Obama, Clinton To Announce Energy Saving Program

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Enlisting former President Bill Clinton as a partner, President Barack Obama is announcing a $4 billion effort to increase the energy efficiency of government and private sector buildings, aiming for fuel savings and job creation at no cost to taxpayers.

The proposal, to be announced by Obama and Clinton on Friday, would upgrade buildings over the next two years with a goal of improving energy performance by 20 percent by 2020. The federal government would commit $2 billion to the effort and a coalition of corporations, labor unions, universities and local governments would undertake the other half.

The contractors who undertake the work would be paid with realized energy savings, thus requiring no up-front federal expenditure.

"Upgrading the energy efficiency of America's buildings is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest ways to save money, cut down on harmful pollution and create good jobs right now," Obama said in a statement.

The president will make the announcement after touring a downtown Washington office building whose owners have agreed to make more energy efficient under Obama's plan.

The program, known as Energy Savings Performance Contracts, has been in place since the Clinton administration but has been little used. Obama's announcement is yet another in a string of White House initiatives designed to address the current weak economy without having to seek congressional approval.

Gene Sperling, director of the White House National Economic Council, said private economic analyses indicate that the $4 billion plan could generate about 50,000 jobs over two years.

The program builds on an initiative that Obama launched in February and that Clinton led through his Clinton Foundation to get the private sector to invest in greater energy efficiency. Clinton already had announced commitments of $500 million in energy efficiency projects in June.

The Obama administration helped finance private sector energy upgrades through its 2009 stimulus program. But that money has begun to run out, and advocates of the new initiative say they hope the effort fills the void.

Joining Obama and Clinton will be Thomas Donohue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a long-time proponent of the Energy Saving Performance Contracts.

"We have been pushing the ESPC program for more than a decade because this holds tremendous potential," Donohue said in a statement. "Despite the benefits of ESPCs, the program has been grossly underutilized."

Energy

Subscribe to Energy podcast via:

Or use this URL:

close

A race to extract 2 billion barrels of oil means low unemployment, but residents question the cost.

The proposal's goal is to improve energy performance by 20 percent by 2020.

But the legislation under consideration by Congress could lead to a dangerous spike in oil prices.

Health Management

Education Information

Read More

Report: Food labels need Energy Star-like ratings

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just as that Energy Star tag helps you choose your appliances, a new report says a rating symbol on the front of every soup can, cereal box and yogurt container could help hurried shoppers go home with the healthiest foods.

Thursday's report urges the Food and Drug Administration to adopt new food labeling to clear the confusing clutter off today's packages and give consumers a fast way to compare choices.

It wouldn't replace the in-depth Nutrition Facts panel that's now on the back or side of food packages. But few shoppers stop to read or heed that fine print in the middle of the grocery aisle.

The Institute of Medicine says it's time to put right upfront the most important information for health: how many calories per serving — and just how big that serving is — along with stars or some other symbol to show at a glance how the food rates for certain fats, sodium and added sugars.

"American shoppers are busy shoppers," said Ellen Wartella, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. Wartella chaired the IOM committee that studied the issue at the request of federal health officials.

"We want a really simple system that says if you have three marks, that product is healthier than one with two marks."

How to get Americans to eat more wisely is a huge problem as obesity and diet-related diseases are skyrocketing. The FDA already was working to change the food-labeling system to make it more user-friendly, and has promised to crack down on inaccurate labeling that has confused consumers.

But ranking a food's healthfulness, rather than just providing consumers information to try to judge that for themselves, would mark a major shift in government food policy. The agency didn't say if it was interested in that kind of ratings approach, or how soon it would make labeling changes but called Thursday's report a thoughtful analysis that would help it decide next steps.

"FDA agrees consumers can benefit from a front-of-pack labeling system that conveys nutrition information in a manner that is simple and consistent with the Nutrition Facts panel," said spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey.

The Institute of Medicine recommendation would face an uphill battle with food manufacturers who are pushing their own version of on-the-front food labels but don't like the idea of ranking one food as healthier than a competitor's.

"We believe the most effective programs are those that trust consumers and not ones that tell consumers what they should and should not eat," said Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Changing dietary behavior is very difficult, and how much of a role nutritional disclosure plays isn't clear. Some studies show that food-label readers do eat much more healthfully, the IOM found.

Moreover, sales did change a bit when the Hannaford grocery chain introduced its own storewide food-rating system in 2006, said Lori Kaley, a registered dietitian at the University of Southern Maine and a scientific adviser to the Guiding Stars Licensing Company that markets the ratings system to additional stores today. Sales of high-fat whole milk dropped as some shoppers switched to three-star skim milk or two-star 1 percent milk, for example, and some manufacturers reformulated their store brands to be rated more favorably, she said.

But other studies have found little effect from food labeling, questioning how many people read the labels. Certainly waistlines still are growing despite a proliferation of nutrition information on food packages and, more recently, calorie counts on restaurant menus.

The IOM panel said part of the problem may be consumer confusion. Highlighting "good source of fiber" or "low-fat" or "high in calcium" on the front of a package doesn't override bad news lurking in the FDA-mandated nutrition label on the back. A food with reduced fat might have made up for the change in taste with a lot of extra sugar. Or a breakfast bar with lots of fiber might also contain too much heart-harming trans fat.

"If they have a health claim, consumers view that product overall as a healthy product," said Tracy Fox, a Washington, D.C., nutrition consultant and member of the IOM committee. "At least half of them that have a nutrient content claim are higher in one of those (other ingredients) we think consumers should reduce."

Under the IOM's proposed system, foods would earn up to three points for meeting certain nutritional standards — one each for keeping sodium, added sugars or a bad-fat duo, saturated fat and trans fat, below designated levels.

On the cereal aisle, plain oatmeal might get three points while the flavored kind would get just two because of added sugar, for example.

"If I always buy Triscuits, I'm going to buy them again. But if there is a decision that needs to be made, we hope this will help consumers make better decisions," said the IOM committee's Fox.

Some foods are so unhealthy as to be unrated altogether — a sugary soft drink wouldn't get a point for its lack of fat. Whatever the rating, the IOM proposal says all foods also would need a clear front-of-package calorie count: 150 calories for 16 potato chips, for example.

For now, the Grocery Manufacturers Association says the industry has begun rolling out voluntary labels called "Facts Up Front," which will list calories and the amount of saturated fat, sodium and sugars per serving — levels, not ratings.

___

Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

Associated Press

Technology

News

Read More

U.S. Panel Urges 'Energy Star' Nutrition Ratings for Food Labels

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Taking a cue from the Energy Star ratings on the front of household appliances, a panel of experts is recommending that a similarly easy-to-read system appear on every packaged food item in American grocery stores so busy consumers can glean nutritional info at a glance.

The recommendation comes from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which was commissioned by Congress to study the issue over the past two years. The panel found that the dizzying variety of front-of-pack labels currently out there — grocery stores, food manufacturers and even health organizations like the American Heart Association put their own stamps on various foods — was leading to more consumer confusion than healthy choices.

Part of the problem is that food manufacturers like to tout their products' pluses (high in vitamin A) on the front of the box, without acknowledging their minuses (high in fat).

The IOM reviewed front-of-package labeling systems in the U.S. and abroad (here's a good rundown of labels) and found that, in terms of clarity for the consumer, no system was better than the next. So the panel proposed a standard label for all products that would show how many calories per serving the food item contains, along with a three-point system (checkmarks or stars) that would indicate whether the product contains acceptable levels of sodium, added sugars and trans fats or saturated fats.

Items would get a point each for having low enough levels of each of the three nutrients "of concern" — which the panel chose for being most closely associated with health problems like obesity, diabetes and heart disease — for a maximum of three points. If a product has a superhigh amount of any of the nutrients, rendering it unhealthy overall, it would receive no points. So sugary soda, for example, would get zero points for having high added sugar, even though it is low in fats and sodium.

Whole wheat bread would get three points, while graham crackers would get two (low levels of fats and sodium, but high in added sugar), and soup crackers would get zero. The hope is that the point system will not only help consumers cut through the culinary clutter and make fast, smart decisions, but also inspire grocers to encourage the sales of high-point foods and encourage manufacturers to reformulate their foods in pursuit of points.

During a meeting with media on Thursday, Ellen Wartella, the chair of the IOM panel and a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, explained that the system was meant to be interpretive more than informational. So, even shoppers with no nutritional knowledge and those who are too rushed to analyze the Nutrition Facts panel on the side of the box can still identify healthy products in a split-second effort. It's the difference between "This has 100 grams of saturated fat" and "Eating this is not going to do you any favors."

The panel explained that a front-of-pack label that focuses on best-to-avoid nutrients, rather than those that should be encouraged like, say, fiber and potassium, is a reflection of public need. Americans are eating too much fat, sugar and sodium, and at a time when two-thirds of the population is overweight or obese and many are battling diet-related health problems like heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, the government's most important role should be in guiding people away from unhealthy foods, the panel advised. (Certainly a far cry from the World War II days, when the government recommended that the underfed population consider butter its own food group.)

The IOM's point system leads to some awkward ratings, however. A Diet Coke, for example, would get three points for having low levels of fats, added sugars and sodium. Meanwhile, 1% milk would get only two points, due to its fat content. But with that fat, of course, come good nutrients that an empty diet soda doesn't provide.

The process is still in its early stages. It's unclear whether federal regulators will adopt the new labels or whether they will be mandatory — though the project would make more sense if they were. Part of the justification for recommending a single, uniform system is that all products will be easily comparable. And allowing it to be voluntary would potentially remove many points of comparison.

For its part, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, an industry group that represents food makers, said it would go ahead with its own voluntary system of package-front labeling called Facts Up Front. That system lists calories, fat, sodium and sugar, as well as beneficial nutrients like fiber. It gives information, but doesn't rate products. "We believe the most effective programs are those that trust consumers and not ones that tell consumers what they should and should not eat," Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, told the AP.

The next step is for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to decide whether or how to implement the panel's recommendation. The FDA is keen to overhaul front-of-package labeling, but the agency is continuing to study the matter.

Good promotion, the IOM panel noted, would also be key to any program's success. And the proposed three-point system would be an easy sell to consumers. All they need to understand is that "three is better than two, and two is better than one," said Matt Kreuter, a professor of social work and medicine at Washington University and a member of the panel. "And the more points it has, the healthier it is."

Katy Steinmetz is a reporter at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @KatySteinmetz. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

News

Debt Financing

Read More

Report: Food labels need Energy Star-like ratings

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just as that Energy Star tag helps you choose your appliances, a new report says a rating symbol on the front of every soup can, cereal box and yogurt container could help hurried shoppers go home with the healthiest foods.

Thursday's report urges the Food and Drug Administration to adopt new food labeling to clear the confusing clutter off today's packages and give consumers a fast way to compare choices.

It wouldn't replace the in-depth Nutrition Facts panel that's now on the back or side of food packages. But few shoppers stop to read or heed that fine print in the middle of the grocery aisle.

The Institute of Medicine says it's time to put right upfront the most important information for health: how many calories per serving — and just how big that serving is — along with stars or some other symbol to show at a glance how the food rates for certain fats, sodium and added sugars.

"American shoppers are busy shoppers," said Ellen Wartella, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. Wartella chaired the IOM committee that studied the issue at the request of federal health officials.

"We want a really simple system that says if you have three marks, that product is healthier than one with two marks."

How to get Americans to eat more wisely is a huge problem as obesity and diet-related diseases are skyrocketing. The FDA already was working to change the food-labeling system to make it more user-friendly, and has promised to crack down on inaccurate labeling that has confused consumers.

But ranking a food's healthfulness, rather than just providing consumers information to try to judge that for themselves, would mark a major shift in government food policy. The agency didn't say if it was interested in that kind of ratings approach, or how soon it would make labeling changes but called Thursday's report a thoughtful analysis that would help it decide next steps.

"FDA agrees consumers can benefit from a front-of-pack labeling system that conveys nutrition information in a manner that is simple and consistent with the Nutrition Facts panel," said spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey.

The Institute of Medicine recommendation would face an uphill battle with food manufacturers who are pushing their own version of on-the-front food labels but don't like the idea of ranking one food as healthier than a competitor's.

"We believe the most effective programs are those that trust consumers and not ones that tell consumers what they should and should not eat," said Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Changing dietary behavior is very difficult, and how much of a role nutritional disclosure plays isn't clear. Some studies show that food-label readers do eat much more healthfully, the IOM found.

Moreover, sales did change a bit when the Hannaford grocery chain introduced its own storewide food-rating system in 2006, said Lori Kaley, a registered dietitian at the University of Southern Maine and a scientific adviser to the Guiding Stars Licensing Company that markets the ratings system to additional stores today. Sales of high-fat whole milk dropped as some shoppers switched to three-star skim milk or two-star 1 percent milk, for example, and some manufacturers reformulated their store brands to be rated more favorably, she said.

But other studies have found little effect from food labeling, questioning how many people read the labels. Certainly waistlines still are growing despite a proliferation of nutrition information on food packages and, more recently, calorie counts on restaurant menus.

The IOM panel said part of the problem may be consumer confusion. Highlighting "good source of fiber" or "low-fat" or "high in calcium" on the front of a package doesn't override bad news lurking in the FDA-mandated nutrition label on the back. A food with reduced fat might have made up for the change in taste with a lot of extra sugar. Or a breakfast bar with lots of fiber might also contain too much heart-harming trans fat.

"If they have a health claim, consumers view that product overall as a healthy product," said Tracy Fox, a Washington, D.C., nutrition consultant and member of the IOM committee. "At least half of them that have a nutrient content claim are higher in one of those (other ingredients) we think consumers should reduce."

Under the IOM's proposed system, foods would earn up to three points for meeting certain nutritional standards — one each for keeping sodium, added sugars or a bad-fat duo, saturated fat and trans fat, below designated levels.

On the cereal aisle, plain oatmeal might get three points while the flavored kind would get just two because of added sugar, for example.

"If I always buy Triscuits, I'm going to buy them again. But if there is a decision that needs to be made, we hope this will help consumers make better decisions," said the IOM committee's Fox.

Some foods are so unhealthy as to be unrated altogether — a sugary soft drink wouldn't get a point for its lack of fat. Whatever the rating, the IOM proposal says all foods also would need a clear front-of-package calorie count: 150 calories for 16 potato chips, for example.

For now, the Grocery Manufacturers Association says the industry has begun rolling out voluntary labels called "Facts Up Front," which will list calories and the amount of saturated fat, sodium and sugars per serving — levels, not ratings.

___

Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

Associated Press

Technology

News

Read More

Univ. of NH backtracks on energy drink sales ban

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — The University of New Hampshire has backtracked on its just-announced plan to stop selling energy drinks on campus, saying it needs more time to study the idea and gather input from students.

Citing health and safety concerns, the university said Monday morning it would remove Full Throttle, Red Bull, Moxie Energy and NOS from vending machines and its seven dining halls, cafes and convenience stores starting in January. But in a statement Monday night, university President Mark Huddleston said conflicting reports about the caffeine and sugar content of some of the drinks, as well as negative student reaction, prompted him to call for a delay.

"I want to be sure we respect our students' ability to make informed choices about what they consume," he said.

If the university eventually stops selling the energy drinks, it would be going a step further than other campuses that have banned alcoholic versions. University officials said Monday they were unaware of other colleges having taken the same step, though at least one other school — Mount St. Mary's College in Los Angeles — has a policy of not selling energy drinks in its dining halls. It does sell them from vending machines.

Rick MacDonald, assistant director of UNH dining, said earlier Monday that the decision was in keeping with Huddleston's goal to make UNH the healthiest campus in the country by 2020.

"This is one of many steps we have taken and will take in accomplishing that goal," he said.

Energy drinks typically contain more caffeine than soft drinks, along with large amounts of sugar and additional ingredients that claim to boost mental and physical energy. While such products are legal and safe when consumed as intended, they can be unsafe when overused or mixed with alcohol, said David May, assistant vice president for business affairs.

"Just recently there was an incident on campus involving energy drinks that helped send a student to the hospital," he said.

In a statement, Red Bull emphasized that its product meets federal safety requirements. An 8.4 oz. can of Red Bull contains 80 mg of caffeine, comparable to the estimated 65 to 120 mg of caffeine in an 8 oz. cup of drip coffee. Cola soft drinks have about 35 mg per 8 oz. can.

"These drinks have a similar caffeine content as coffee and do not contain alcohol. Since it would not be right to ban the sale of soda, coffee, or tea on a college campus, it's also inappropriate and unwarranted to single out and restrict the sale of energy drinks," the company said. "We are working with the University of New Hampshire to find a resolution."

In a survey of New Hampshire college students conducted last spring, 20 percent of the UNH participants reported that they had mixed alcohol and energy drinks during the last 30 days.

"They are popular, very popular," said sophomore Tim Quinney, 19, who said he very rarely consumes energy drinks because he doesn't care for the flavor. He said students who do enjoy the drinks will be slightly inconvenienced by having to go off campus, but said overall, the decision won't have much impact.

"Though I understand the concept behind it, we're adults," he said. "I would think we'd be capable of making decisions in our own best interest."

Senior Rob Johnson said he occasionally gets a Red Bull from the school library when he needs an extra boost while studying, and he said many students do mix the drinks with alcohol. One bar near campus recently ran a $1 Red Bull and vodka promotion and ran out of Red Bull by 10 p.m., he said.

Johnson said a sales ban doesn't make sense from a health standpoint — Why scapegoat one type of food or drink? — and he said the safety concerns were baffling.

"Most students go to parties off-campus, and stopping by a convenience store to buy an energy drink, often at a lower cost, is no problem to them. The only thing that I see this new ban doing is increasing sales of energy drinks at convenience stores in Durham," he said.

The drinks are now sold on campus in single-serving cans and multipacks. According to the university, 60,000 energy drinks were sold last year, or one half of one percent of retail sales.

Associated Press

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

Daniel Yergin Examines America's 'Quest' For Energy

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Enlarge Ralph Wilson /AP

Workers move a section of well casting at a natural gas well site in Pennsylvania. Energy expert Daniel Yergin says that in addition to trucks and traffic, natural gas production can bring jobs and economic growth to gas-rich areas.

Ralph Wilson /AP Workers move a section of well casting at a natural gas well site in Pennsylvania. Energy expert Daniel Yergin says that in addition to trucks and traffic, natural gas production can bring jobs and economic growth to gas-rich areas.

A television ad running in upstate New York has been warning residents that the state's water supply is headed for ruin.

"New York tap water has always been the best in the world," it says. "In places where gas companies are already using a dangerous process called fracking, like Pennsylvania, the water is cloudy and full of toxic chemicals."

The ad is part of an intensifying debate over hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking" — the process energy companies use to get a certain kind of natural gas out of the ground. Fracking is also one of the many subjects energy expert Daniel Yergin covers in his new book, The Quest. Yergin tells NPR's David Greene that the type of natural gas obtained through fracking, the gas found in shale, only recently became a serious energy source for the U.S.

"Shale gas really has been a revolution that's happened extremely rapidly," Yergin says. "Up until 2008, it really wasn't recognized and then it just took off, and it's gone from being virtually none of our natural gas production to about 30 percent of our total natural gas production."

According to Yergin, who sits on a Department of Energy committee that's investigating the environmental impact of fracking, the process has some potential drawbacks: There's the possibility that fracking could increase the amount of methane in the groundwater supply and that equipment and generators used for drilling could lead to increased air pollution.

"The industry itself knows that these are issues that it has to deal with," Yergin says. "So I think we're going to see a lot of innovation and a lot of progress to address environmental questions around this."

Energy, Security, and the Remaking Of The Modern World

by Daniel Yergin

Hardcover, 816 | purchase

close The QuestEnergy, Security, and the Remaking Of The Modern WorldDaniel Yergin

These are all new questions for states like New York and Pennsylvania, which — unlike, say, Texas — are unaccustomed to energy development. Just consider New York, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo opened the door to shale gas production in the state's poorer regions in hopes that it would spark economic growth.

"It comes down to employment. Shale gas has created hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the last five years in the United States. It's brought $1 billion of revenue into the state government of Pennsylvania," Yergin says. "It does have a transformative impact."

Energy development means more trucks, more traffic and more people working in the energy sector — and that's a lot of change.

"[That's] part of the reason for the response to it," Yergin says. "This is a great resource — this is the biggest energy innovation probably in the last 30 years, that we've seen. But it has to be done in a way that is both environmentally responsible and also acceptable to the public."

A Global Reaction To American Resources

Last March, President Obama stipulated that there could be a century's worth of shale gas beneath our feet in the U.S. That much gas could give the country a measure of security, reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy. But a domestic move toward shale gas could also have global implications.

"My personal quest in writing The Quest was to try and provide a framework to see how these things all tie together," Yergin says. "It has become increasingly interconnected. If you wind the clock back to 2008, the United States was going to be a huge importer of liquefied natural gas from the Middle East, from countries like Trinidad, from Angola, from Nigeria and maybe from Russia. That's all off the table because we're now self-sufficient in terms of natural gas, and suddenly that gas that was going to come in cargoes and ships to the United States has to find other destinations."

Less need for liquefied natural gas in the U.S. means there's more available for Europe, which means, perhaps, that Europe could rely less on Russia for gas.

"But then something else happened somewhere else in the world — this awful, terrible accident at Fukushima in Japan," Yergin says. "What was going to be the nuclear renaissance is now a much, much, much more uncertain thing. The German chancellor, [Angela] Merkel, who was a big advocate for stepping up the nuclear program in Germany, changes her mind really and says, 'We can't do it. We're going to shut down our nuclear power.' What does that mean? They'll import more natural gas. Where will they import it from? Russia."

And so, like dominoes, one country changing its energy strategy can set off reverberations around the world.

Enlarge Jon Chomitz

Daniel Yergin is the author behind the Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power.

Jon Chomitz Daniel Yergin is the author behind the Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power.

'We Need To Be Diversified'

The availability of a new resource can also raise questions about a country's energy policy. For instance, with so much shale gas available over the next hundred years, should the U.S. bother to keep developing renewable energy? Yergin says yes.

"We need to focus on renewables, to start with, for security reasons [and] for diversification reasons," he says. "I go back to what Winston Churchill, head of the British Royal Navy, said before World War I, when he was converting the Royal Navy from safe British coal to oil from Persia — Iran — and people said, 'This is really dangerous,' and he said, 'Safety in oil [lies] in variety and variety alone.' And I think that's still a fundamental starting point."

But security doesn't only mean protecting the country's oil infrastructure from enemies — it also means protecting the infrastructure from everything else that could happen.

"You know what's going to happen, and everybody agrees on what's going to happen, and then something else happens," Yergin says. "It could be everything from political crisis, as we've seen that affect oil supply, to natural disasters to technological breakthroughs. We have a very complex energy foundation that our $14 trillion economy rests upon."

The recent blackout in California and Arizona, for example, was the result of a chain reaction that started when an electrical worker mistakenly removed a piece of monitoring equipment. Yergin says there's an important lesson to be learned from that blackout.

"In general with energy, given how important it is to our economy, we need to be diversified," he says. "One of the big challenges we have is the growth of demand on a global basis, and there isn't one single solution that provides the answer."

Author Interviews

Subscribe to Author Interviews podcast via:

Or use this URL:

close

Morning Edition–

In Dana Spiotta's Stone Arabia, an aging musician chronicles his imaginary life as a rock star.

Stephane Hessel calls for young people to fight injustice — and he seems to have struck a nerve.

Jermaine Jackson's new memoir tells of the Jackson 5 and his younger brother's career and struggles.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More