Co-Benefits of Cutting Black Carbon and Ground-level Ozone

A new UN study highlights the potential benefits of reducing specific air pollutants which not only help to prevent climate change but have a number of positive benefits for human health and agriculture.

If the world is to avoid dangerous climate change and keep a twenty-first century temperature rise below two degrees Celsius or less, it will be necessary to achieve a significant reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide – a key greenhouse gas.

However, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meterological Organisation (WMO) report coordinated by the Stockholm Environment Institute on Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone shows that the measures can reduce near-term climate change and premature deaths and crop loss by taking action to reduce these two pollutants.

Black carbon exists as particles in the atmosphere and is a major component of soot. At ground level ozone is an air pollutant harmful to human health and ecosystems and, throughout the lower atmosphere, is also a significant greenhouse gas. Ozone is not directly emitted, but is produced from emissions of precursors of which methane and carbon monoxide are of particular interest.

Black carbon and ozone in the lower atmosphere are harmful air pollutants that have substantial regional and global climate impacts. They disturb tropical rainfall and regional circulation patterns (e.g. the Asian monsoon) affecting the livelihoods of millions of people.

Black carbon’s darkening of snow and ice surfaces increases their absorption of sunlight which, along with global warming, exacerbates melting of snow and ice around the world. This affects the water cycle and increases the risk of flooding.

Black carbon, a component of particulate matter, and ozone both lead to premature deaths worldwide. Ozone is also the most important air pollutant responsible for reducing crop yields and affects food security.

The UNEP/WMO study calls for immediate action to reduce emissions of black carbon and tropospheric ozone, which have the potential to slow the rate of climate change within the first half of this century.

Climate benefits from cutting ozone are achieved by reducing emissions of some of its precursors, especially methane which is also a powerful greenhouse gas. These short-lived climate gases (e.g. black carbon and methane) only remain in the atmosphere for a short time compared to longer-lived greenhouse gases (e.g. carbon dioxide).

The study also highlights how a small number of emission reduction measures targeting black carbon and ozone precursors could immediately begin to protect climate, public health, water and food security, and ecosystems.

The measures include the recovery of methane from coal, oil and gas extraction and transport, methane capture in waste management, use of clean-burning stoves for residential cooking, diesel particulate filters for vehicles and the banning of open burning of agricultural waste.

Full implementation is achievable with existing technology but would require significant and strategic investment and institutional arrangements.

The study claims that the full implementation of the identified measures would reduce future global warming by 0.5 degrees Celsius (within a range of 0.2 – 0.7 Celsius). If the measures were to be implemented by 2030, this could halve the potential increase in global temperature projected for 2050 compared to a reference scenario based on current policies and energy and fuel projections. The rate of regional temperature increase would also be reduced.

In addition, implementation of all the measures could avoid 2.4 million premature deaths (within a range of 0.7- 4.6 million) and the loss of 52 million tonnes (within a range of 30.140 million tonnes), 1.4 per cent, of global production of maize, rice, soybean and wheat each year. The most substantial benefits will be felt immediately in or close to the regions where action is taken to reduce emissions, with the greatest health and crop benefits expected.

The study concludes that there is confidence that immediate and multiple benefits will be achieved upon implementation of the identified measures. The degree of confidence varies according to pollutant, impact and region.

For example, there is higher confidence in the effect of methane measures on global temperatures than in the effect of black carbon measures, especially where these relate to the burning of biomass. There is also high confidence that benefits will be realised for human health from reducing particles, including black carbon, and to crop yields from reducing tropospheric ozone concentrations.

While many of the measures identified by the study are already available and being implemented by some countries, a considerable amount of work will need to be done if these measures are to be implemented on a international level.

A government may ban the burning of agricultural waste burning however enforcement of the ban is a different issue. In developing countries where there is limited resources they may not have he man power to enforce such measures the same could be said for the use of cleaning burning stoves.

Fearful that the focus on short-lived climate gases will deter from the current GHG reductions efforts, the UNEP/WMO study warns that deep and immediate carbon dioxide reductions are still required to protect against long-term climate.

The measures identified by the study complement but do not replace anticipated carbon dioxide reduction measures. For major carbon dioxide reduction strategies target the energy and large industrial sectors and therefore would not necessarily result in significant reductions in emissions of black carbon or the ozone precursors methane and carbon monoxide.

As with many environmental problems, we know the cause, we the know the effects and we know the solutions but we are still faced with the barriers of political apathy and public resistance that stifles progress in resolving the problem.

The study clearly demosntrates the benefits of taking action on black carbon and ground-level ozone (and its precursors) have of a number climate change, public health and food security benefits especially in developing countries where health and food are high priorities.

All we need now is to put what we know into practice.

© Gary Haq 2011

Advertisements

The Impact of the Meat on Our Plate

Meat production not only contributes to climate change and land degradation but is also a cause of air and water pollution and biodiversity loss. The farming industry accounts for nine per cent of UK total greenhouse gases, half of which come from sheep, cows and goats. Is the meat on our plate really worth the impact on the planet?

FROM Paul McCartney to Lord Stern, more people are promoting the benefits of a meatless society.

Meat production not only contributes to climate change and land degradation but is also a cause of air and water pollution and biodiversity loss. The farming industry accounts for nine per cent of UK total greenhouse gases, half of which come from sheep, cows and goats. Is the meat on our plate really worth the impact on the planet?

Deforestation, manure and livestock flatulence all contribute to global warming and are associated with excessive meat consumption.

As nations become richer, they tend to eat more meat and more livestock has to be raised to keep up with the demand.

In turn, more grazing land is required and more forests are cut down to expand farmland. As trees get the chop the carbon dioxide that they have absorbed over their lifetime is eventually released back into the atmosphere.

Manure is a source of nitrous oxide which is a greenhouse gas 300 times stronger than carbon dioxide. A recent report warned that nitrogen pollution is costing each European citizen up to £650 a year in damage to water, climate, health and wildlife.

As livestock digest grass, they produce flatulence which contains the greenhouse gas methane. Research by Reading University suggests changing the diet of livestock could reduce methane emissions by 20 per cent.

Improving the efficiency of resource management when it comes to crop and livestock production could help reduce the environmental impact of meat production.

However, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, the current prices of land, water and feed resources used for livestock production do not reflect true scarcities and create distortions that provide no incentive for efficient resource use.

This results in the overuse of resources and major inefficiencies in the production process.

Abandoning our carnivorous habits is both good for the planet and our health. Eating too much meat, especially processed meat, can be bad for a person’s health as it can contain high levels of saturated fat and salt.

An Oxford University study funded by Friends of the Earth showed that more than 45,000 lives a year could be saved if everyone ate meat no more than two or three times a week.

A widespread switch to low-meat diets would stop 31,000 people dying early from heart disease, 9,000 from cancer and 5,000 from strokes. This could save the NHS £1.2bn and help reduce climate change and deforestation.
I am one of the four million vegetarians in Britain and have led a meat-free life for the past 25 years. I still remember the day at primary school when I realised I did not like the idea of eating a dead animal.

However, it took me another nine years before I was able to proudly declare that I would eat “nothing with a face”.

Over the years, being a vegetarian in this country has got easier, people are more accepting and there is more choice of vegetarian food in supermarkets and restaurants.

There are now about 30 top-range vegetarian restaurants – an increase of 50 per cent since 2007. This reflects a growing interest in healthy lifestyles although many people would not necessarily call themselves vegetarian. One 2009 survey suggests 23 per cent of the population are “meat-reducers”, and 10 per cent as “meat-avoiders”.

Despite the increasing awareness of the environmental and health effects of carnivorous cuisine, the seduction of a sizzling sausage, the allure of the bacon butty and the prospect of the Yorkshire pudding with roast beef may simply be too much for many meat eaters to resist.

While there has been a change in eating habits the vast majority of Britons still eat meat, with one-in-five eating meat every day. This suggests education and awareness alone will not work to reduce our meat consumption.

One suggestion to address the harmful effects of meat consumption is to introduce a European-wide meat tax.

The EU is already committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has taken a number of measures such as the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs.

A meat tax would be similar to taxes on alcohol, tobacco and petrol. Unlike petrol, which is harder to replace, the effect of the tax would encourage consumers to replace meat with other food products.

It is clear that we have to improve the efficiency of livestock production and reduce the demand for meat to make the transition to a low carbon society.

The recent discovery of horse meat in labelled beef products indicates how meat production has become increasingly mechanised and the extent to which we have become disconnected from the food we eat. Perhaps it is now time to reconsider our meat consumption.

Rather than shunning meat altogether, meat eaters could start by following a “demitarian” diet – reducing meat portions by half. It is recommended that total weekly meat intake should not exceed 210 grams – a small sacrifice to secure the future of the planet.

Whatever the Weather …

WITH snowfall, sub-zero temperatures, ice, fog and treacherous conditions on the roads bringing the UK and other European countries to a halt, its hard to believe that global warming is really happening.

Yet 2010 has seen global temperature rise to near record levels. According to the UK Met Office, provisional global temperature figures have put 2010 on track to become the first or second warmest on record. This is despite a declining El Niño, a climatic phenomenon that is characterised by unusually warm temperatures, being replaced La Niña that has had a strong cooling effect. Climate sceptics are quick to point to the recent big freeze as evidence to suggest that climate change is a load of baloney.

However, many people fail to make the distinction between climate – the average weather patterns over years – and weather, which is a series of short-term events that can change dramatically from one day to the next. The big freeze is a mere blip in the overall long-term trend that has seen global temperatures rise. So what has been the cause of the recent cold weather?

A study by the University of Reading (UK) has linked the unusual cold winters in northern Europe to periods of low sunspot activity and atmospheric conditions that “block” warm westerly winds. Changes in the fast moving winds in the upper atmosphere, known as jet streams, can have a major influence on weather. Jet streams normally bring mild, wet and westerly winds that cause the winter weather we have come to expect.

However, when the jet stream is blocked it forms an “s” shape over the northeastern Atlantic, causing the wind to fold back on itself. This pushes the jet stream further northwards allowing cold, dry easterly winds to flow over Europe which results in a sharp fall in temperature. The phenomenon of “blocking” only affects a limited geographical area and its impact is dependent on a number of conditions being met before it occurs. Allowing for climate change, European winters have been 0.5 degrees Celsius colder than average during years of low solar activity.

The winter of 2009 was England’s eighteenth coldest in 350 years even though the global temperatures were the fifth highest. It still unclear why changes in solar activity affects weather patterns, which indicates that we still have a lot to learn about the complex interactions and feedback loops that characterise the climate system. Throughout history we have feared and revered the weather and have tried to make sense of this natural phenomenon that has such a powerful influence on our way of life.

The weather has not only played a role in shaping our physical environment such as our landscape and coastline, it has fashioned our cultural identity. It influences how we feel, how we spend our leisure time, how we socialise, how we work and what we wear. We have become notorious throughout the world for our obsession with the weather. British weather is so variable and unpredictable throughout the year; it is not surprising that we talk so much about it.

Unlike climate change that remains a controversial issue, the weather is a safe topic of conversation which we happily discuss with total strangers and use to avoid sensitive or personal matters.

There was a time when we use to look to the skies and believed that the weather was determined by some higher being, a time when we tried to predict the weather by observing changes in the natural environment. Today we look down to the latest application on our mobile phone to get weather forecasts based on observations using instruments analysed with the aid of computers. Yet despite advances in science and technology that has allowed us to control nature, we still remain vulnerable to extreme weather events.

In early December 2010 190 nations met in Cancun, Mexico to discuss the international response to the challenge of climate change. The meeting was successful in producing an agreement which outlines a near global consensus to take urgent action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Acknowledging the rich world’s historical responsibility for climate change, the Cancun Agreement establishes mechanisms for transferring funds from rich countries to poor counties to spend on climate protection.

However, it does not provide legally binding emission targets and only urges rich nations to do more. While the Agreement has saved the negotiation process it has yet to save the climate. Nevertheless campaigners believe the foundation has now been set to provide a more comprehensive agreement at the next round of climate talks.

If we are to avoid any disruption of the climate system on which we are so naturally dependent, we need to take action sooner rather than later. The lessons from the last few weeks should have taught us that the weather is King and has the ability to bring the whole country to its knees in a matter of hours – we ignore its power at our peril.

© Gary Haq 2010

Photo credits: www.shutterstock.com

A Zero Carbon Transport Vision

The transport sector has enormous potential to deliver greenhouse gas reductions. However, just how much can we reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transport?

The transport sector has enormous potential to deliver greenhouse gas reductions. However, just how much can we reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transport?

Transport offers many benefits in terms of freedom, independent mobility and accessibility. Yet this comes at a cost such as air polluting emissions which contribute to local air pollution and climate change.

There are two key challenges that require the reduction of oil use within transport and resulting carbon dioxide emissions to be kept to an absolute minimum. Firstly, transport is extremely dependent on oil and there is a likelihood that there will be not be much oil left in 2050 compared to today. Secondly, climate change rises important issues around re-engineering transport systems so that they are less vulnerable to the damaging consequences of climate change and can play a full role in reducing greenhouse gases.

A number of studies have attempted to look at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector. These include the OECD Environmentally Sustainable Transport study(2002), Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy study (2007) and the Campaign for Better Transport study on a Low Carbon UK Transport Policy (2008).

A study by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) has outlined how a phased programme of technological, financial and behavioural changes could secure the potential cuts in carbon dioxide emissions compared to a business-as-usual approach:
• 100 per cent in road transport (cars and lorries)
• 100 per cent in rail transport
• 56 per cent in aviation
• 49 per cent in shipping

Under this programme road transport will be completely carbon neutral by 2050 due to a combination of reduced demand (approximately 75 per cent from spatial, fiscal and behavioural measures), and a whole-scale shift in technology to plug-in electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells, both of which will utilise decarbonised UK electricity supply.

Clearly, a carbon neutral electricity supply would be much more likely to be able to meet the increased needs of road transport sector entirely composed of plug-in electric vehicles and/or hydrogen cells. The measure causing the greatest reduction in demand is the annual increase in fuel costs due to the re-introduction of a fuel price escalator.

With regard to rail, all passenger and freight will be powered by 100 per cent electricity that is carbon neutral.

Carbon dioxide emissions of from aviation will be reduced by 59 per cent, which represents a significant progress in bringing aviation in line with the implications of the UK national commitment to an 80 per cent reduction by 2050 compared to 1990. However, the scale of the reduction is still not enough despite the applications of measures.

It is clear that a combination of measures to reduce demand such as air increases, no additional runways, modal shift to railways (High Speed Train) and video substitution would deliver a considerably greater reduction than could be achieved by advances in aircraft technology and air traffic management alone. It follows that a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from aviation of this scale could not be delivered by policy that encouraged technological solutions alone whist allowing demand to continue to grow.

Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping will be reduced by 49 per cent through changes in ship size, routing, fuel, speed and a number of other promising technologies have been assumed.

Although road and rail transport could both achieve the zero carbon dioxide emissions target, emissions from aviation and shipping are problematic. Although a 76 per cent reduction is a considerable achievement it still falls short of a zero carbon target. To improve on this figure carbon dioxide reduction would require more radical interventions or technological innovations for these two sectors than those envisaged in the SEI study. This would require fundamental changes in globalisation and patterns of international trade and mobility if aviation and shipping is to make a larger contribution to the zero carbon target.

The decarbonisation of the road and rail sector is dependent on the decarbonisation of the electricity supply system. However, if the electrical power sector decarbonisation is less than 100 per cent by 2050 carbon dioxide emissions from road and rail transport will be substantially higher.

The SEI study has shown that the potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions form the UK transport sector is much greater than anyone previously thought and that reductions in emissions go hand in hand with improvements in air quality, health and economic success.

The policy recommendations include a number of radical but achievable measures including:

Spatial planning to create neighbourhoods and communities where it is possible to reach destinations on foot or by bicycle and public transport

New approaches to the regionalisation of production and consumption to bring about reductions in road freight

Increases in the cost of transport to implement the so-called “polluter pays principle”

Full de-carbonisation of the UK electricity supply system (as envisaged by the Climate Change Committee)

Full conversion of all cars to Plug In Electric Vehicles or Hydrogen Fuel Cells utilising de-carbonised electricity.

A zero carbon transport future will provide better access for more people to more things this is currently is the case. Traffic congestion and time wasted in traffic jams will be a thing of he past and the time currently wasted in commuter trips will be spent on rewarding and enriching activities.

The study has set out a vision of a zero carbon future and how to achieve it. What we need now is to convince decision-makers to move boldly and decisively to make this vision for UK transport a reality.

© Gary Haq 2010

Photo credits: Shutterstock

Meltdown of Public Opinon on Climate Change

RECENT events are now resulting in more people questioning the validity of the science behind climate change. Could this be the beginning of a meltdown in public opinion on global warming?

RECENT events are now resulting in more people questioning the validity of the science behind climate change. Could this be the beginning of a meltdown in public opinion on global warming?

The recent period of freezing temperatures and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit to agree legally binding greenhouse gas targets provided the backdrop for two events that have threatened the creditability of climate change science.

The “Climategate” fiasco saw the contents of emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit leading to accusations that a number of researchers had manipulated data.

Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading body for the assessment of the scientific evidence of climate change, admitted it had got it wrong on predicting Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

Taken all together, it is not surprising that the general public is beginning to question whether climate change is really happening. A recent BBC Poll suggests that scepticism about climate change is on the rise. Of the 1,001 adults polled, 25 per cent did not think global warming was happening.

This is a 10 per cent increase on a similar poll that was conducted last year. Those who said climate change was real had fallen from 83 to 75 per cent. Only 26 per cent believed that climate change was happening and was largely the result of human activities.

Climate change is unlike any other environmental issue. For some, it is seen as a new religion with those sceptical of the evidence labelled “deniers” as if they were questioning the existence of a divine being. Unless you live on a small island state such as Tuvalu, near Fiji, which is slowly sinking due to the rising sea level, it is easy to think climate change is a myth.

There is also public confusion over the difference between weather – atmospheric conditions over hours or days – and climate – changes in the atmosphere over years. This has led some people to think that the recent heavy snowfall and sub-zero temperatures are sufficient evidence that global warming is not real.

How climate change is communicated plays a powerful role in influencing public attitudes and determining whether people are willing to reduce their carbon footprint. The alarmist language used by the media to describe the potential impact of climate change has been referred to as “climate porn” – offering a thrilling spectacle but ultimately distancing the public from the problem. The use of apocalyptic media images of receding glaciers, scorched land, flooded metropolises and polar bears grappling for survival all foster public apathy.

It is no wonder the public feels disempowered. The issue is portrayed as being so big and multifaceted that it seems unreal and more like science fiction rather than science fact.

Climate sceptics are quick to claim that Climategate and the “Glaciergate” are evidence of “dodgy” climate science. While a few points in the IPCC report may be incorrect, this does not invalidate the last four assessments of the basic science of climate change. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that global warming is due to human activity.

The reality is that climate science is still developing as new evidence comes to light. We are still trying to understand the complexity of the global climate system and the effect and speed of different feedback mechanisms.

For example, a scientific survey of Siberian tundra coastlines has reported methane levels are roughly 100 times above normal. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

More than 10 times the annual global greenhouse emissions are thought to be trapped in tundra across the world. As the tundra thaws will it become a “Methane Bomb”?

Health damaging particles in polluting gases emitted by industry, traffic and domestic heating have a “cooling” effect on the climate. In reducing local air pollution are we lowering this cooling effect and inadvertently accelerating global warming?

Many questions such as these require further scientific investigation.

It is too easy to dismiss the whole climate change issue as mass hysteria. Prevention is always much better than cure. It is right that we take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to predicted climate change and move to a low carbon economy.

We need to become more efficient in our energy use and develop renewable energy sources. After all, whether climate change happens or not, we still have to face up to the fact of dwindling oil reserves and our over-consumption of natural resources.

Whatever doubt we may have about climate science, or whether climate change is really happening, a fundamental question remains – are we willing to gamble with our children’s future on this planet?

© Gary Haq 2010
To comment click on the title.

Can The Tories Lead a Green Revolution?

WHEN David Cameron became leader of the UK Conservative Party, he vowed that the Tories would lead a new green revolution in Britain. In the 2006 local elections he urged voters to “Vote Blue, Go Green”.

As Britain approaches a General Election, the environment policy of all political parties will come under scrutiny. What will the Tories need to do in order to achieve their promise of a green revolution in Britain?

Climate change poses the greatest environmental threat to the country. Action will therefore be required to address our contribution to the problem as well as ensuring we are able to cope with the impact of extreme weather events and a rise in temperature.

It has been claimed that most Tory MPs are sceptical about the party’s focus on climate change policy and at least six shadow cabinet ministers are sceptical about the economic consequences of a low-carbon policy.

Not only will David Cameron need to convince his colleagues that climate change poses a real threat to our way of life, he will need to reduce our dependency on coal and increase in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

About 27 per cent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions are the result of domestic energy use. Mr Cameron should follow the example of Kirklees Council’s award-winning Warm Zone scheme.

This home insulation scheme targeted at 170,000 homes has resulted in the average household saving £200 on fuel bills each year while reducing their carbon dioxide emissions by over one tonne. He should roll-out similar schemes across the region and provide cavity wall and loft insulation, energy efficient glazing, draught proofing, improved boilers and low energy light bulbs free to every home.

All new buildings should meet stringent energy performance standards. And we should move away from using energy and resource intensive materials such as steel and concrete to straw bale and timber. To see an example of sustainable construction in practice, Mr Cameron should take a look at York’s Eco-Depot – a timber framed building with straw bale cladding all sourced in regionally in Yorkshire.

There is great potential in the country to use renewable sources of energy. As the saying goes “Where there’s muck there’s brass” – Britain’s sewage could be used to produce biogas. Wind power could be harnessed by constructing Danish style offshore wind farms along the region’s coastline while water turbines in major rivers and streams could be used to provide hydropower.

These measures, together with the introduction of community-based low carbon technologies such as solar water heating, solar electricity, ground heat pumps, micro-wind turbines and combined heat and power, could allow regional “smart grids” to be developed and reduce the region’s dependency on energy from the National Grid.

Britain has already experienced its share of flooding due to torrential rain. This has resulted in serious disruption to roads, schools, offices and caravan parks and has caused great distress and millions of pounds in flood damage.

Mr Cameron should invest in flood and coastal defences to ensure all flood prone towns and villages are adequately protected. In addition, there should be a major tree-planting programme throughout the country to increase the uptake of rainfall and prevent future flooding.

The creation of new woodlands will also have the added benefit of providing fuel wood and wildlife habitats.

We also need to see a revolution in the way we grow our food. Greater incentives should be available to adopt sustainable agricultural practices such as permaculture – an ecologically harmonious efficient and productive approach that stresses the value of diverse crops.

Support should also be given to promote small-scale local food production, which not only increases food security, but also reduces food miles.

Mr Cameron should visit Todmorden’s Incredible Edible initiative to see how public attitudes to local food production have been revolutionised. The whole community – including businesses, schools and farmers – have been “growing their own”. Public flowerbeds have been transformed into community herb gardens and vegetable patches. The initiative has increased the amount of local food grown and eaten in the town.

Our urban environment desperately needs to be made safer, cleaner and more people friendly. Mr Cameron should promote car free cities, walking and cycling and convert car parks to green spaces.

In order to maintain local distinctiveness, he should limit the number of supermarkets and chain stores allowed to open on our high streets and promote local businesses instead. Reducing pollution, improving the character and feel of our local environment will result in happier and healthier residents.

A green revolution cannot take place without its foot troops. Mr Cameron should provide funding for a nation-wide “Green Home Front” to encourage residents, businesses, public bodies, community organisations and schools to work together to make their communities greener. Only by harnessing people power can we revolutionise the way we live and ensure a transition to a new greener age.

If Mr Cameron succeeds in becoming Prime Minister, he will need to deliver on his promise to put environmental policies at the heart of government. In doing so he should remember the words of his predecessor, Margaret Thatcher, who said: “No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy – with a full repairing lease.”

© Gary Haq 2010
To comment click on the title.