Dear Jennifer,
An announcement by the European Commission, as reported by the Chinese news agency, has the EC supporting the continued use and subsidisation of coal with the simple statement “No change should be made…” They also note that “domestic coal production reduces the energy dependency of the Union and contributes to a diversification of our sources of energy supply” – this could be reflection of recent political tensions with Russia over the supply of gas.
Using double speak the press agency EurActiv reports that the EU “has not expressed a commitment to phase out coal completely from Europe’s energy mix.”
Greenpeace has criticised the decision saying: “If Europe is serious about fighting climate change, as is claimed, then it must divert public money and support from polluting energy sources such as coal to clean energy options such as efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies. With today’s report, the Commission has missed an opportunity to put an end to coal subsidies once and for all.”
The message is clearly “do as I say not as I do” and China and other countries will continue to exploit this ambivalence.
Cheers,
Rog
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Mines in Germany, Spain, and Hungary have production costs of more than twice the world market price for coal, and are therefore dependent on operating aid” … according to one of the articles Rog links to.
And Germany has recently build new coal fired powered stations which I believe are exempt from the EU carbon trading scheme for a few years? Unbelievable really.
Its just a realisation that wave power, propellers dotted over the landscape and solar cells wont help much when Russia turns off Europe’s gas.
What do you expect? The European Union is administered by the largest concentration of spivs the world has ever seen. And one must ask, on what grounds did the IPCC accept the German decision to exempt their new coal based power stations?
It is time the rest of the world took a good long look at the sleazy scams being perpetrated by this collection of double dealers. See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
Note all the powers that have been ceded to the EU by member states. There is common citizenship, common currency, unfettered freedom of movement and common commercial, labour and welfare standards. The only thing that distinguishes the member states from a state in Australia, Canada or the USA is the fact that they still pursue a limited foreign policy under an overall EU umbrella.
SO HOW COME THEY ALL MAINTAIN A FULL VOTING RIGHT IN THE UN?
If it is OK for the United States of Europe to have 27 votes in the UN then why doesn’t Australia have six votes, Canada have ten votes and the USA have 51 votes? And why doesn’t China and India, with two and three times the European population respectively, have a vote for each of their provinces?
When the six independent Australian colonies agreed to form a single nation they renounced their right to pursue seperate foreign policy, as did the American states. So why have the Europeans been allowed to thumb their nose at precedent?
These provinces of Europe have ruthlessly exploited all the advantages of a single closed national economy but have done so in a way that maintains, for them alone, the luxury of multiple votes in the UN and other forums.
Some 11 of the 27 provinces have populations less than Victoria and 2 have populations less than Tasmania. So next time you hear someone blathering about the weight of world opinion as manifest by decisions of the IPCC, or the IWC, think again.
It is just another sleazy euroscam. The word “Gerrymander” seems apt.
Amazing the silence here after this clanging dose of reality.
Is it further recognition that the Stern report was highly flawed in its conclusions? The cost of ‘change’ is in reality too great for any real benefits and if the warming is due to humans there is really not much that can be done about it?
Maybe they are thinking a warmer europe would be a good thing….
Ian,
That was a da**ed good question about the EU’s voting power. European scammers are likely the world’s most adept scammers. Beyond any doubt, they are the world’s most smug scammers. (I would say that Greenies are the world’s most smug scammers, but all the big ones are on the European payroll, so I’d just be repeating myself.)
I’m waiting for the day when carbon trading goes into the sort of energy-trading meltdown we haven’t seen since Enron.
Ah, well… regardless, it ain’t easy being Green. It’s easy to talk green, but being Green is the shortest distance between the sublime and the ridiculous.
When the EC released their 20% by 2020 goal the president Barroso said: “We can say to the rest of the world, Europe is taking the lead—you should join us.”
Whilst Germany’s Merkel hailed calls for reduction in GHG by the G8 Germany continues to press ahead with expansion of energy infrastructure;
“..Germany, the world’s sixth largest greenhouse gas emitter, is planning 15 new coal plants by 2012 because it is cheaper to burn coal than more environmentally-friendly gas, even with the added cost of offsetting emissions of CO2, a gas that contributes to global warming.
…Germany is not alone in looking to build new coal plants. The Netherlands and Britain, for instance, are also considering more coal-fired power stations. Currently around 50 percent of Germany’s electricity comes from coal, some of which is produced by very polluting plants.”
Germany uses the dirtiest form of coal – lignite or brown coal -which has a higher % of CO2.
Curiously there is no plan to replace older inefficient polluting plants with more efficient coal plants utilising “clean coal technology” as they dont want to further encourage the use of coal.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/dirtiest-power-plants-germany-uk/article-163709
Thanks Schiller, I would put it more as the shortest distance between the ridiculous and the slime.
It is also not widely known that Dutch power companies appear to have gained “EUPCC” approval for obtaining carbon credits from third world “native forests”. But what is our own Greenhouse office doing to maximise the opportunities for sustainable management of our own native forests? Sweet FA.
Kyoto and the IPCC are nothing more than an extension of the EU closed market. It is a sleazy conspiracy to share the ecological costs of their affluence with the whole world while retaining the benefits of affluence for themselves. It is the 21st century form of the same old 19th century mechantilism and colonialism.
Insightful comments as usual Ian!
The IPCC is a conspiracy?
From Russia, with no love;
“A ‘chilly war’ has already begun, says Putin’s former advisor, in which the very basic pillars of Western society are at stake.
Andrei Illarionov, former economic advisor (2000-2005) to Russian President Vladimir Putin, argues that Europe’s own policies have contributed to the current uncertainty over its energy security and that the Russian authorities are now able to take advantage of this situation – to the detriment of Western values and institutions:
“It is no surprise that Europe is facing a cold, dark future deprived of energy. In recent years, many European leaders have been obsessed with energy rationing. They intentionally have demonised energy production and use. They have claimed that hydrocarbon energy is too cheap and demanded a carbon tax. They have adopted the Kyoto Protocol – and cajoled Russia into joining,” said Illarionov.
“Now that the bear of state interventionism and central planning is out of its cave, the Russian authorities are effectively offering the energy rationing so desired by European leaders. They shouldn’t be surprised: this ‘chilly war’ is exactly what they have worked so hard to secure,” he continued.
Illarionov suggests that the response, or absence of response, by Western leaders to actions by the Russian authorities – including violation of individual rights, disregard for freedom of speech, and aggressive behaviour towards democratically-oriented former Soviet states such as the Ukraine, Georgia and Maldova – has effectively led to a “chilly war” between Russia and the West.
“What we see now is a great battle unfolding in front of our eyes, one with implications similar to those of the Cold War. It is a battle not predicated on military, political or economic power. It is about the fundamental institutions that define western civilization – the market economy, liberal democracy, the rule of law – and the moral standards and values underlying these institutions,” said Illarionov.
Illarionov explained that, in his view, energy security is symbolic of a larger issue between Russia and other G8 members in the lead-up to the July G8 meeting in St. Petersburg.
“Are G8 members serious about defending the very cornerstones, defining values and institutions of Western civilisation – or will they compromise and bow to the demands and caprices of the new energy tsars?” Illarionov asked.
“The upcoming G8 meeting in St. Petersburg will be the first public test of how serious the West is about defending the values and institutions of Western civilisation. Judging by the actions of G7 leaders so far, it remains unclear whether they will stand up to this threat or not. Without this courageous leadership, Europe’s future certainly will be cold and dark” he concluded……
…cont’d”
http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=93
No matter how much venom is directed towards Samuel Huntington and his mid-90’s book, “Clash of Civilisations”, contemporary events continue to prove him right again and again even a decade later.
Meantime, given that wood pellets are competing with natural gas for market share, I hear that the price of pellets on the dock in Rotterdam has reached $Au300 a tonne. Wood fuel destined for the European market is now worth more, in Australia, than pulp wood chip, or even saw logs for that matter. Curiouser and curiouser. Maybe foresters are in a conspiracy with Comrade Putin. Where’s Roger Underwood when you need him?
Time for a joke: Why are there earthquakes in the world: Ans: Sometimes all the wankers get into sync and set up an harmonic. These posts of frothing rabidity illustrate the point oh so well. Toby crawl higher – we can still see the shoelaces.
So let me get this all together:
We have some red-under-the bed ex-commie lecturing the western world about their values and they’re all going to have a chilly future (yes OK – I’ll just have another puff on that Nimbin Gold).
Europe is ruined because of greenies yet they’re building coal fired power stations by the score. And how have they spread their ecological bill to the rest of the world who aren’t signed up or doing anything. Jeez was that a negative reality inversion.
Ian wants a credit for Aussie forestry but doesn’t believe in AGW or Kyoto. And we’re not signed up anyway. Neither are the sepos. So why worry.
And Ian is worried about gerrymanders of small unpopulous states or nations, yet wants a minority rural population to have say disproportionate to the the national majority. No inconsistency there. But maybe we should fence off SEQ and keep the barbarians out.
So despite all the bleating about Kyoto is anyone doing for it for real? And fascinating that the IPCC is a conspiracy yet most of the dudes in the science teams are not from Kyoto nation states. Couldn’t be that they’re just reviewing the science – nah it’s a shonkorific goddam conspiracy.
No wonder there’s earthquakes.
No joke Luke; you are frothing
One of the reasons European Green parties aren’t doing too well these days is because the other parties are falling over each other trying to look green.
That makes the Green parties very nearly single-issue parties, loaded with fringe whackos.
The mainstream parties trying to “look green” are actually smart enough to know that they’ll be voted in for looking green, and voted out for acting green, i.e., cutting the voters’ energy usage.
So they’re smart enough to talk the talk and walk the other way.
This is actually a good thing. When European governments translate ideals into action, historically, the results have been horrific. The world will remain a safer place than it could be as long as they remain liars, cheats and panderers.
By the same token, imagine what the world would look like if the IPCC were to become the unified world government. You would see shooting wars of unprecedented magnitude over access to resources and a nearly unlimited supply of AGW jihadists offering themselves as cannon fodder.
Decry Europeans all you want, call them two-faced scoundrels for adopting Kyoto while burning coal, but the alternative is disaster and misery.
I knew it – Schiller is a world government wacko. “If the IPCC were to become the unified world government” – are you that nuts?
Same old same old rhetorical floss guys. Just keep repeating the mantra and keep on message hoping desperately that the facts will rearrange around the nonsense. They won’t.
“AGW jihadists”. Terrific stuff. Keep it up – and see if you can get an earthquake going by yourself.
So off the high horses boys – nobody is decarbonising their energy generation. Not within cooey. So who’s shivering?
Read it and weep (and the lead author is an Aussie not a Eurospiv) :
Full article at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0700609104v1
Global and regional drivers of accelerating
CO2 emissions
Michael R. Raupach*†, Gregg Marland‡, Philippe Ciais§, Corinne Le Que´ re´ ¶, Josep G. Canadell*, Gernot Klepper**,
and Christopher B. Field††
CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes
have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate
increasing from 1.1% y1 for 1990–1999 to >3% y1 for 2000–
2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for
the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s.
Global emissions growth since 2000 was driven by a cessation or
reversal of earlier declining trends in the energy intensity of gross
domestic product (GDP) (energy/GDP) and the carbon intensity of
energy (emissions/energy), coupled with continuing increases in
population and per-capita GDP. Nearly constant or slightly increasing
trends in the carbon intensity of energy have been recently
observed in both developed and developing regions. No region is
decarbonizing its energy supply. The growth rate in emissions is
strongest in rapidly developing economies, particularly China.
Together, the developing and least-developed economies (forming
80% of the world’s population) accounted for 73% of global
emissions growth in 2004 but only 41% of global emissions and
only 23% of global cumulative emissions since the mid-18th century.
The results have implications for global equity.
Anyway given the IPCC have probably fluffed it because unpatriotic anti-capitalist anti-market anti-free choice unpatriotic anti-humanist carbon-philic right wing scum and commies watered down the reports – so things are worse than we thought – will all be most interesting. Paleo dudes have got it wrong too. More bad news.
Looks like the CO2 may actually be in phase with or lead the temperatures in the ice cores after all. Oooo yeah !
http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/3/435/cpd-3-435.pdf
Luke,
You could display your comprehension of world history and current politics far better if you strayed from your unnatural focus on onanism.
So this passes for penetrating insight from Luke. does it? You certainly know how to highlight your shortcommings.
“Ian wants a credit for Aussie forestry but doesn’t believe in AGW or Kyoto”. Bollocks. The issue is how much AGW is taking place and what are the realistic implications. And Kyoto is a management tool which is claimed to do a job, I think it does this poorly. But Luke clearly regards these as articles of faith, to be adhered to without question.
“And Ian is worried about gerrymanders of small unpopulous states or nations, yet wants a minority rural population to have (a) say disproportionate to the the national majority”. Bollocks. I want full state level autonomy for the regions, free of metropolitan political dominance. How could that be interpreted as promoting rural dominance over the metro majority?
And the big problem with that crap from Rapauche et al is that those boosted emissions have not shown up in the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 levels. Rapauche said, “CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1% y1 for 1990–1999 to >3% y1 for 2000–2004”.
But the Mauna Loa records show an average increase in CO2 of 1.5ppm/year from 1990-1999. It was actually 1.48ppm from trough to trough, from 250.96ppm in 1990 to 364.63ppm in 1999. And this amounted to only 0.406 of 1% in total CO2 levels each year.
The change between 2000 and 2004 is 1.89ppm/year, from the 1999 trough of 364.63ppm to 374.06ppm in 2004, for a percentage increase of only 0.505 of 1% in total CO2 levels.
It is worth noting that the 1997/98 El Nino produced a 3.71ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 while the change from the trough of 1998 to the trough of 1999 was only 0.73ppm. And as we know that global hydrocarbon emissions did not vary in any similar extent then we can conclude that a very large proportion of the total increase in CO2 was from natural sources.
Just 1ppm equates to 5.2Gt of CO2 so an annual change of 1.48ppm would be 7.7Gt which is the current estimate of anthropogenic emissions. The increase in 1998 of 3.71ppm is 19.3Gt which leaves us with about 11Gt from natural sources.
The annual increase in CO2 for the decade from 1980 to 1989, 1.59ppm/year, was actually higher than that of the 1990’s. And this increase in the 1980’s was on a lower base level. The trough of 1989 was only 349.8ppm and the average annual increase of 1.59ppm represented a percentage increase of 0.455 of 1% of total CO2 levels.
The annual increase in CO2 for the decade from 1970 to 1979 was 1.21ppm/year. And this, when compared to the trough of 1979 of 333.86ppm, represents a percentage increase of 0.362 of 1% of total CO2 levels.
So while Rapauch may like to have a little fun with numbers, it is clear that total change in CO2 is nowhere near as alarmist. The annual percentage change in CO2 levels by decade has been;
1970/79 = 0.362 of 1%,
1980/89 = 0.455 of 1%,
1990/99 = 0.406 of 1%, and
2000/04 = 0.505 of 1%.
And the revised Ice Core stuff still doesn’t explain any of the instances when CO2 kept going north while temperatures had long been heading south.
Too quick on the trigger and dismissive Ian. Emissions are in excess of high end of IPCC considerations 2000-2004. Southern Ocean saturating as a sink. Give it a bit of time.
It’s all about picking the departure point as the kick sets in. We’ll all be wise in hind sight.
The ice core stuff will shift the graph positions nicely. Of course as duty of care so I don’t rip you off (would I do that) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029551.shtml
Others think differently. But goes to show it’s far from settled. Frankly I would expect a lag.
Anyway you seem to be saying that you’re an AGW believer. But perhaps I misinterpreted. Kyoto of course is another issue which I don’t fully support either.
Nice try at changing the topic, Luke. The issue is European hypocrisy. The issue is the Europeans exporting, indeed, imposing their ideology on the world in yet another century. The issue is their increasing intolerance of dissent and propensity to punish and threaten those who do not conform.
Does anyone have any doubt that over the coming century there will be wars fought over green ideology? Does anyone have any doubt that as green ideology fails there will be scapegoats rounded up and “saboteurs” dealt with in a climate of paranoia?
An “AGW believer”? Count me out.
As Aldous Huxley wrote,
“To believe some things one must be an intellectual, ordinary men would never be so silly”.
Ian if history is a guide we’ve fought over everything except green ideas.
In terms of punishment and dissent – gee there’s more examples of pro-scientists being persecuted for AGW science reports than the opposite. The papers and internet are awash with anti-AGW stories vastly out of proportion with any (=zero) published science of significance to the contrary. So don’t bung on with the freedom of speech crappola.
This is just bloody rampant fear mongering by right wing scumbots finding themselves increasing cornered by reality. If you can’t win on logic then create a scare and close down the debate.
Every day our national newspaper continues its war on science.
Most nations states are hypocritical. Who is an exception to vested interest. However the Europeans haven’t exported their carbon ideology (yet) – Australia, USA, China and India haven’t accepted it.
Frankly I think the European experience with Kyoto is most instructive. Shows how damn difficult it really is to do anything, how self interest reigns supreme, and how loopholes get exploited.
If you don’t believe in AGW you should have zero interest in carbon sequestration. If AGW is a crock then carbon sequestration will end up as a worthless investment and radically distort markets. A logical position for a non-believer would be that it’s a waste of time.
Unless of course you’re involved in self interest like the Europeans and want to make a quick buck before the roof falls in.
Huxley didn’t have a radiometer. He also didn’t tell you “which” of the “some”.
Spoken like a true non-investor with nothing to lose. Luke said, “If AGW is a crock then carbon sequestration will end up as a worthless investment and radically distort markets. A logical position for a non-believer would be that it’s a waste of time”.
Again this stupid binary logic, black or white, believer or non-believer when the only intelligent position is how much grey, brown, red, blue, yellow, green and UV. AGW can be a complete crock, and sequestration can have no impact on a problem that will fix itself, but can also be a sound investment if enough people are stupid enough to part with good money in exchange for it.
Take that simple message on board and you might manage to retire early to play with your investments, like I did.
Yea well if you’re a gypo that likes wheeling and dealing and fleecing people well done.
Lucky you to have made so much money marketing bulldust. If you’re not short a quid perhaps you should have sprayed your house for termites instead of being a tight arse.
My two bits…
The real driver behind all this is wealth redistribution – and it’s aimed squarely at big bad United States with the main beneficiaries being China and India.
The Euro countries figured they could get a break even position – they have heavily invested in nuclear and some “alternate” (wind turbines etc – though they are finding that physics is catching up with their plans and these aren’t as viable as predicted).
Consider this article just today:
“Coping with the ravages of global warming will cost $50 billion a year, and the rich nations who caused most of the pollution must pay most of the bill, aid agency Oxfam said on Tuesday (echoing the position of the developing world) … and the United States must foot 44 percent of this annual $50 billion bill.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2835543520070529?pageNumber=1
This is symptomatic of why there is such fanaticism over the fact that the US has not ratified Kyoto. Unless they ratify – we can’t get their money!
Even though the US is therefore rightly not getting onto the carbon emissions permits / trading band wagon, the force of the alarmists is such that to ensure brand viability US (and OZ) corporates are. The banks are now jumping on to this and it looks like the Global Warming self destruct juggernaut is starting to roll.
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSL2520052720070525
Once all this money is committed, and your pension / super funds are invested in these schemes – the lobby groups will ensure that the governments can’t back out easily. And this is scary.
We are not talking simple pigouvian taxes (which are collected by the country’s government and then redistributed back into the economy via social welfare and govt projects). The billions that will be spent on this is a worse result than the trillions spent on say the Gulf War. Why? Because the Gulf War trillions are spent on salaries on which tax is collected and the proceeds of which are spent back in the States, or buying from your US defence and military contractors, which are then taxed etc etc and in all cases the money mostly stays in the economy. The wealth in this case is retained – in the emissions trading case it’s a one way flow – no return benefit. We are talking about directly taking billions of dollars out of western economies and just “giving” it into the non-Annex A countries.
We are talking BIG dollars here. This money is going to be ripped out of the economies of countries that are principally supporting the progress / research and the humanitarian aid that allows 7 billion people to live on this world. With an inevitable contraction in western economies that a 40%+ emission reduction target will cause, people WILL die on unprecedented scale. Half the developing world depends on humanitarian aid from the US. If you force the US into a recession / depression – guess what, no aid, no world police, and you then have a recipe for Luke’s first green wars.
And everyone admits that this will not reduce the projected increase in Global Warming in any significant way!
cheers
Arnost
Remember that when Australian and African drought frequency goes through the roof. And gee I feel so much safer now that the world police have civilised Iraq and are contemplating a stoush with Iran. And the trickle down effect of western wealth into Africa is amazing to behold.
Luke, get off it.
I don’t believe the drought prophecies, but you must remember the other side of the coin. With them comes the one for more FLOODS.
If this stuff is right, the rain will come in flooding rains, much more often. This is just what our cities need.
Floods will fill the dams, with much less rain, making it available to harvest. Its a win/win for our uurban population. More sunny days for golf, with plenty of water in thr tap.
Bugger the bush, but then, our urbanites have been determined to do that for years. Could they have succeeded in an entirely unexpected way?
Oh well Hasbo – you can probably explain why we’ve had bugger all La Ninas since 1976. And lots of floods have we? Who needs a prophecy when you’ve had reality. And ask Treasury how much gazillions in drought aid they’ve shovelled out in the 20 years. I’m sure there’s no trend. Nothing to be concerned about.
The PDO is why we have had bugger all La Ninas since 1976.
PDO warm phase means more El Nino, cool phase means more La Ninas.
PDO with phase shifts highlighted:
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm
MEI with phase shifts highlighted:
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/oeip/cb-mei.cfm
cheers
Arnost
Nice try Arnost – the PDO (or ~ IPO) can reinforce or mitigate El Nino & La Nina but it ain’t a predictor of their activity. So nope !
The only one who was any good at long term ENSO predictions was the late Theodor Landscheidt (died 2004). His last prediction on 22 Dec 2003:
“PC/8 in 2007.2 has El Niño potential. As the date 2007.2 is closer to 2006/2007 than to 2007/2008 it is to be expected that El Niño will already emerge around July 2006 and last at least till May 2007 (Probability 80 %).”
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm
Spot on I guess – the El Nino emerged in July and lasted till February. His other predictions were also very good (he missed one I think). It remains to be seen if his predictions for La Nina dominant patterns from 2007-2018 pan out.
Of course he used solar cycles to predict these, so that’s probably more heretical than pointng out a PDO phase correaltion with the ENSO…
Oh by the way, in 2000/2001 Landscheidt predicted a weak Solar cycle 24 and almost a non existent cycle 25 – sound familiar?
cheers
Arnost
Arnost Arnost Arnost – next you’ll be into Inigo Jones. Tell us what he got right and what he got wrong on a decent sample size and we’ll see if he has any skill. “El Niño will already emerge around July 2006 and last at least till May 2007 ” – wow – most events do ! Tell me something I don’t know.
The topic was Europe and coal.
Maybe it should be about the attention deficit disorder crisis.
Yes, Schiller. Changing topic is a large part of Luke’s job description at the Department of Lies and Obfuscation. If he doesn’t succeed in diverting discussion from sensitive topics he will be demoted to the group that casts multiple votes on web polls in favour of the party line.
It really is ironic how the German support for solar energy has been rammed down everyone’s throats as some sort of best practice role model for the rest of the world. When the reality of continued massively subsidised coal generation, and outright deception in their carbon accounting, sinks like a stone in a very slimy pond.
Clearly, the IPCC (or should that be EUPCC?) is fully aware of this situation but have done nothing about it. It is all a bit “Kyoto Ugly”.
I note the german chancellor was overnight demanding the world reduce its co2 emmissions to pre 1990 levels. Yet another example of do as i say not as i do.
The likes of Luke wonder why we are so sceptical and cynical….even the preachers do not appear to believe their own prophecies.
A very interesting paper on topic
http://institut-thomas-more.org/pdf/136_fr_WP-ITM10Eng.pdf
cheers
Arnost