I have been leaching off Bill Gates, George Monbiot and David Nocera for content for long enough… time for something original from the brains trust at DSA! For my international readers, this article does have a foundation in the Australian experience. I would be interested to hear your perspectives.

There is no point denying it. The anti-nuclear movement in Australia has been remarkably effective. Combined with abundant cheap coal, Australia’s anti –nuclear movement has kept us the only one of the world’s top 16 economies not to employ nuclear power. It made people like me grow up anti-nuclear without ever really being asked to think about it. The result is some of the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world; in South Australia around 720g CO2-e/kWh (which is one of the lowest levels in the country I might add. NSW, Victoria and Queensland are all much higher), compared to a mere 90g CO2-e/kWh in nuclear dominated France.

Meanwhile, the pro-nuclear position has, to my observation, failed to ever really gain much traction, and has evidently failed to deliver change. This is said with all respect to the many smart and passionate people who have worked on the issue for much longer than I.

Why has the anti-nuclear movement succeeded? It is easy and tempting to write-off its success to dishonourable actions from the leadership of the movement which:

  • Lies
  • Distorts information
  • Grants itself the luxury of being single-issue, and ignores the rest of the world’s problems when they don’t suit them
  • Uses fear-mongering freely and to great effect
  • Never, ever feels obliged to correct the record when their fear-mongering is subsequently shown to be completely false

Um…then how are you holding the sign?

While these points and things like it are arguably true (I have certainly encountered all of the above myself), it grants the anti-nuclear movement all the power by taking the focus off the shortcomings of the pro-nuclear approach.  It’s also clear that we can challenge these things when the opportunities arise, but we can’t change them. This makes it all largely beside the point.

We also should be honest and acknowledge the genuine shortcomings of nuclear power technology through its history, such as:

  • The inarguable association with weapons development programs in the early days
  • A period of escalating costs and increasing design complexity
  • The catastrophe at Chernobyl; an absurd basis for decision making today, but something that has had profound influence on perceptions of the technology
  • The intractable “problem” of high level nuclear waste

Well the essential weapons link is well and truly of a bygone era. Designs are now standardised, simplified, modular, factory made, and super safe. The “problem” of high level waste has always been something of a beat-up compared to the mountain of polluting toxins we routinely ingest from fossil fuel and myriad other industries. I don’t really regard it as a shortcoming that the industry needs to feel bad about. In fact, nuclear power distinguishes itself from fossil fuel by actually capturing and containing the pollution. How novel. But whatever the case, it is now becoming broadly known that in Generation IV designs, the technological answer to that problem is well and truly in the development pipeline.

Yet despite all this, plus the fact that the need for zero-carbon energy has never been greater, the pro-nuclear position is still way off the pace. So surely the better question is: What positive things helped the anti-nuclear movement succeed that we should replicate?

I believe the reason the anti-nuclear movement has basically succeeded in Australia where pro-nuclear has basically failed is simple. It’s staring you in the face, written into my text.


Like it or loathe it, you can’t confuse the anti-nuclear message 

One is a movement. The other isn’t. Movements are incredibly effective things, and the anti-nuclear movement has been an incredibly effective example. The only way to compete is to turn pro-nuclear from a position and a shared interest into a movement. That, dear readers, is what Decarbonise SA is all about.

Here are a couple of three-point descriptions, with thanks to Seth Godin, that will help us know if we are creating a successful movement. Firstly, pro-nuclear will become more effective if we can do the following:

  • Transform our shared interest into a passionate goal and desire for change
  • Provide tools to allow subscribers to tighten their communications and be more effective
  • Leverage the movement to allow it to grown and gain more followers

I have highlighted first point above because that was the missing ingredient that made me start Decarbonise SA: the goal. Without a goal, we are just intelligent, passionate and opinionated. With the goal, we can become directed, targeted, effective. The anti-nuclear movement has always had a goal: “No Nuclear Power”. I realise how obvious that sounds, but do you realise how empowering it is? Those three words have brought people into the streets, had them give up their time, lobby their politicians, for a goal. Absent the goal, efforts are harder to coordinate, and members of a movement are harder to motivate. The movement inevitable downgrades to a shared interest.


…means No Chance of halting climate change

Well, now we have goal; zero carbon electricity for South Australia as quickly as possible.

To reach that goal, we demand the simple, commonsense maturity from our government and fellow citizens to consider all zero-carbon generation options on a level playing field basis. That includes the one that has been delivering for over 50 years, currently provides 15% of global electricity across 30 nations, has an outstanding record of safety and environmental performance, and has a strong future of even better technology. As my friend Barry Brook often remarks, he doesn’t actually care what does the job, only that it is done, and done quickly. He just happens to know, based on his research, that nuclear will perform extremely well if only it is given the chance for a fair fight.

The technology works. What really needs innovation in Australia is our thinking about nuclear energy

The other great thing is that when you have a goal, you can start envisaging it and bringing it to life. Most of you have read Part I and II of the Decarbonise SA Energy Plan. I am beginning to take that table with me to my conversations and presentations. You may not appreciate how amazingly empowering it has been for such a ridiculously simple exercise. For one thing, most South Australian’s have pretty much no idea how they get their electricity and from where. Nuts when you think about it, since we all use it every day. People really, really enjoy knowing. Secondly, it makes it clear that from a technological and investment point of view, decarbonising SA’s electricity is almost stupidly easy. A program of three major infrastructure investments that we need to make anyway and the job is 90% done. Suddenly, the goal is not pie in the sky: it is in fact an achievable outcome that is easy to name, describe and fight for. Soon, with a little more work, it will have a pathway to actual delivery. This will help our movement gain momentum.


“It’s HOW old???”

Here’s the next three points on the elements that define a movement. These are also borrowed from Godin, who quotes US Senator Bill Bradley. A movement neeeds:

  1. A narrative that tells the story of who we are and the future we are trying to build
  2. A connection among those in the movement
  3. Something to do- the fewer limits, the better

I have once again highlighted what I regard as the main shortcoming of pro-nuclear that makes it a position and not a movement. What has ever been the narrative that binds those of a pro-nuclear disposition? What does is mean, in terms of shared values and life experience, to be a pro-nuclear environmentalist? The anti-nuclear movement has leveraged a long and “glorious” history of protesting against the establishment and of working in the interests of global peace, all to further that goal: no nuclear power. Pro-nuclear on the other hand… again, apologies to those upon whose shoulders Decarbonise SA stands, but there hasn’t really been a narrative at all. Nothing for people to relate to. No clear sense of values and ethics to entice newcomers to a common ground that they can feel good about. We have seen some discussion about this in a recent Decarbonise SA comments thread. When we ask people to become pro-nuclear, we are not asking them to change their minds, we are asking them to change their identities. For that to happen, they have to look at the other crowd and like what they see; they have to like the narrative and like the values it represents.

Who are we?

Again though, that is changing, and our narrative is forming, thanks largely to climate change. So who are we? I want to know what you think. Here’s what I think.

We are the people who hit the late 20th and early 21st century and fully accepted that the planet had a suite of urgent and interrelated problems. We are the ones who actually mean it when we use the expression “climate crisis”. We are the ones who have the courage to be open to all solutions in the face of seemingly intractable problems, and to recognise when fear rather than fact is driving the decision making. We are the ones who are prepared to stand against the Australian societal norm, including the friends we leave behind in Australia’s powerful mainstream environmental movement, and say “No, we have been mistaken”. We are the ones who value every human life equally; so logically we value saving hundreds of thousands of lives every year through re-stabilising the climate and cutting air pollution above saving no lives by protesting nuclear power. We are the ones who can see a path to dramatically less mining, pollution and pressure on our forests and wildlands, through bringing energy for development from the densest energy source on earth. We are not energy hedonists nor are we consumption junkies; but we acknowledge the benefits of the energy-rich modern world in the health, safety, security and prosperity it provides. We’re not trying to solve all the problems of the world… the top five or so will do. We are the true environmentalists for the 21st century. This is something to be very proud of.

We need to acknowledge and value our history and articulate our present; create our own narrative and make it known. This gives people who will consider making the change to pro-nuclear something to hang their identity from with pride.

The best part though is to write our own future. That means growing. Building our numbers. Planning. Acting. Making change. Winning the damn fight because we can’t afford to lose.

I can’t wait.


  1. While I agree that the anti-nuclear movement has gained traction in recent months, they really are only a movement that has an impact when there is fear. I commented on this in one of your earlier posts regarding the emotive arguments used by the anti side vs the technical data orientated arguments used in the pro side and their effect onthe human psyche. Regardless, common sense always prevails.
    I have been keeping track of Nuclear surveys for a while now and there is a distinct pattern. The Status-quo is always split 3 ways evenly between pro, anti, and undecided (there are some minor deviations). During the “Nuclear Renaissance” those undecided voters shifted mostly towards pro. In the years before Fukushima it was primarily 50-55% pro. Fukushima happened and those undecideds shifted over to anti. It’s like the stock market when speculative forces negatively effect the share price, it will drop X% but mostly recover after those speculative forces are proven wrong. Naturally with the nuclear debate, particularly after an accident, over time it will shift back to a normalised status quo.
    The difficult part about Nuclear Power is addressing the Radiation risk in a comprehensibile layman manner. To just say “trust us we’re engineers” is not enough.

    The narrative, while Climate Change is a big issue and one that helps, should be focused more on everyday issues that people can relate to. When polled in the US those living next to a NPP relate efficiency, relaibility, clean air, job creation, affordable electricity, and energy security with NPPs (NPP workers were exluded from the poll).

    On another note, did some back of the envelope calculations, to address the CO2 emission issue & closing Playford, Northern, and Torrens down. Replacing them with 2x Reactors, even get away with one (assuming 80% CF; probably adv CANDUs), will cut 6.8 MtCO2-e per year from SA’s emissions profile (from 9.1 MtCO2-e in elec gen; 74% cut). Putting this into the National contex. With one, just ONE, major infrastructure build you can address 41.7% of Australia’s 5% of 2000 level emisisons cut. With a few more Ractors in SA we could even shift from a net importer of electricity to a net exporter, assisting our Eastern counterparts with the Decarbonisation of their electricity generation sectors while getting a little extra income on the side and an advanced heavy industry to boot! There is an issue with the ARPANSA Act but I have an idea of how that can be “amended” in a senate where the Greens have a balancing power.

  2. Your analysis leaves open an important question whose answer offers the key to pronuclear success – “Why?”

    The mission of the antinuclear movement is clear enough, as you stated. It is a simple “NO”. However, pronuclear activists hand that opposition all of the moral strength that they need by accepting the premise that the basis for the “NO” is fear of radiation or fear of the bomb or fear of the possibility of a massively damaging accident that never seems to actually happen.

    The real strength of the opposition to nuclear comes from the people who derive their wealth and power from the whole range of economic activities required to extract, refine, transport, distribute and consume the hydrocarbons that produce the emissions that you want to stop. Fossil fuel pushers have a fundamental reason for disliking clean, concentrated, abundant, affordable nuclear energy. They hold sway in a LOT of decision making bodies that can delay nuclear projects and add to their cost. They have influence in the media due to their continuous use of paid advertising campaigns sustained over many decades. They have influence in foundations that have been formed from fossil fuel derived wealth and they have influence in powerful unions like those associated with the railroads that derive most of their steady income from moving bulky fuels like oil and coal.

    Your message of DecarboniseSA scares the heck out of the very rich and powerful people who are rich and powerful because THEY SELL CARBON!

    The real way to defeat the “NO” to nuclear energy is to find people who benefit from “YES” to nuclear energy. The fuel suppliers have concentrated strength, but the majority of the world’s population does not supply fuel; they consume fuel and have to pay high prices, accept nasty pollution, and suffer through periods of supply constraints. Some of those consumers are major corporations in their own right and have a lot of sway – they just need to be told (over and over again) why fission is so much better than combustion.

    Cheap fuel
    No emissions
    Reliable power plants
    Responsive enough to power warships (so other ships are a piece of cake)
    great jobs
    Tremendous growth opportunities for future generations
    Incredible record of public safety

    Pointing out the means, motive and opportunities that the fossil fuel industry has had to kneecap nuclear technology (including many “inside jobs” at supposedly “nuclear” companies) helps to knock the antinuclear movement off of the moral high ground of being ideologically motivated.

    It is a worthy battle, but never expect it to be easy.

    Rod Adams
    Publisher, Atomic Insights

  3. We are the people who hit the late 20th and early 21st century and fully accepted that the planet had a suite of urgent and interrelated problems. … We are the true environmentalists for the 21st century. This is something to be very proud of.

    Bravo. This has the force of a catechism.

  4. I agree with JM – Inspiring stuff. Makes me want to “do something”.

    Actually I think that is another movement defining element that should be highlighted as missing from the pro-nuclear side: something (easy) to do. Some people write blogs; others put up posters, hand out pamphlets and wave placards. We’ve got the bloggers and they’re doing a spectacular job, but you haven’t got a movement until you’ve got the placard wavers.

    Once I understood that in nuclear power we had a pumping, 24/7, zero carbon electricity supply, I wanted to shout it from the roof tops. I sent off a few letters to this and that minister and wrote a couple of letters to the paper (and still do occasionally) but this is such a time consuming approach that it’s beyond the capacity of most busy people. Busy environmentalists can wear the conversation starting T-shirt or badge; they can print-out a poster and put it up on their wall, or even better, a public notice board; they can sign a petition, or put their name to a pre-written letter and email it to the required politician, and every now and again they can attend a weekend climate rally they heard about from their favourite pro-nuclear environmentalist web site. Just because someone doesn’t have the time to write or even comment on a blog it doesn’t mean there isn’t a whole raft of other actions individuals can take, and I would love to see Decarbonise SA make that a little easier for the every-day environmentalist. I’m willing to help.

  5. True environmentalists love nuclear power.
    Fighting AGW ? Nuclear is the only answer.
    Real Greens love fission.

    1. Unclepete, someone on BNC came up with a good one:

      “Split atoms, not wood.
      Leave the trees alone!”

      It pretty much conveys the same message expressed in your first line: environmentalists seek to preserve important forest ecosystems (amongst others) and one way to ensure we put less pressure on the environment is to choose nuclear power.

      Anyway, I made it into a badge, which, given it’s size, has received a surprising amount of attention (reactions run from confused or shocked to really very positive).

      1. Nice. Another expression of this sentiment is that fission is our only source of energy into the future that does not steal from the biosphere.

      2. “Split Atoms, Not Wood!” Should be our first bumper sticker. Anyone willing to figure out how to get some artwork done and go about getting them made?

        1. Yeah it’s kinda brilliant isn’t it? I’d love to see that happen. I think Marion Brook has already made this into a badge, is that right Marion? If I could have the design and people chime in a few funds, I would love to get a batch made and mail them out to whoever wants them.

  6. I am not sure I agree with the premise (pro-nuclear has failed). That might be true for Australia and Germany, but certainly not for the world.
    But even so the question what can be learned from the other side is useful. And I especially like your idea of having some simple goals.
    I for one will try this summer to speak to some people here in Japan about the idea of getting some balloons and airships up, with vital equipment unreachable for tsunami and earthquakes. And a lot of outside space for pro-nuclear messages as a side effect.
    The goal for the pro-nuclear message as a whole is simple. No coal.
    The nice thing about that is that even Greenpeace agrees to that in theory, even if their actions are coal’s best friend. All they need to learn is that getting rid of coal first is the right order of proceeding.

  7. Fear comes from ignorance. Start with telling them about natural background radiation. Tell them that it is radioactive carbon that we use to date egyptian mummies. Tell them that the mummies ate the radioactive carbon thousands of years ago. Most people think that nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs are the world’s only source of radiation. They also don’t know that it is benzene from oil and coal that causes cancer, not radiation in small amounts [under 10 rems]. Tell them that coal contains uranium.

    1. This post has caused such a response that I will be writing a follow up, but I would like to respond here straight away.

      I quite agree; most people have perfectly functioning minds with a strong sense of enquiry and learning, and will be moved by a straightforward presentation of facts. When in front of a group, my strike rate for moving people’s position is phenonmenal, including some very dyed-in-the-wool anti’s.

      This post is entering new territory. What I am trying to introduce here is the concept that I, Ben Heard of Decarbonise SA, simply cannot continue drumming up these audiences fast enough on my own, and trying to create change on my own. This is not a paid gig for me, in fact the opposite. To succeed in creating change, I NEED help from a movement comprising supporters with sufficient committment to put some of their time and effort where their morals and values are and assist me in delivering these high value activities. THAT, to my mind, explains in large part why anti-nuclear has been so successful in Australia, the members of the movement DO those sorts of things. If we want to win, we do it too and do it better.

  8. We have spent too much time in the lab, obeying people who eternally insist on more safety. Nuclear is by far the safest source of electricity. Get out of the lab! Quit being obedient! Well, maybe retire first. Demand that coal meet the same restrictions that nuclear does meet. Since coal contains uranium, coal can’t meet the same standards.
    Get some town to try to use renewables only. Americans always do the right thing, but only after having tried every possible wrong thing.

    1. There are a heap of posters etc available to print out on http://www.bravenewclimate.com on the advocacy pages which is where Marion’s brilliant pamphlet can also be found. Both Marion and Eclipse Now designed some. We actually used some of them blown up and laminated for the rally in Melbourne last year. I think there are some photos on BNC.

  9. On the point of communication, the French electricity supplier RTE has an excellent website which shows the moment by moment generation mix, consumption, and emissions data in real time for French electricity:


    They have made this available as an iPhone app. I highly recommend having it on your iPhone or iPad if you have one – telling people about the near zero emissions grid is one thing but showing them in detail the moment by moment operation of that grid is quite eye-opening:


  10. Hi all,
    kind of in the middle of a particularly gut-wrenching sideways career move… not much energy for anything else right now I’m afraid. Thanks for thinking of me, but maybe next time.

    (Besides, how many people actually downloaded, printed off and put up a poster?)

  11. Great work Ben. In Tassie, we are actually a lot closer to ‘decarbonisation’ given our preponderance of hydroelectric power. One small scale (400-600MWe) nuclear plant and our electricity supply, costs and water levels would be fixed. Also have a great site up the mountains with cold water, few nearby residents and a existing electrical infrastructure. Strathgordon Nuclear here we come.

    I’m one of the oddities that supports nuclear power because it is just a superb way of generating energy. Have thought so since well before climate change became the latest political fear generating meme. If others come to that position because they fear climate change, well that is a silver lining. So the statement you have come up with doens’t cover me; I still appreciate the behind it.

    Between nuclear and geothermal I think we can move our carbon consumption to the mobile uses where it excels, rather than fixed generation.

  12. I think we need a grassroots produced DVD that explains everything methodically, chapter by chapter, and can be downloaded by activists for free.

    Chris Martenson did a financial and peak oil analysis called the “Crash Course”. It is creative commons to get the message out to as many as possible. If you watch one of the episodes/chapters you’ll see that this format lends itself to various chapters on Youtube (which could generate a lot of discussion in various internet forums) and also be one of the many chapters on the DVD.


    And if you look closely, it’s not much more sophisticated than a glorified Powerpoint production. A good microphone and a good PC / Mac should do it — if someone was dedicated enough! Mac is really good, the iLife and iWorks suite is awesome. It could produce quite an attractive movie DVD.

  13. I remeber a post a while back on BraveNewClimate that Barry Brook mentioned he was given a picture book by Hayden Manning from Flinders Uni about the negatives of nuclear power (published in 1970s). There was a comment made back then with regards to “how much of the anti-nuclear argument has changed since then?”. Looking at Twitter with a #nuclear search, and general comments on blogs/articles, highlights that not much has changed.
    For example, for some reason the argument that 4th Generation fast breeders do not exist is misguided, simple wiki search disproves that, and so on with every other argument. Stuck in the 70s. It’s as if they advocate Solar with Storage as an option that will help now, but don’t realise that it is at the same level (there abouts) as commercialised FBRs.
    Unless the anti-nuclear (not weapons) movement pulls itself out of the 1970s, they will fail under counter-arguments relating to current available tech. It doesn’t take much effort. Which is the benefit of the current pro-nuclear movement. In my opinion starting fresh now, using current knowledge, the movement will succeed. It may have failed in the 1970s-80s but now it’s much better off as the nuclear industry has been proactive in learning from past mistakes.

    I believe this is appropriate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nvth-kGtQ8
    (Ironically when I watched that clip the ad that popped up was for a 4kW PV system!)

  14. It is a very important point that we are asking people to change their identities, or at least the beliefs and values they identify with.

    An additional suggestion for who we are: We are those who would like to believe the global economy can be run exclusively on renewables, but have examined the evidence in detail and found the proposed scenarios thoroughly unrealistic, and the overall financial and environmental costs unacceptably high.

  15. Any chance of t-shirts with the ‘Split Atoms Not Wood’ and ‘Nuclear Power is Cooler Than Climate Change’ on Cafe Press?

      1. Excellent, thank you Marion! I’ll be grabbing some shortly (gotta wait for next month’s cc billing period to kick in :))…..

  16. wrong! the incentive for going Nuclear is that Australia will be left behind,and vulnerable to the power of countries in our neighborhood to take Australia over and incorporate it into their regional empire. Alex

    1. Well, there is nothing in your comment that actually runs against my policy, so I have posted it. I happen to emphatically disagree.

      There is not much more to your comment than platitude, so I have not much to go on. But in case you are suggesting in any way that Australia develop a nuclear weapons program, that is not the position of Decarbonise SA, and never will be. This is why I am bothering to reply at all, lest silence be construed as agreement.

      Furthermore, even if our Government had such an intent, which I would protest, a nuclear power sector contributes little to this goal. The key capabilities are materials enrichment and the knowledge to then make weapons. We would not need enrichment facilities, we would purchase fuel. We could, if we so chose, enrich material from Lucas Heights. It would be slow, expensive and obvious, but easier, in fact, than from any modern power reactor design which would be even slower, more expensive, and more obvious. The presence of nuclear power stations really would not change our capability one little bit. What would need to change is our intent. I am proud of Australia’s long and firm position on non-proliferation. Long may it continue.

  17. hi Guys, no mention of electric cars as the future.But we will need the (almost) unlimited potential of power through the grid supplied by nuclear energy.
    Also, the very fast train is the replacement on the East Coast for clumsy,pollution- spewing dinosaurs called airplanes,and nuclear power will allow this to happen.
    I believe the slogan should be “The Future belongs to us”‘and i’m aware this was also a fascist slogan in the ‘thirties,but as the Salvation Army says “why should the devil have all the good tunes?” Regards, Alex

  18. I also think there needs to be a call to middle Australia regarding the wastefulness of Government greeen policies in terms of providing abundant and cheap energy. Plenty of tax dollars have been wasted chasing green dreams and now we ae reaping the whirlwind – a stalled generation industry, a distorted carbon market and ever rising energy costs. I feel once people are able to put the facts together and realise that we are paying for largely useless projects through our tax subsidisation and higher energy costs, then the hip pocket nerve kicks in. Votes tend to follow and therefore so do pollies.

    I actually feel that most of middle Australia has already come to some conclusions and we just need a politician brave enough to start the process. I am convinced this is now more than an environmental issue. Lets fight dirty on an economic front.

  19. 573 certified deaths were due to evacuation-related stress at Fukushima. Zero due to radiation. February 4, 2012

    “Japanese authorities recognize 573 deaths related to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe
    As reported by the Yomiuri Shimbun:
    “A total of 573 deaths have been certified as “disaster-related” by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant….
    A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster. ….””

    ZERO deaths were caused by radiation. 573 deaths were caused by the evacuation that was forced by officials. The people who died were evacuated from such things as intensive care. They might have survived if the evacuation had not taken place. Fukushima’s natural background radiation is still higher than the radiation from the reactor leak. Fukushima’s natural background radiation plus the radiation from the reactor leak is still less than the natural background radiation here in Illinois. Natural background radiation varies greatly from place to place. Our background radiation is around 350 milli rem/year.
    “milli” means “.001”
    350 milli rem/year means 0.350 rem/year
    People living in Ramsar, Iran have a background radiation of 10 to 20 rems/year and report no ill effects.

    1. forget Fukushima,absorb Chenobil, these events had to happen to show how Nuclear is the future.the question is only how long it will take to accept what the politicians will eventually “force” on us – that nuclear was always the answer! Keep Working

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: