Pollution in India and the World

I spoke on the negative effects of air pollution on health and GDP at Brookings India in Delhi. The talk was covered by Indian media. The Print had a good overview:

The long-held belief that pollution is the cost a country has to pay for development is no longer true as bad air quality has a measurable detrimental impact on human productivity that could in turn reduce GDP, Canadian-American economist Alex Tabarrok said.

…“There is this old story that pollution is bad, but it increases GDP… When the United States and Japan were developing, they were polluted. So India and China also have to go through that stage of pollution — so that they get rich, and then they can afford to reduce pollution,” Tabarrok said.

“I want to say that that story is wrong. What I want to argue is that a lot of the new research indicates that we may be in a situation where we could be both healthier and wealthier at the same time by reducing pollution,” he said.

…At the seminar, Tabarrok pointed out that expecting people to make sacrifices for the sake of future generations is not a politically fruitful way to deal with pollution.

Citing the issue of crop burning in India, he said farmers are not going to be inclined to change their behaviour if they are told to stop stubble burning for the sake of Delhi residents.

“However, if these farmers are made aware of how the crop burning harms them and their families and affects their soil quality, they are more likely to participate in mitigation measures,” he said.

I was pretty tough on government policy as Business Today India reported:

More than half of India’s population lives in highly polluted areas. Research by Greenstone et al (2015) proves that 660 million people live in areas that exceed the Indian Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate pollution. In this context, having measures such as banning e-cigarettes and having odd-even days for vehicles to solve the problem of air pollution seems ridiculous, says Alex Tabarrok, Professor of Economics at the George Mason University and Research Fellow with the Mercatus Centre. “These are not appropriate solutions to the scale and the dimensions of the problem,” he says.

Comments

It's gonna take a lot more people on earth to lessen humanity's impact on the environment. The whole of humanity's impact on the environment is less than two hundred years ago, and it'll be less in a century if we just have three billion more people.

@Greta - I don't get your point, unless--and this is key--you are saying that AlexT is wrong about Simon Kuznets famous' "Kuznets Curve" where he argued 'to save an environment you must first destroy it' (with more people, to get GDP higher, then you can clean it up). AlexT is arguing that pollution technology has advanced sufficiently enough that you can "do both", i.e., install expensive anti-pollution tech like scrubbers for the environment *and* develop the GDP (via more people, more machines, etc). Intuitively, I think AlexT is right. But he doesn't cite evidence so his argument is no different from my argument that better patent laws will increase GDP. Speculative.

Bonus trivia: Greta Thunberg is 17? R u kidding? She looks like a fetus, I thought she was 12 years old. She's old enough to have babies!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Stubble burning. Something I've seen when talking about Bangladesh. Other land clearance methods require machinery, thus capital. Something that's going to be in short supply with peasant, ie small, land holdings...

I am optimistic about electric tractors + solar providing low cost mechanized agriculture to poor farmers. India's backyard mechanics have been knocked together a number of examples. Not a magic bullet, but anything that lowers costs helps.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It is funny. When I was young, there was pollution and no one died. Now, all of a sudden, farmers can ot burn stubbles because it will end the world as we know it. Maybe hysteria id not a good foundation to policy.

Three thoughts from a former farm boy: How can burning one or two days a year produce immense pollution? It seems unlikely. Second, if they burn because they cannot plow stubble under, do something to change that. Third, mule pollution is a fertilizer.

Great points.

Respond

Add Comment

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/05/india-top-court-orders-halt-to-stubble-burning-to-cut-delhi-pollution

Respond

Add Comment

The burning produces massive pollution from the smoke.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

In Brazil no one lives long enough to die from pollution.

Actually, according to experts, Brazil's healthcare system is the ninth best in the world in leading with epidemics. It might as well be the first in delivering bang for bucks. Brazilian life expectancy easily clears the 70 years threshold, more than enough to die from pollution if Brazilians were thus inclined.

I would think John Salters to be Thiago, except if it were, Brazils healthcare system is the best in the world.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"When I was young, there was pollution and no one died."

I am Duncan Macleod of the clan Macleod.

Back then, cigarettes just made us stronger. Of course, in those days cigarettes weighed 7 pounds each, were 3 feet long, and stuffed full of gunpower residue and asbestos. If a 12 year old girl couldn't get through 2 dozen in a day she wasn't considered worth marrying.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I would say the causation is that poor people don't care about pollution because they have much more serious concerns, like getting enough to eat or just surviving. Rich people do care about pollution of course. So if you want to reduce pollution, make people rich. Most of India is still at the stage of development that the UK was in the early phase of the Industrial Revolution. The solution to this slow development is not really known; the technology is all freely available, there is plenty of low interest capital available in the world for good development, and the education system of India is probably better than the UK at the same comparable level of development. So all the elements are available for rapid growth, but still it doesn't happen. I would suggest people focus on this puzzle rather than worry about marginal improvements in emissions from power stations.

Final thought - there is currently a glut of LNG in the world. An ideal opportunity for India to purchase some long term clean fuels which would significantly improve emissions (local and global) But I doubt that they will take up this opportunity.

So paying poor farmers not to burn stubble and damage the air of richer urban dwellers would be a win for both.

Absolutely - as long as those urban dwellers are in fact rich.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

“However, if these farmers are made aware of how the crop burning harms them and their families and affects their soil quality, they are more likely to participate in mitigation measures."

Didn't they do the same thing for Swachh Bharat and it was a massive failure?

Swachha Bharat may not have achieved the grandiose targets of the government but I think it has had some positive effects. I was in Haradwar (a couple of hours NW of Delhi.) a few months ago. It’s primarily a place of pilgrimage, not very Westernized and I detected a greater awareness amongst common people about environmental issues. Sea changes in public attitudes don’t happen overnight but I think in these matters they will happen.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

" What I want to argue is that a lot of the new research indicates that we may be in a situation where we could be both healthier and wealthier at the same time by reducing pollution,” he said "

....rather weak phrasing of the argument.

waffle-words like "indicates" , "may", "could" are not at all persuasive.

There is a small and hated segment of society that is interested in what Ideas work best and are open to both criticism and input from others so they can reject or refine their hypothesis. They invented the automated machines that make the bullets you can use when you line them up against a wall.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Why are we trying to intervene in India?! Despite all Trump's bragging, I doubt we have solved all problems here at home.

There will always be problems, but that doesn't mean the US shouldn't intervene in India. The US, by nature, is a global leader. Moreover, climate change is a global issue; it won't affect only India, but also the US.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Arguably burning excess vegetation (like they do in Greece with olive branches about this time of year) is 'carbon neutral' since it encourages the vegetation to grow again next year, recapturing the carbon. But AlexT has a point: I notice a lot of World Bank projects in the Third World are for incinerators and trash landfills, since people burn plastic in small shallow pits, and the smoke, full of carcinogens, goes into your lungs. I myself tried to get my farmer in-laws in the Philippines to bury trash rather than burn it, that failed (they refused to drive to the landfill which was 30 minutes away, too expensive) so I will, using plans I saw on the internet, build them an incinerator with a forced air system (a leaf blower). It's gonna be cool (or hot)!

Respond

Add Comment

First, increase capitalism. Pollution was notoriously worse in the socialist (~ Warsaw Pact) countries than in the capitalist (~ NATO) countries.

Perhaps there is a market niche for a company that Delhi can hire to plow stubble under, if that's the real problem, and the real solution.

Second, 80/20 applies - again. As noted, "having measures such as banning e-cigarettes and having odd-even days for vehicles to solve the problem of air pollution seems ridiculous". It's a bit like banning plastic straws in San Francisco to save the oceans when China creates 30X as much plastic ocean pollution as the US. Its mostly feel-good theatre, but its highly visible, and doesn't much inconvenience the theatre producers.

https://www.statista.com/chart/12211/the-countries-polluting-the-oceans-the-most/

"Pollution was notoriously worse in the socialist (~ Warsaw Pact) countries than in the capitalist (~ NATO) countries. "

Not quite. That's correlation, not causation.

Try this: pollution was worse in the authoritarian versus the democratic countries.

PS. The Warsaw pact countries were no more socialist than Nazi Germany was.

They were a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but yeah, the National Socialists were just as socialist as the International ones who took over Russia, they just disagreed on who would be in charge of socializing everyone/everything.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

>>What I want to argue is that a lot of the new research indicates that we may be in a situation where we could be both healthier and wealthier at the same time by reducing pollution<<

Dirty energy is always cheaper. Always. You have entire governments that are 90% funded by their sales of fossil fuels. If people stop buying their fossil fuels, these governments collapse. They don't just stumble a little. They collapse completely.

These governments will always price fossil energy far below that of clean energy. Their cost to pull a barrel of oil out of the ground is well under $10/bbl. Selling it for cheap is no problem. They just need a buyer. And the poor people all over the world would happily spend $5 to go 40 miles via fossil versus $10 to go 40 miles via electric. Yes, when you factor in the full picture (battery cost, clean electricity costs, average miles driven in a year) electric costs a fair bit more than fossil to drive a mile.

The one exception to this was nuclear. If nuclear had followed the cost curves of TVs, computers, airplane flights, long-distance calls, etc, then nuclear would be 90% less than coal today.

Not that many places can produce at high rates for $10 / barrel. If they could, why did they leave so much money on the table in 2010 - 2014?

> Not that many places can produce at high rates for $10 / barrel. If they could, why did they leave so much money on the table in 2010 <

For the same reason Apple doesn't cut the price of an iphone in half during an economic downturn and double it during the good times.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Glad to see you're for nuclear Matt, as am I, if priced correctly (nuclear waste is safe when in somebody else's backyard, like in a deep vault in the desert mountains). One nit: governments don't price fossil fuels, but the market does. And neither Saudi nor Venezuela has collapsed yet due to low energy. Exports usually don't matter much (at best 25% of GDP usually) Not sure why Bolivia's strongman left last year, that was a bit of a shock, perhaps cocaine consumption in the USA fell? Or just chance.

Nuclear is probably best stored on-site. But someone will crack the nut that allows reactors to use waste. Bill Gates is investing heavily in that, as are others. If we'd gone gangbusters on nuclear innovation for the last 50 years, it'd probably a solved problem: The US would have reactors that could be sold to the world where the kwh cost was far below that of coal and there was no waste. But instead, we were told solar was "here now" in 1980 and nuclear was pushed off. The upshot is that 50GT of CO2 were pumped into the atmosphere because solar wasn't really ready for prime time in the 80's.

Yes, the market prices fuel, but the govs that are dependent on oil revenue could easily sell above production costs but below market cost to fatten their revenue for the year. Saudi Arabia produces oil below $10/bbl, and has the second largest reserves in the world.

"But instead, we were told solar was "here now" in 1980 and nuclear was pushed off."

I don't remember reading that solar was "here now" in 1980, 1990 or 2000.

The viability of nuclear power must have been considered extremely tenuous all the way back in 1980 if just saying solar was "here now" was enough to stop development. Especially as solar PV was only just starting to be used economically in a few off-grid applications. This was still 5 years before the founding of America's (now France's) ancient seeming SunPower company.

Respond

Add Comment

> I don't remember reading that solar was "here now" in 1980, 1990 or 2000.

Go read Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute) writings in the 1970's. And then go check out the press releases for all the photovoltaic installs through the 80's. Remember, too, the White House installed solar hot water heaters on the roof in the 70's. And solar hot water heating was installed in tract homes I witnessed in Colorado as a kid.

And finally, ask yourself, if people were NOT saying solar was viable in the early 80's, then what was the proposed replacement for the nuclear that was being canceled? Coal? Nobody would have stood for that. It was implicit that we'd move to solar.

Hollywood was busy doing everything they could to scare the hell out of the masses over nuclear, and their belief too was that it could accelerate the move to solar.

Make no mistake: The same crowd has been screaming since the late 70's the rewewable was economically viable. And their idiocy is what kept us on fossil. 50 GT of CO2 later we hear the same message.

And that same idiocy is the reason there's nothing for emerging economies to fall back on...except coal. Nice job, Hollywood ;)

In reality the generating capacity built was what was expected to be the cheapest/most profitable. Amory Lovins, the Whitehouse roof, or Hollywood were not consulted. While there were some pollution controls required by regulation and sulphur dioxide trading starting in 1995, for the most part for the most part the health and environmental externalities of generation were not taken into account. If they had been starting in 1980 then the US generating sector would be at zero net emissions by now.

> If they had been starting in 1980 then the US generating sector would be at zero net emissions by now.

Very, very unlikely. Even at 50% natgas today, CA utilities are telling regulators that they cannot meet demand during peaks hours in the most challenging months. CAISO shared specific data with regulators showing between 4 and 5 PM in an average September they would need to 14X more solar OR 30X more wind to eliminate outage. The cost for this 420 GW of generation is around $420B.

CA cannot even afford $2B to clear trees from 100 year old power lines. You are suggesting that somehow they could have eliminated the 50% natgas they are using today? Now, how do you expect Green Bay or Chicago can be CO2 neutral (using zero gas) when they have their next 2 week period of subzero temps? They cannot.

In fact, the wind farms all consumed electricity during the last bomb cyclone as they drew power from the grid to ensure their gearbox grease didn't thicken in the cold temps. Had the grease thickened in the cold weather and the blades turned, the generator would have destroyed itself.

Not even CA, blessed with buckets of money and ideal weather, could be anywhere near carbon neutral today.

If you knew in 1980 that in 50 years we'd still be heavily reliant on fossil because renewables were just too expensive, would you have considered nuclear? In 2040 Germany sees just 25% of their consumption coming from renewables. The US is at 12% at that time. China is far worse still.

Have you changed your mind and decided nuclear would not be viable even if the health and environmental externalities were taking into account? Go back and read what I wrote again.

Of course, you are free to change your mind.

> even if the health and environmental externalities were taking into account

All sources have a massive number of externalities that must be considered. PV backed by battery means a mining operation 24x7 for eternity that dwarfs that of coal, in regions of the world that are unstable and ruled by bad leaders that do bad things to their people and use brutal and nasty refining techniques to purify their excavations. What is the point in looking at 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th order effects when you can find a terrible case for everything?

I have faith an confidence in the engineers that would have been working on nuclear for the last 50 years. And all things considered, I wish that today we had a nuclear solution that was 100% sourced in the US and made available to emerging economies at a price far below that of coal.

Considering what the US did with drugs, cell phones, air travel, computers...it's completely possible the same could have been done with nuclear...Were it not for the jackasses in the late 70's that swore up and down that renewables were imminent. Because of them, we have hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Not a single wealthy country in this world believes they will hit even 50% renewables by the 100 year anniversary of the US turning-on the the worlds first nuclear reactor in 1948.

That 100 years of CO2 emissions is on the shoulders of the naysayers. Sorry to say. Look at what Korea has done with $/KW for their reactors. Now imagine there were 100X more R&D being pumped into the problem.

Do you get I was lumping nuclear in under "zero emission"?

Doesn't matter. All I know is Australia is exporting an awful lot of coal to Japan, South Korea, and China -- all countries with home grown nuclear capacity, while France plans to reduce its nuclear capacity while expanding wind and solar. And here in Australia there is a 5 year old solar system above my head that has paid itself off supplying power to this laptop, the air conditioner, and fridge. Super cheap nuclear power had better be invented and in action soon if it wants to be a significant part of generation by 2040.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

We don't need nuclear power. Oil, coal, solar energy and hydropower work just fine.

A vote against nuclear is a vote for the status quo. The world's fossil use grew by about 2.2% in 2018 (see BPs review of Energy). Rewewables grew at 0.4%. See the problem?

Germany, a country with $ and will, sees just 25% of their energy coming from renewables in 2040. The US is 12% at that time.

By 2040, China will use more coal than the US and EU combined in 2000.

China will use very little coal in 2040 and this will be obvious by 2030.

It’s unlikely the corona virus is THAT bad.

heh.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

> China will use very little coal in 2040 and this will be obvious by 2030.

See the BP Energy Outlook they put together every year. Their forecasting is all sourced. They have a very concise graph showing US, EU, China and India's coal consumption in 2040. China in 2040 looks to be consuming 3-4X coal that the US consumed in 2000.

I'll mention that BP has spun off their coal mine assets in Australia. At least some deals were made so BP will get a cut if coal prices soar, but they are not exposed to the downside. This suggests they are not very confident about the future of coal.

> This suggests they are not very confident about the future of coal.

Just know China consumed about 1900 MTOE of coal in 2018. And in 2019, they will do another 20% on top of that with another 150 GW of coal fired plants under construction. The US currently has about 150 GW of coal generation capacity and China is building that much in just one year.

If I was BP I'd not want to be in the business of coal at all. Even on the off chance I could sell it to the Chinese. The Chinese are moving on coal and don't give a crap about BPs posturing. India will follow suit too.

You really don't seem to grasp just how minuscule the US/EU role is in all this.

No, the preliminary figures are 2019 Chinese coal consumption are only 0.9% higher than in 2018. Still below their 2013 peak.

Note estimates of Chinese coal construction expected to go ahead has fallen by over one-third from the estimate that was made 15 months ago. New Chinese coal construction is bad, but it is a lot less bad than it was. We keep close track of these things here because Australia is China's largest overseas supplier of coal and have no domestic replacement for many of their coastal thermal plants.

WSJ from December 2019 disagrees with you (see title "in tougher times china falls back on coal") and looks to be on track in 2020 to overtake it's all time peak from 2013.

World wide, fossil growth is 2.2% YOY while renewable growth is 0.4%. See the problem? If you want to phase out fossil, the renewable growth needs to be at a MULTIPLE of fossil growth. In fact, fossil is burying renewable as I type this, with no end site.

When renewable hits >6% YoY growth and fossil drops to <2%, then you will know we're on the right track. But until then, this is really, really bad. Again, 100 years after the first nuclear plant was turned on, we'll still see leading economies with both $ and will such as Germany well over 50% fossil.

Sounds like you're in favor of a carbon price. As I think I can sequester CO2 long term for $70 Australian per tonne, a price of about $50 US per tonne of CO2 should be sufficient.

> Sounds like you're in favor of a carbon price.

Yes, if it offset tax revenue I would be. But I think the window on nuclear has largely closed. I think my goal is to get people to understand how a vocal group of idiots that meant well in the late 70's forced us to remain on majority fossil for another hundred years.

PS. France tried a US$40/ton tax (about $0.3/gallon at the pump) a few years bck and the people took to the streets and it was cancelled. Plus, $40/ton doesn't really change behavior. If a tech-worker's US family was considering taking the family on a trip to Paris, the $40/ton tax only raises the cost of the trip a few hundred dollars. That isn't a deal breaker. You need a carbon tax that actually changes behavior. And that would start happening at $400 to $500/T.

If I can sequester carbon at perhaps $50 a tonne that puts an upper limit on a carbon price. That would add 5 US cents per kilowatt-hour to Australian coal generation and lead to a rapid elimination of coal generation.

Vechicles -- in the short term -- require regulations to cut emissions. Hence vehicle efficiency measures (which don't exist here in a country that imports 90% of its transport fuel) and upcoming bans on the sale of internal combustion engine cars by France and a number of other countries.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

By the way, I doubt the WSJ disagrees with me. Somewhere there probably knows the greatest year on year increase in Chinese coal use was 8.8% in 2010. It's not a figure that is likely to be more than doubled this year. You'd have to be a loony to believe that, given the very weak prices for sea borne coal futures over the next 12 months.

> Somewhere there probably knows the greatest year on year increase in Chinese coal use was 8.8% in 2010.

I don't think the YoY increases is the most salient. I think the fact that China is going backwards at has erased nearly a decade of progress is the salient point. Remember, in 2040 China will be using 10-20X the amount of of coal the US is using at that time. China is the #1 problem here, followed by India.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The articles say what isn’t working - but what SHOULD the Indian government DO to actually improve the problem?

They should run tenders for new clean power from international suppliers. By clean, I mean either from renewables or combined cycle gas fired power stations fuelled by LNG. If you are really worried about CO2 emissions, they can add a penalty of $20/tonne to the CCGT power. Each year they should action off several GW of new power supply for their major cities. If they did this over 20 years, most of their power would then be coming from low emission sources. There is plenty of LNG in the world to do this, even if you do not believe in renewables. The UK's contract for difference auctions provide a good example.

In addition they should convert their city transportation networks to electricity, again using international suppliers who will own and operate the networks. They should ban all high emission vehicles in urban areas, including a complete ban on two stroke engines (this was done in Jakarta for instance).

Finally they should adapt a very liberal policy to the economy, as I mention about, rich people care about the environment a lot more than poor people.

Fortunately, India now has the world's lowest cost utility scale solar, thanks to high insolation and low cost labour and land and cheap engineering talent. Their high by developed country standards interest rates don't appear to be enough to counter this.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Socialism is bad and nor just for the environment. Same old story. Governments are never held accountable. Just look at old Soviet Union and China.

That is true, but biodiversity has been under attack just as much from prosperous countries - Norway and Japan, both fairly small countries, have eradicated in their selfishness almost 10 million years of whale heritage, and even here in America our great-grandparent stooges killed not almost all but all - every single passenger pigeon, they killed them all, with no regard for their descendants.

Don't mock Greta, she knows people are SELFISH and STUPID and violent and do not know what is good for them. Sure she is not too bright, but don't mock her, she gets the basics right.

No, Greta does not get the basics right or remotely close to right.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The World Bank has a graph of PM2.5 levels of pollution where you can select one country or a few. This one shows pollution levels for India, China and Japan.

China's PM2.5 level slowly rose from 60 to 70 from 1990 to 2011 then steadily fell to around 50. India's PM2.5 level rose from 80 to almost 100 over those years, fell to 90 in 2012 and has been at that level ever since.

Japan's PM2.5 level was flat at around 14 between 1990 and 2011 then slowly decreased to 12 in 2017. The U.S. has had the same pattern but started lower at 10 and is now at 7.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.PM25.MC.M3?locations=IN-CN-JP

Useful data. I read a couple of years ago that much of China’s particulate pollution come from relatively small ( factory level), old, and in some cases “off the books” coal fired power plants. I suspect India has similar issues. But in every case, someone made the decision this is the best available option.

Lack of state capacity, systemic corruption, absence of an available and reliable power grid?

The Japanese and US numbers vividly show the scope of the problem. Probably not a quick fix.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"The long-held belief that pollution is the cost a country has to pay for development is no longer true as bad air quality has a measurable detrimental impact on human productivity that could in turn reduce GDP, Canadian-American economist Alex Tabarrok said."
This is the line that has been pedaled by those who oppose taxes or regulations to reduce externalities, but he should be frank in saying it is NOT the consensus view of economists.

Respond

Add Comment

"The long-held belief that pollution is the cost a country has to pay for development is no longer true as bad air quality has a measurable detrimental impact on human productivity that could in turn reduce GDP, Canadian-American economist Alex Tabarrok said."

Not only could. New paper from OECD:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/the-economic-cost-of-air-pollution-evidence-from-europe_56119490-en

Respond

Add Comment

It may help if you link to the actual talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5IPGJxbyg (Alex talks around 8:22 in).

Brookings link: https://www.brookings.edu/events/development-seminar-the-effects-of-air-pollution-on-health-and-productivity/

Don't have a real opinion yet since I'm still watching the talk.

Respond

Add Comment

The bottom line is, if you need any kind of help with your dissertation, dissertation services are there to end your anxiety.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment