10 Ways to Trade Up
How Obama can fix the climate, raise billions for clean tech, and send you a fat check.
though it's not been mentioned much lately amid the sea of bailout headlines, the global economy isn't the only thing melting down right now. So are the polar ice caps. As nasa climatologist James Hansen has warned, we are nearing—if we haven't already passed—the tipping point at which the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere becomes so high that feedback loops will cause it to keep increasing on its own even if humans never emit another CO2 molecule again. To keep the planet habitable, he says, we must cut emissions not 10, not 20, but a full 80 percent by 2050; anything short of that will lead to "global cataclysm."
Fine then. We need to fix the climate, and we need to start yesterday. President Obama plainly understands this. His environmental rhetoric has focused mainly on things like wind farms and green jobs, but the backbone of his climate policy is actually an ambitious program that, if done right, will reduce greenhouse gases and raise desperately needed revenue—and, most important of all, has a fighting chance of making it through the congressional sausage factory in one piece. If he sticks to his guns, the idea will be a household term before the year is out. It's called cap and trade, and it springs from a simple yet surprisingly hard-to-answer question: What's the best, and fastest, way to reduce pollution?
-
The Most Important Number on Earth
We're way past the carbon tipping point. It's time to freak out—and get to work.
-
Q&A: James Hansen
James Hansen, head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, on why CO2 should be declared a pollutant.
-
Diet for a Warm Planet
The secret to cutting carbon? A dieting support group.
-
How to Fix It: Get NASA Back on Mission
-
Trading Up: Caps for Sale
Can selling pollution rights save the planet?
When serious environmental regulation began in the late '60s, the default approach was "command and control," which is exactly what it sounds like. Take, for example, the Clean Air Act of 1970. It gave the government power to regulate six airborne pollutants, and the epa did this by setting firm limits on these pollutants. That's the command part. States then developed various mechanisms for meeting epa standards; one was to require companies to install "Best Available Control Technology" for reducing pollutants. That's the control part.
Command and control works: Back in the mid-'70s, Los Angeles, the smog capital of the country, suffered through 200 days per year of ozone levels above the federal standard. Today it has fewer than 100. But is there a better way? More to the point, is there a cheaper, more flexible way? Enter cap and trade, a concept that's been the go-to approach in environmental wonk circles for years.
The theory is straightforward. Suppose you have two plants, and the first one is able to eliminate one ton of pollutants at a cost of $10,000. The second plant, perhaps because it uses a different fuel or newer boiler technology, can do the same for only $4,000. Under command and control, if you required them to remove one ton each, the cost would total $14,000.
But what if all you mandated was that two tons of pollutants be removed overall (the cap part) and allowed the plants to work out how to do it? Naturally, the first plant would just pay the second plant $4,000 to remove an extra ton of pollutants from its emissions (the trade part). At first this seems suspect: The first plant is being allowed to merrily pollute away. But you've still removed two tons of pollutants, and since it was done more cheaply—for $8,000 instead of $14,000—you can afford to ratchet down the cap. You can require that three tons of pollutants be eliminated overall, and since this still costs only $12,000, everyone comes out ahead. The public gets cleaner air, and the plants save money.
Sounds great, you say, but does it work in practice? We found out in 1990, when the Clean Air Act was modified to address acid rain pollution caused by sulfur dioxide from coal-fired power plants. Instead of requiring every plant to install a specific cleanup technology or meet a specific emission rate, the epa simply set a nationwide cap on the total volume of SO2 emissions and required power plants to own a permit for each ton of SO2 they emitted. Each plant was allocated a certain number of permits, and if a plant reduced its emissions to the point where it didn't need all its permits, it could sell them to the highest bidder.
The results were better than anyone expected. According to figures collected by the Environmental Defense Fund, power plants regulated under the Clean Air Act didn't just meet the cap but ended up with about 20 percent lower emissions overall—at about one-third the cost estimated before the law's passage. Not all of that extra reduction was due to the trading option, but it's clear that the flexibility of the permits—and the chance to make money by selling them—motivated plants to cut emissions as much as possible, as cheaply as possible. (You can check out the emissions market for yourself, if you'd like, the same way you'd check an online broker to see how your stocks are doing. At press time, emissions-credit broker Evolution Markets listed a permit for a ton of SO2 at about $185.)
Carbon emissions, given that they are perhaps the defining feature of our economy, are a more daunting problem than SO2 ever was. No single proposal will solve the problem—not solar panels, wind farms, green buildings, better cars, new train lines, or new power plants. But if there's a single force that can help drive all the other innovations we need, it's putting a price on carbon emissions. That's the base on which we'll build everything else. And the way that price will be set, it now seems, is the stuff of an epic political battle that will begin this spring if Congress takes up a global warming bill. So as the rhetoric heats up, here are the 10 key things to keep in mind.
1. Price matters. Honest. The whole point of cap and trade is to raise the price of emitting carbon. If power plants have to buy a $100 permit for every ton of carbon they emit, the price of electricity will go up, and people will use less of it. Likewise, if refineries have to buy a permit for every ton of carbon their gasoline produces, the price of filling your tank goes up, and you end up driving less.
True, this effect sometimes takes a while. Gasoline prices in the United States more than doubled between 2002 and 2007, for example, and drivers barely responded. In economic lingo, the "elasticity" of gasoline consumption is low: It takes a big increase to make any kind of impact on people's driving habits. Nonetheless, it does work. Total miles driven started to flatten out in 2006 and finally dropped sharply last year, when a gallon of regular hit $4. (Interestingly, driving hasn't increased significantly since—economists blame the recession.)
What's more, price signals allow all of us to cut our carbon use in our own way, instead of being stuffed into a regulatory straitjacket. For example, driving and eating meat are both fairly carbon intensive. If the government requires everyone to cut back on their gas use and meat consumption equally, most of us will have something to be unhappy about: Maybe I really love my sirloin, and you're attached to your suv. But if instead it raises the price of carbon—an increase that will be reflected in the price of carbon-intensive goods—we'll each give up the thing we care about least simply because the cost has gone up. You might keep your Jeep and eat more tofu, while I'll keep eating steak but buy a Prius. And carbon is reduced just as much.
2. Yes, it's basically a tax. If you think that buying a $100 permit to emit a ton of carbon is pretty much the same thing as paying a tax of $100 per ton of carbon, you're right. And if you talk to economists, you'll find that most of them actually prefer a straight tax. It's simpler, more consistent, and more predictable. Dan Rosenblum of the Carbon Tax Center, which advocates a straight-up tax, calls that approach the "gold standard" and asks, "If you're going to have a tax, why not have the best possible tax?" Even some conservative economists, like Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, support a carbon tax as a way of more accurately capturing the true economic cost of carbon emissions.
Cap-and-trade plans have a couple of specific disadvantages over taxes. They produce economic uncertainty because permits are sold on the open market and prices vary the same way stock prices do; that's a problem for companies trying to decide which technologies are worth investing in. As Rosenblum puts it, "If you don't know where prices are going to be in two or three years, you can't invest rationally." Moreover, international trade organizations have a lot of experience harmonizing taxes and tariffs, but they haven't been very good at setting quantitative rules for how much pollution should be allowed. And since the entire world eventually needs to agree on a set of carbon pricing tools, this matters. A lot.
Page 1 of 3 
"technical glitch"
What a joke. You got to give the science-deniers credit. They'll try everything, short of actually looking at the science, in a desperate attempt to bury the truth. But, if they were familiar with truth, they'd know that truth wills out.
This discussion is
This discussion is fascinating. And enlightening. Let me see if a got this right: AGW deniers hold that a) what would otherwise be viewed as a consensus that AGW is real is actually due to b) an elaborate conspiracy within the scientific community to c) enrich their benefactors in the private sector so that they can d) further restrict individual liberty and implement a form of socialist-fascism(?), which is - apparently obvious to everyone else but me - the over-arching goal of scientists and their masters?.
Sweet!
jstawrd
Its humanity not mankind (STUPID) that is destined to oblivion in the global catastrophe, the mammalian species is lest likely to survive even moderate global environmental changes. Look around, see and read the folly. Alas we are lost. It is only a matter of time tick tock, tick tock; you can’t ignore MOTHER NATURES CLOCK.
It was freezing in Virginia
It was freezing in Virginia today, 12 degrees this morning. Global warming is a hoax! a Hoax I tell you!
Yep.
Finally. A complete and total scientific debunking of global warming in just one short sentence. Bravo.
Good, Clear Info!
Thanks. I was dubious about cap and trade because of its regressive nature. You have educated me on how we can have it and still not let it be regressive,( i.e. tax the
poor to help the rich.)This last parenthesis is for the above commentators to help underline how simple this article is to understand...that is if you bother to read it!
Please do.
I too would like to think that global warming is bogus, but I have to take my head out of the sand and be brave enough to inform myself about things such as, colder times in formerly warm areas are part of the effect of the warming. My home town in Washington state had snow this winter such as we have not seen in decades. That does not mean there is no problem with global warming. To the contrary it shows that we are already deep in the throes of it. Sorry Virginia; I wish you were right.
Hey, a ton of SO2 emission
Hey, a ton of SO2 emission is only $185?
So I could go to Evolution Markets, buy myself a permit for a ton of SO2, then, say, feed it to my pet tortoise - and doing that would reduce SO2 emissions by one ton, right?
(If enough people did this, I assume it would drive up the price of SO2 to the point that some plants would relocate to places that didn't cap SO2 emissions. But I'm speaking roughly here.)
That's almost tempting. I wonder if there are any nonprofits that do this, so I could deduct my $185?
brandon111
For More Details Please Visit Me Here
http://www.mastersmindtechnologies.com/smartbpojob
Zero-Sum Game
I think the arguments for a carbon trading scheme are very interesting, and I would like to add a point that has recently been raised by Richard Denis of the Australia Institute (A carbon trading scheme is currently planned for 2010).
What Richard demonstrates is that, under a carbon trading scheme, actions by individuals to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will not reduce the net emissions - rather, they will just free up permits for businesses. Thus, while a 'ceiling' is set on emissions under a trading scheme, a 'floor' is also set - there is no economic incentive for emissions to go under the specified limit! Oh no!
> With a tax, you know
> With a tax, you know exactly what the price of carbon will be
And if you're not getting a steady decrease in total used, increase the tax.
What's so hard about this? The point is not to set up another endless churning and keep burning carbon. It's to bring it to a halt.
Duh.
Global what?
The author quotes Dr. hanson of NASA and the polar ice cap problems. Recent revelations reveal that the NASA readings were in error that the sensors were "biased" toward warming. Increasingly "serious thinkers" are questioning the whole Climate change problem both causes and solutions.
Global what?
The author quotes Dr. hanson of NASA and the polar ice cap problems. Recent revelations reveal that the NASA readings were in error that the sensors were "biased" toward warming. Increasingly "serious thinkers" are questioning the whole Climate change problem both causes and solutions.
This article completely
This article completely ignores the fact that recently it was discovered that instruments measuring the arctic ice underestimated the ice fields there by an area the size of California. This brings the arctic ice to 1970 levels. Major mistake! There is no global warming and it is a huge hoax. The globe has actually cooled slightly in the last decade. Even alarmists are beginning to admit that we are having a "pause" in global warming that may last for 30 or 40 years!
Article is riddled with
Article is riddled with errors and fluff. First, the artic is not melting (it's winter dude), and when summer comes to the north, the amount of ice is heavily dependent on ocean current, solar activity, and cloud cover....not temp. Finally, acid rain.....the whole acid rain cry fell out with the Alar scam. Finally, pretending we can "control" the climate is very arrogant....it's Mother Earth dude! Ok, comments about your recommendations:
1. Cap and trade is overcomplicated and will ultimately impact the lower class. Simple solution is to tax gasoline to equivalent of $4, and use the money to subsidize mass transit systems and build better intracity transportation.
2. Cap and trade is a bad tax - see #1
3. Europe's efforts at CO2 regulation and control have failed. The only countries that have had any impact in Europe are the old Soviet block. I have been there and it is poor! Kind of neat seeing shepards in the field, until you realize it's grandma and she is 80.
4. Auctions will be controlled by the utilities and oil companies. Manufacturing companies - which do more than anything to reduce wage disparity will continue to be hammered and reduce employment, and up goes wage disparity....by the way, look at percent of population in manufacturing versus wage disparity and you will find a solid correlation (reverse).
5. Yes the poor are impacted and no amount of credits will make-up the difference. Wages have to rise, not credits.
6. Acid rain - right there with the tooth fairy and "I'm from the government and here to help".
7. Anything is feasible with a democrat majority - especially taxes!
8. No Sh*t
9. Good thing you have this gig, otherwise you would have to find a real job!
10. ??
Refund?
Just wondering... if, in say 10 or 20 years from now that a "consensus" of climate experts declare that the earth is actually cooling, as has been the case over the past 8-9 years, will we be eligible for a refund for all taxes paid toward the goal of reducing global warming? Will we be taxed for not producing enough greenhouse emissions?
Rediculous? Yes! But no more so than what is being proposed.
It's always fascinated me
-
tagged as:
- solution
It's always fascinated me how warmist hysterics assure us we are on the very edge of catastrophe, but there is always just enough time to save the world if we follow their very latest plan. (Just enough! Act now!) And usually these plans completely ignore the influences of China and India which have shown no interest in adopting any of these farcical schemes. I have been listening to this for twenty years; it's apparent to me the only way this scam continues is due to the credulity of the very young who haven't heard it all before.
The back and forth of the
The back and forth of the comments has been very entertaining. I would suggest that those that cannot refute arguments stop with the name calling though ( although it does make me laugh, it reduces your credibility). From everything I've read, there seems to be some doubt on whether humans are causing global warming/climate change ( the fact that we have seen flat temps for the last ten years in particular). However, I believe clean air is in everyone's best interests. We need to accomplish this in a manner that will not destroy the economy as well. I believe the best way this is accomplished is through a gas tax offset by a reduction in the payroll tax ( I know I did not come up with this). This allows people to decide how they want to spend their money. Hopefully they would drive less ( less polution, congestion, fewer traffic fatalities, reduced C02 emmissons etc). Of course this takes the government ( they are revenue neutral) and lobbyists ( can't lobby for exemptions to cap and trade) out the equation.
On a side note. If I thought Global Warming was a dire threat I would not live in a 24k square ft house and jet around the world Mr Gore.
Wat
Cap and Trade for real? I thought this was a joke.
Why does Obama want to basically tax poor Americans for driving to work and cooking their food?
And can we get these global warming psychos to at least use current climate data?
AGW-HOAX
Gee, anyone that still thinks that there is a remote.......remote...possibility...that humans are causing "climate change" must have faqiled EVERY science course they ever had!!!!!!!!!!!Let's keep it scientific then: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let's see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures
4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than "normal" (whatever that is)
6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)
7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather "sublimation"
8) The Antarctic is not "melting", it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows
9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below "normal" (again, whatever that is)
10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below "normal" temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)
11) Al Gores film was just deemed "propaganda" in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just reveled that some of the footage in Al’s film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” (ABC)
13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.
15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)
16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.
17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured
18) Several publications, including those that are “warmist” have recently written that the “natural” cycles of the earth may “mask” AGW. Give me a break.
19) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!
Over the last ten years the world, along with China (1 new coal fired plant coming on line each week) and India spewing millions of additional tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere these results should be impossible.
Now, please be so kind to give me one piece of observable evidence that man is causing "global warming".
And, when will Al Gore humbly give his “Noble Prize” back as he is a complete fraud?
The article overall is
The article overall is fairly balanced and well written. I do take issue with commentary such as "If you want to improve vehicle mileage, for example, raising federal fuel-efficiency standards is "much cheaper for consumers than raising the price of gas" that reveal a complete lack of understanding of the economics of the problem. If that were correct, then we'd pass a law stating that everybody is a millionaire, so that we may all be rich.
If gas prices do not go up, driving people to purchase smaller vehicles, then the alleged alternative ('raising fuel efficiency standards') effectively implies a rationing of low MPG cars, hence an increase in their price. This means that consumers will end up 1) paying more to get the same SUVs they have today in the new car market or in the used market 2) substituting away to more efficient cars that they like less (and hence decreasing their standard of living, as perceived by them). Put it this way - we could ban cars altogether and therefore drastically reduce CO2 emissions as well as save people money (because they cannot spend it on cars anymore). But we cannot pretend that people's quality of life won't be dramatically reduced.
Sorry dudes Its the sun that keeps us warm.
-
tagged as:
- solution
In the last two years, research has provided a good picture of what heats the planets. The sun is what keeps us warm. The sun produces a full spectrum of radiation and recently discovered issues forth hot atoms into our upper atmosphere by "magnetic whisps" that spiral to our planet from the sun. Also, the sun has several cycles one is 400 years, 50, 27 and another is 11 years to name a few. The major jaw dropping one is a 11,000 which is suspected to cause the grave global climate shifts. Guess what, according to a "consensus" we are heading into a global cooling phase of the sun. I for one am moving south since Obama doesn't like oil or nuclear and my natural gas cost went up by 10 in the last 5 years. As one gets older, enjoying 58 degree F when home is just impossible.
Let's Permanently Trash US Prosperity
People who prefer to be informed about the AGW hypothesis and how current scientific evidence supports/refutes it's validity could go to climatedebatedaily.com to assess evidence on both sides. Many won't, their opinion is emotional, not analytical.
In fact, the evidence shows 1938 was the hottest year in the past century, and temperature declines have been experienced since 1998, despite increased CO2. AGW theory promoted by the IPCC, Gore, and the MSM is not affirmed by current temperature measurements. Worse, NASA under Hansen has disseminated inaccurate, biased data, which has been corrected by other scientists. AGW emanates the same malodor as the 11% compound ROI from Madoff's ponzi scheme.
So by all means let's trash the best remaining jobs in the US economy during the worst depression of a century, to save the planet. And let's transfer as much residual wealth as possible to China, India, and others too mature to implement such silly measures.
There's only about $30T in wealth left here - at the current burn rate that's about 5 years to destitution. It's not easy to squander wealth that fast, but Obama and his friends have a better chance than any contenders we've seen.
Manmade Global warming claims not scientific
reismc1 has nailed it with his 19 points that are factually correct. The author starts off with sloppy mis information as pointed out and corrected by the referenced post. At the very start of the article I noticed the error that the poles are melting. Although there has been melting of the Artic there has been an increase in sea ice in the Antarctic. The total Sea ice in January 2009 is near or slightly below that in the same timeframe in 1979! Also as measured by satellites, there has not been any increase in temperature for 10 years. As mentioned by others James Hansen is an awful person to quote since he has publicly exposed himself as biased. Numerous scientiests question his manipulation of temperature data since he adjusts past temperatures (even back to the 1800's) downward to make current temperatures look higher.
As such given the sloppy initial assumptions by the author, none of the following "stuff" on cap and trade can be believed. Finally the European cap and trade is currently considered a failure.
Global Warming...oops..."Climate Change"
Global warming has jumped the shark. Gore is trying to tell us to ignore that man behind the curtain, but it's too late. Public opinion has rightly shifted and we won't get fooled again.
Global warming?
Well, here is something from the past...
In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The "continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery" (International Wildlife, July 1975). "The world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, "The Cooling World," April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was "cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool," glaciers had "begun to advance" and "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).
So... which scientists should we believe now?
Who sets the thermostat?
-
tagged as:
- solution
There are existing technologies available to regulate climate, and research being done on new ones. Various "space parasol" proposals would intercept sunlight before it reaches the Earth's surface and reflect it back into space - it's called "increasing the albedo." Other tactics include increasing roof albedo (making roofs reflect rather than absorb sunlight), increasing urban albedo (add reflective roads and parking lots to roofs), and increasing cloud albedo.
I think a fair way to answer the question of whether the point of this debate is scientific or superstitious lies in your response to the above proposal. If you believe that all technological means of regulating climate are worthy of discussion, your approach is rational and scientific. If you believe that there is only one answer, and that you and your co-believers have it, your approach is irrational and superstitious.
Now for the hard part. Suppose that we determine that climate control is possible and desirable; who gets to set the thermostat?
Kevin Drum's article crucially misrepresents Hansen's position
The reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050 is the goal that the Democratic Platform and in particular the Obama campaign embraced in the 2008 election, and represents not Jim Hansen's position but that of the current position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is also the position taken by most major activist groups such as the broad 1Sky Coalition.
Jim Hansen,arguably the leading climatologist on the subject of the greenhouse effect IN THE WORLD (who first raised the issue before the US Congress over 20 years ago), and who has not been discredited but is much maligned in many of the comments, argues for a much MORE aggressive position. Hansen says that CURRENT levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, estimated around ~390 parts per million (ppm) and rapidly rising, need to be lowered to no more than 350 ppm. Hence you have groups like 350.org, led by Bill McKibben focusing on that number, and ALTERNET, in its coverage of the March 2 action in DC, featuring figures such as Nancy Pelosi, RFK Jr, McKibben and Hansens itself, reports chants of "350" at the mass rally itself.
From this position that we must radically reduce not only EMISSIONS of GHGs, but their overall level in the atmosphere itself must be lowered can be deduced that what is needed is NOT MERE LOWER EMISSIONS but NET NEGATIVE GHG emissions GLOBALLY, and FAST. Even if all net GHG emissions were to stop tomorrow, argues Hansen, the current momentum of the system is such as to trigger various "tipping points" that would not merely raise the level of CO2, but, crucially, the level of methane (a super-potent greenhouse gas) in particular -- to a point that global warming well beyond a level that could only be described as catastrophic would be inevitable.
In short, the currently widely accepted goal of 80% CO2 reduction in the US by 2050 is catastrophically and radically insufficient -- net GHG emissions must be brought to zero, and compensating mechanisms to bring CO2 (and GHG) levels to LESS THAN A NET OF ZERO are essential, and very soon. Policies targeted at THIS goal, very different and much more urgent than the one Kevin Drum outlines, must be in place within the next 8 years tops, Hansen argues, or civilization is basically toast.
louis vuitton
-
tagged as:
- result
We are providing all kinds of louis vuitton handbags, wallets and purses in ourgucci Online Store, all items of which have the most popular styles and are the newest and at discounted prices.
We also provide helpful shopping guide tips for you to choose and compare our bags and other accessories. Get your sale of replica handbags today and you will never be disappointed with it.
Welcome to our company, our
Welcome to our company, our company Huayi Trade Co.,LTD are good at selling the top quality designer bags (Balenciaga ,Chanel , Chloe' ,Christian Dior ,Dolce&Gabbana , Fendi , Gucci , Hermes , Galliera GM ,Miu Miu , Prada ), they are mirror image bags which are identical to the real onesLouis Vuitton Galliera GM . Our company locates inthe leather town in China, Speedy 25since 2003 we did this business we have won great trust and popularity from our customers from all over the world. We areexpanding our business, any inquiry for wholesale business is warmly welcome, Louis Vuitton Speedy 25just contact us, you can get our prompt reply.We have enlish speaking representative to answer phone call, or we can call you if convenient for you.
ugg sale
I would like to buy uggs,
ugg sale,
ugg boots uk,
ugg boots london,
ugg boots sale,
uggs,
ugg london,
ugg boots sale,
UGG Bailey Button boots,
bailey button ugg boots,
UGG Nightfal boots,
and so on.
