impending global tragedy would provide sufficient motivation for the space-faring nations of the Earth to solve the technical problems of asteroid defence. WE CAN DEAL WITH ASTEROID THREAT; WE JUST NEED AN AGENCY TO TAKE THE LEAD-Garretson & Kaupa ‘08 [Lt. Colonel Peter and Major Douglas; Potential Mitigation Roles of the Department of Defense; Air and Space Power Journal; September 2008; http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj08/fal08/garretson.html; retrieved 05 Jul 2011] The good news is that, unlike predicting earthquakes and hurricanes, we can actually see most asteroids and comets arriving years or decades in advance and do something about it. the technology required to avert a catastrophe lies within our reach, at a comparatively modest expenditure. however, no one is in charge, no one owns the problem, and no one has been assigned the mission— not NASA,Air Force Space Command(aFsPC), or the Department of Homeland Security(dhs). We have no on-the-shelf contingency plans, tabletop interagency scenarios, interagency memoranda of agreements, standard operating procedures, or hardware available for a mitigation mission. WE SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR INTERCEPTOR TECHNOLOGY TO DEVELOP-Shapiro et al ‘10 [Irwin; Chair of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Defending Planet Earth:Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies; 2011; http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12842; retrieved 21 Jun 2011] In no case, however, is it wise to consider the application of techniques more than a few decades into the future. The technologies available at that time would likely be both more efficient and more effective, rendering present approaches obsolete. However, it is not wise to wait for those future technologies, leaving Earth unaware and threats to Earth unmitigated in the meantime. EVEN IF ALL WE CAN DO IS CALL FOR EVACUATION, WE NEED RESEARCH ABOUT NEOS-Shapiro et al ‘10 [Irwin; Chair of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Defending Planet Earth:Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies; 2011; http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12842; retrieved 21 Jun 2011] The ability to mitigate the impact hazard, or even to define appropriate strategies for mitigating the hazard, likewise depends on the acquisition of the new knowledge and understanding that could be gained through a research program. Even if the only viable mitigation approach to an impending impact is to warn the population and to evacuate, better information is needed for making sound decisions. Under what conditions should warning be provided and when, and who should evacuate? If, however, there are available active mitigation options, like changing the orbit of an impactor, again better information is needed: One must be able to predict with confidence the response of an impactor to specific forms of applied forces, impacts of various types and speeds, or various types of radiant energy, such as x rays. The required information goes beyond the basic physical characterization that determines the size and mass of the impactor and includes surface and subsurface compositions, internal structures, and the nature of their reactions to various inputs. THE US MUST PLAN FOR THE NECESSARY STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH AN NEO IN ADVANCE-Chapman ‘07 [Clark; Senior Scientist Southwest Research Institute, Dept. of Space Studies; Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society, 2007; pgs. 145-161] One hazard posed by smaller NEA impacts mentioned above is the possible misinterpretation of the upper atmospheric explosion of an NEA as an offensive military action. This possibility has been recognized for decades, and we must hope and assume that there has been adequate promulgation of information about bolides to preclude inappropriate military responses to bolides in areas of conflict in the world. All of these minor involvements of military institutions with the impact hazard could sharply crystallize if a specific impact threat were to develop. We would quickly focus on such questions as civilian-versus-military responsibilities for mitigation and national-versus-international approaches to deflection and disaster management. I think it would be prudent to think about these issues in advance. A/T: LEGAL QUESTIONS/INTERNATIONAL LAW THE RIGHT TO SURVIVAL IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER LEGAL RIGHTS AND REPRESENTS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL COMMON INTEREST OF HUMANITY-Seamone ‘02 [Evan; Articles Editor, Iowa Law Review; Masters in Public Policy, UCLA; When Wishing on a Star Just Won't Do: The Legal Basis for International Cooperation in the Mitigation of Asteroid Impacts and Similar Transboundary Disasters; Iowa Law Review; March 2002] To understand how the duty of cooperative preservation unfolds, [*1122] lawmakers must distinguish the historical right to survive from the subset of more abstract environmental rights. Here, nations' historical compliance upholding certain survival-based duties reveals their binding nature, as opposed to impotent rights, which have only recently been recognized. n146 Scholars often refer to this less virile strand of entitlements with the all-encompassing term "right to environment." n147 They concede the importance of basic needs for survival, n148 but fail to recognize the codification of such principles before the 1960s, n149 or more "recent years." n150 In effect, they deny ancient rights to survival by saying that the right to environment emerged in the last few decades. The right to survival described here does not refer to modern holistic notions that seek to maximize all aspects of an individual's physical, psychological, and spiritual well being. n151 Instead, I limit the concept to the bare essentials required for human subsistence. Most recognize these entitlements as the right to "have air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, and a place in which to live and sleep." n152 In essence, these rights pertain only to the natural resources necessary for human survival. Consequently, they constitute the foundation upon which other rights are built. n153 Or, stated differently, "Survival, the most fundamental [*1123] "common interest' of humanity, underlies all legal and social systems." INTERNATIONAL LAW IS ON THE SIDE OF PLANETARY DEFENSE-Kunich ‘97 [John; Lt. Colonel, USAF, JD from Harvard Law; Planetary Defense: The Legality of Global Survival; The Air Force Law Review; 1997] For any non-lawyer blessed with even a modicum of common sense, it might seem ludicrous even to suggest that it could be illegal to defend the Earth from space-borne destruction. The prospect of averting potential global annihilation is so manifestly good and noble that there would seem to be no question that we should do all we can to develop, maintain, and if necessary use every means available in its support. As lawyers (with or without common sense) know, however, the law sometimes does operate counter-intuitively, and sometimes does cause unjust results in a given case. Fortunately, in the case of planetary defense, the law is on the side of common sense. As has been demonstrated herein, all likely components of a planetary defense system, whether in the surveillance or the mitigation phase, can be supported under existing international and space law. Some tools are more clearly within the bounds of legality than others, but in every instance a strong argument can be made in support of legality. THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR INTERNATIONAL PLAN OR COOPERATION-Garretson & Kaupa ‘08 [Lt. Colonel Peter and Major Douglas; Potential Mitigation Roles of the Department of Defense; Air and Space Power Journal; September 2008; http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj08/fal08/garretson.html; retrieved 05 Jul 2011] Some detractors have stated that a planetary defense program is too expensive for the united states to bear alone and that it belongs in the international arena.although they make a reasonable point, several considerations remain. First, for such a critical survival issue, the United States should not find itself at the mercy of an internationally delayed or incomplete plan. Second, international cooperation would still imply using US resources but with less US control. Third, significant national security reasons exist for having the united states pursue this capability for the defense of others. America has an interest in preserving its democratic civilization and maintaining international security. IF NECESSARY, THE US COULD WITHDRAW FROM TREATY OBLIGATIONS TO DEFEND THE EARTH-Kunich ‘97 [John; Lt. Colonel, USAF, JD from Harvard Law; Planetary Defense: The Legality of Global Survival; The Air Force Law Review; 1997] In many, if not all cases in which Earth is threatened by a major collision, there should be sufficient warning to permit the United States to serve the requisite notice of withdrawal from the Treaty. Certainly the type of gigantic meteor or asteroid strike envisioned would constitute an "extraordinary event" that jeopardizes not only the United States' "supreme interests," i.e., survival, but those of every other nation on Earth as well. Assuming the [*150] evidence of the impending Earth strike were clear and unequivocal, it is unlikely that any notification of intent to withdraw from this Treaty would meet with much international opposition. Indeed, it may be that other nations would actively attempt to persuade the United States to take action to prevent the threatened cataclysm. UNITED STATES MUST LEAD THESE EFFORTS, IF EVEN BY COMMITTEE INTERNATIONALLY-Friedman ‘10 [Lou; Founder of the Planetary Society; Starting on Planetary Defense; The Planetary Society; 27 October 2010; http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/space_information/20101027.html; retrieved 9 August 2011] It’s my view that spacefaring nations should organize an ad-hoc task force, which someday might evolve to a treaty organization (analogous to NATO) to address policies, protocols and plans for dealing with the threat of a potentially hazardous object hitting Earth. The United States could, and should, lead by proposing such a task force. We need consideration soon, not because an impact is likely soon, but, because the threat of an impact is likely soon. The Administration’s letter to Congress should have also called for an international task force, clearly stating that NEO detection, observation, investigation, analysis, mitigation and potential deflection are global issues. A/T: EXISTING SURVEYS SOLVE WE CANNOT STOP SIMPLY BECAUSE A SURVEY IS COMPLETED-Shapiro et al ‘10 [Irwin; Chair of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Defending Planet Earth:Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies; 2011; http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12842; retrieved 21 Jun 2011] Despite progress toward or completion of any survey of near-Earth objects, it is impossible to identify all of these objects because objects’ orbits can change, for example due to collisions. Recommendation: Once a near-Earth object survey has reached its mandated goal, the search for NEOs should not stop. Searching should continue to identify as many of the remaining objects and objects newly injected into the NEO population as possible, especially imminent impactors. WE NEED MORE THAN EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS, WHICH WILL ONLY GIVE TIME TO EVACUATE-Choi ‘10 [Charles; A Week's Warning of Asteroid Strike Would Be Simple, Scientist Says; Space.com; 03 Dec 2010; http://www.space.com/9629-week-warning-asteroid-strike-simple-scientist.html?; retrieved 27 Jun 2011] An early warning system that could give Earth a week's notice or more before a space rock destroyed a city would cost only $1 million per observatory, its leading proponent suggests. Given current technologies, this lead time would not be enough to mount a mission to deflect the incoming object, but it could be enough to evacuate the area under threat. Astronomer John Tonry at the University of Hawaii mentioned a near-miss in 2009 as he stressed the need for an early warning system against cosmic impacts.
[Jeremy; U.S. Must Be Ready to Meet Asteroid Threat, White House Science Adviser Says; Space.com; 21 Oct 2010; http://www.space.com/9370-ready-meet-asteroid-threat-white-house-science-adviser.html; retrieved 27 Jun 2011] NASA has begun closing in on its congressionally directed goal of finding at least 90 percent of all NEOs with a diameter of 1 kilometer or greater. Search teams had discovered about 903 of an estimated 1,050 NEOs in that size category as of Oct. 1, and the space agency plans to reach its 90 percent detection goal by the end of this year. Just 149 of the discovered objects have orbits that could possibly bring them into collision with Earth, and none present an impact threat within the next 100 years. Another 993 objects less than one kilometer in diameter also have orbits that could someday pose a threat to our planet. Yet NASA estimates that the 6,416 known NEOs in the smaller size category, less than 1 kilometer wide, represent just five percent of the expected count. In other words, there are probably many more objects out there that represent a possible threat to Earth.
[John; Lt. Colonel, USAF, JD from Harvard Law; Planetary Defense: The Legality of Global Survival; The Air Force Law Review; 1997] It is clear that the object and purpose of the Treaty, as well as the subsequent practice of its signatories, have modified the meaning of the text. The intent of the drafters was to place limits on the testing of nuclear weapons, and the drafters took care to guard against weapons testing under the subterfuge of a peaceful purpose. But the Soviet Union eventually came to share the United States' position that certain legitimately peaceful purposes of nuclear explosions may indeed be desirable, given appropriate safeguards. And both superpowers understood from the beginning that, despite the text's seemingly sweeping prohibition on nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater, the use of nuclear explosions in wartime was not forbidden. Viewed within this context, nuclear explosions in space caused by a planetary defense system would be permissible under the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. As previously discussed, a planetary defense device is not a weapon. Furthermore, consistent with the above quotes representing both the United States and Soviet viewpoints, planetary defense devices would be used in "self-defense," and "only for exceptionally urgent problems which cannot otherwise be solved." Therefore the better position, considering all relevant circumstances, is that neither the testing nor the actual use of a planetary defense nuclear device in space would be precluded by this Treaty. PLANETARY DEFENSE SYSTEMS ARE NOT MILITARY DEVICES-Kunich ‘97 [John; Lt. Colonel, USAF, JD from Harvard Law; Planetary Defense: The Legality of Global Survival; The Air Force Law Review; 1997] This customary international law, as well as the subsequent practice of the Parties, strongly supports the partial demilitarization view. If this view is indeed accepted, then planetary defense activities would be allowed under Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty, because they are defensive and non-aggressive in nature. However, for purposes of planetary defense, which position prevails (the partial or total demilitarization view) may not finally be dispositive. If, as part of a planetary defense system, telescopes, sensors, and even some type of projectiles are established in orbit around Earth, or installed or tested on the moon or other "celestial bodies," it can be effectively argued that these are not weapons and are not military devices, because their sole purpose is to detect and defend against threatening natural objects from space. If this argument is accepted, then the first paragraph of Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty would clearly permit planetary defense in outer space, because no weapons would be involved. Likewise, the restrictions on weapons and military activities in the second paragraph would not apply, and planetary defense would be permissible on the moon or other celestial bodies. THE OUTER SPACE TREATY’S CALL FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES DOESN’T PRECLUDE PLANETARY DEFENSE AGAINST NEOS-Kunich ‘97 [John; Lt. Colonel, USAF, JD from Harvard Law; Planetary Defense: The Legality of Global Survival; The Air Force Law Review; 1997] The partial demilitarization, or "Western" view, maintains that "use for peaceful purposes" should be interpreted as use for non-aggressive n45 purposes,and that military use of outer space is allowed so long as it is non-aggressive. This interpretation, which seems to be the more widely held view, n46 permits a much wider scope for military activity in outer space than the alternative. Supporters of this view argue that if "peaceful" is synonymous with utterly non-military, [*132] then the second paragraph of Article IV is a meaningless redundancy. n47 They point out that if the Treaty's drafters had intended to apply the "peaceful" limitation to outer space, they would have explicitly done so, as they did in the second paragraph of that same article in reference to the moon and other celestial bodies. There, in addition to the "peaceful purposes" language, the drafters placed specific limitations on military bases, installations, fortifications, military maneuvers, and the use of military personnel on the moon and other celestial bodies. n48 None of these limitations are present in the first paragraph of Article IV. THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR NEO DEFLECTION WILL NOT INCREASE PROLIFERATION-Barbee & Fowler ‘07 [Brent, Aerospace Engineer at AIAA and Wallace, professor of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The University of Texas; Spacecraft Mission Design for the Optimal Impulsive Deflection of Hazardous Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) using Nuclear Explosive Technology; NSS; 2007; http://www.nss.org/resources/library/planetarydefense/2007-DeflectionOfNEOsUsingNuclearExplosiveTechnology.pdf; retrieved 05 Jul 2011] Despite the clear technical reasons for employing nuclear devices as NEO deflection mechanisms, there are those who disagree. Some people believe that using nuclear devices for NEO deflection would be taken advantage of by malicious world leaders as a means to justify further nuclear device stockpiling. There is a very strong argument that this is not true. No world leader would be able to make a case for creating substantially larger nuclear device stockpiles solely for NEO defense purposes because not very many nuclear devices are required for either testing on NEOs or being prepared for an actual hazardous NEO; sufficient nuclear devices exist today. Furthermore, a malicious leader will gain far more public support for nuclear device stockpiling by appealing to the public’s fear of another nation, which is readily personified and vilified, rather than trying to incite public fear of NEOs, which are remote distant objects that do not provoke the average person’s emotions nearly as much as national pride or fear of terrorism and war do. More importantly, nuclear devices are not going to disappear simply because some individuals view them as an icon of human aggression and destruction. These devices are tools like any other, and any space faring species, which humans aspire to be, most certainly requires tools that can generate large bursts of energy in the space environment for a variety of non-malicious purposes. In short, nuclear devices are a technology that humanity is going to be forced to learn to live with maturely, regardless of whether we ever use them for NEO deflection. A/T: MORE IMMEDIATE THREATS WHILE OTHER THREATS MAY BE MORE IMMEDIATELY PRESSING, THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF AN NEO COLLISION IS WORLDWIDE-Shapiro et al ‘10 [Irwin; Chair of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Defending Planet Earth:Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies; 2011; http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12842; retrieved 21 Jun 2011] Unlike most other known natural hazards to humanity, such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornadoes, NEO impacts present a very large spread of disaster scales ranging from small property damage to global extinction events. Larger impacts may result in global climatic changes that can result in famine and disease, infrastructure failure and, potentially, societal breakdown. Smaller impacts could be misinterpreted and thereby could conceivably even trigger wars. Numerous small incidents present little risk to people and property, but major impact events occur very infrequently. Impacts represent the extreme example of “low-probability, high-consequence” events. Although the probability of such a major impact within the next century may be small, a statistical risk of such an impact remains. Because of the nature of the impact threat, the expected fatality rate from impacts is an “actuarial” estimate based on calculations with attempted conservative assumptions. All the other estimates in Table 2.2 are based on the attribution of causes of actual fatalities from ongoing threats that may change in the future. A/T: CONSISTENT ORBITS COMETS AND ASTEROID ORBITS ARE DISRUPTED BY GRAVITATIONAL PULL-Easterbrook ‘08 [Gregg; contributing editor; The Sky Is Falling; The Atlantic; June 2008; http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/06/the-sky-is-falling/6807/1/; retrieved 27 Jun 2011] But if large numbers of comets and asteroids are still around, several billion years after the formation of the solar system, wouldn’t they by now be in stable orbits—ones that rarely intersect those of the planets? Maybe not. During the past few decades, some astronomers have theorized that the movement of the solar system within the Milky Way varies the gravitational stresses to which the sun, and everything that revolves around it, is exposed. The solar system may periodically pass close to stars or groups of stars whose gravitational pull affects the Oort Cloud, shaking comets and asteroids loose from their orbital moorings and sending them downward, toward the inner planets. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.79 Mb. Share with your friends:
|