1471380977000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2016%2Faug%2F17%2Faustralias-rarest-tortoises-get-new-home-to-save-them-from-climate-change&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Australia's rarest tortoises get new home to save them from climate change

Natural range of critically endangered western swamp tortoise increasingly untenable owing to reduced rainfall

Twenty-four of Australia's rarest tortoises have been released outside their natural range because climate change has dried out their remaining habitat.

The natural range of the critically endangered western swamp tortoise, Pseudemydura umbrina, has shrunk to two isolated wetlands in Perth's ever-growing outer suburbs, and a herpetological expert, Dr Gerald Kuchling, said reduced rainfall and a lowered groundwater table made those areas increasingly untenable.

Continue reading...
gaia

1471380975000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdana-ellis-hunnes%2Fwildlife-conservation-and-healthy-diet_b_11547460.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Wildlife Conservation And Healthy Diet Are Closely Entwined

Your Plant-Based Ambassador: Image by Dana Ellis Hunnes

We all want to look our best, be our skinniest and healthiest selves, right?

Well, I've got the secret.

See, I've been a dietitian, working with individuals and patients for over 12 years.

I've seen patients who eat every type of diet you have and have not heard of; from the Paleo, to the Atkins, to the Zone, to the blood-type diet.

You know what? None of them worked long-term.

Not only that, they never really helped the underlying disease or "problems" that the patients had; and believe me, I work with the sickest of the sick patients. I work with organ-transplant patients, cardiac patients, and all types of surgical-cancer patients.

In all these years, and with all these patients, and with all my research. The one diet that works best for almost anyone**, whether you want to lose weight, reverse disease, lower your cholesterol levels, or just have clearer skin; is the plant-based diet.

Not only that, but, the plant-based diet is the only diet that also protects Earth.

Right now, we are in the midst of mass-species extinctions. Our glut for sushi, poke, sashimi, or ceviche, is throwing our oceans out of balance. It is leading to extinction of the mightiest of fish, the Bluefin tuna.

Fewer than 3% of the Bluefin tuna in the Pacific ocean remain. And of those, very few reach maturity or are of age to spawn and reproduce. Most are taken from the oceans, far too early.

This is a major problem.

Not only that, but we are killing the small fish too; such as anchovies, menhaden, herring at ridiculously fast rates, such that they cannot support the rest of the oceanic ecosystem or the larger fish that we, humans, like to eat. Yet, these smaller fish are not necessarily consumed at the dinner table. Rather, they are found in fish oils, or used as animal feed or fertilizer.

And, we have completely contorted the way our food is grown, reared, and what it is fed; including ourselves. We remove the vast majority of the fish in the ocean, and then we call other consumers such as whales and dolphins, pests, and retaliate against them.

Something has to change. For wildlife, and for OUR HEALTH.

We all strive to attain that perfect figure, those washboard abs, those beautiful biceps. But, we're going about it all wrong.

See, we eat poorly, too many animals, too many processed sugars and grains, not enough fruits and vegetables, and then we wonder why we look the way we do, or feel the way we feel.

But, we can fix this.

Myself? I swim miles at a time, do hard, long cycling classes (with a bonafide triathlete), and do so with energy, with stamina, at peak performance, and I do so on a plant-based, eco-friendly diet.

I've never been leaner, I've never been stronger, I've never been healthier.

I've been a plant-based eater for the vast majority of my adult life, mostly for personal health reasons. But, as I've learned more and read more about the environment and conservation of wildlife, my priorities, my reasoning for eating this way have evolved.

Luckily, these are not mutually exclusive reasons. We can eat a healthy plant-based diet for our health, and for the environment! Because it's simply good for both!

If you are looking to rid your body of diabetes, obesity, or cardiovascular disease; the best thing you can do today is start eating a plant-based diet.

If on the other hand, like me, you worry about the future of our earth, the future of Bluefin tuna, the future of the environment, the best thing you can do today is start eating a plant-based diet.

When I began my quest to defend and advocate for wildlife conservation, I didn't necessarily expect to be talking about diet as much as I do. But, the reality is they are so closely entwined, they cannot possibly be separated.

The truth of the matter is, my over 12-year history of being a dietitian has placed me in the ultimate position to educate and advocate for the healthiest of all diets, a plant-based diet.

Moreover, my scientific and doctoral background in climate-change science affords me the scientific basis for which I can fully conclude that a plant-based diet is THE ULTIMATE DIET.

So, whether you want to lose weight, have a six pack, or want to protect the environment; the best thing you can do for you, your family, your children, our home-Earth-is eat a mostly, if not entirely, plant-based diet.

And, anyone who tells you, you need meat to be healthy, doesn't know their science. There are amino acids and proteins in almost any and every food.

Anyone who tells you that you don't need carbs in your diet doesn't know their science, because our brains utilize 8 grams of glucose every hour.

Our biggest problems are the types of carbs and the processing of our food supply.

For more recommendations on a healthy plant-based diet, please see my prior post: "Why plants are this summer's coolest Diet."

(**Disclaimer: There are some disease states that require extra-special care in planning the type of plant-foods that should be consumed; consult with a dietitian or physician**)

To contact Dana: recipe.for.survival@gmail.com
Twitter: recipe4survival
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RecipeForSurvival/
PlanetExperts: http://www.planetexperts.com/author/danahunnes/

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1471380969000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fcathy-kangas%2Fprotecting-animals-in-our_b_11551066.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Protecting Animals In Our National Parks And Refuges

Photo Courtesy of the Humane Society of the United States

National parks, preserves and wildlife refuges located in Alaska belong to all Americans, which means it is up to each of us to protect the animals living on these special lands from the worst kind of predator, a "super predator" in fact: the trophy hunter.

Trophy hunters killed grizzly bears, black bears, wolves and coyotes in Alaska using some of the most barbaric and unsporting means: shooting swimming caribou from motor boats; luring grizzly bears to buckets of rotting meat and pet food for a point-blank kill; using cruel, steel-jawed traps or snares; and rooting out black bear mothers and their cubs using artificial lights at the den in wintertime and killing them; slaughtering wolf and coyote mothers at the den with their pups and extended family members--exploiting them when they are completely vulnerable--and scouting grizzly bears from planes, landing and then shooting them.

Trophy hunters aren't killing animals for their meat or fur, or for subsistence. They butcher a once wild animal, a sentient being who is a family member, to prove how manly and virile they are. They hang an animal's head on a wall, they turn bears into rugs, and stuff wolves in full-body-mounted displays. This is nothing but a sick competition, ticking each species from a checklist, racing against each other to kill more animals to win prizes and other inducements from groups like Safari Club International.

Thanks to federal land managers, these egregious killing methods are no longer permitted in a large portion of Alaska. That's because on October 15, 2015, the National Park Service on its National Preserves, and this month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on its National Wildlife Refuges, passed administrative rules that prohibit several of the most controversial and unsporting hunting activities. There are more than 96 million acres of these federal lands - national preserves and wildlife refuges - in Alaska impacted by these rules; more than in all the lower 48 states combined. These lands are home to wolves, wolverines, grizzly bears, black bears, lynx and other species whose very survival has been threatened repeatedly by reckless killing and dismal state management.

Alaskans should support these rules not only because they protect animals, but also because millions of people travel to Alaska annually to experience our abundant wildlife, and those tourists spend over $2 billion annually, immensely bolstering Alaska's sagging economy.

When the wolf population was decimated in Denali National Park because they were lured out of the Park and trapped ruthlessly on nearby state lands, many wolf-watching tourists abandoned Alaska for Yellowstone National Park, where they know they can see wild wolves in their natural habitat. Alaska hotel owners, restaurants, wildlife guides, and others who depend on tourism are economically harmed. The damage has been done in Denali. Not only does it need to be undone, we need to prevent this from happening in other parts of the state.

Yet the Alaska Board of Game continues what they call "Intensive Management," the slaughter of large carnivores in a misguided attempt to boost numbers of the prey species coveted by trophy hunters. This isn't surprising, considering that the BOG is composed of governor-appointees who aren't biologists, but are instead trophy hunters, trappers, NRA members, and even a hunting lodge manager. This group not only fails to recognize how much Alaskans value their wildlife, but they all appear to be oblivious to the fact that wildlife watchers and ecotourists bring far more money into the state economy than do trophy hunters.

In a statewide poll conducted in March, Alaska residents voiced their strong support for ending some of the most cruel and unsporting methods of hunting on national wildlife refuges and preserves in our state. What's more, these new rules are completely in keeping with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which allows for subsistence hunting while conserving and protecting preserves and refuges for their wild characteristics.

It is now up to each of us to tell our elected officials in Congress that public lands are meant to be managed in trust for all of us. They don't belong just to the BOG, or trophy hunters, or trappers. Whatever your political views are of the Obama administration, the fact remains that he, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service put forth policies that are far more humane, scientifically sound, and ecologically-minded and in keeping with Alaskans' values.

The animals in these parks belong to all Americans, and to our children and grandchildren. We must do whatever we can to protect them.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1471377024000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fchristina-laughlin%2Fcan-mankind-return-to-nat_b_11535340.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Can Mankind Return To Nature?
Confusion. Determination. Elimination. Addition. Recollection.

Things all so necessary to a sane human existence.

But, not many things seem truly sane anymore.

People, filled with distrust, spend their lives locking everyone else out, becoming "secure" and "safe", yet die wallowing in confusion as to the state of their loneliness.

Others, so desperate for companionship, spend their lives taking anyone and everyone into their hearts, yet die the same.

We have lost our nature. We have lost the natural within ourselves. And we spend lifetimes trying to fill the void that distance has left us with.

Our world searches and yearns for progression, for progress, not realizing that the damage and destruction we will cause will set us back to the beginning. To nothing. Everything. The simplistic space occupied by only large planets, uncluttered by metal and smog and progression.

Only the beauty of the Heavens. Silent time passing. No clocks, no calendars to time what is beyond any humans control.

Fate. Life. Death.

Were the American Indians the heathen enemies our forefathers perceived? Was it our ancestors who lived solely off the land, only taking what was needed, worshipping Mother Earth, and her inhabitants large and small?

The Indians weren't corrupting the Earth, it was our own perception of what life was to be.

Instead of seeing the beauty of trees, we saw the possibility of the homes we could build.

Not the beauty of the fox running wild and free, but the coat we could place on our back.

Our need to either change what existed or destroy what resisted led us down this road that seemed to disappear behind our footsteps, leaving us no route of escape.

We must all now face the reactions of our actions.

Corruption. Destruction.

Fast these are becoming the symbols of human existence as young eyes begin to see. Perhaps, by the grace of time, of repercussions, the Earth's shiny, new inhabitants will look at this world through young, untainted eyes. Eyes that see not the impressiveness of tall buildings, but the sacredness of the ground they stand on.

And then, perhaps this world will become what it was meant to be. A place of wonder, a place of beauty, and a place to be shared.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1471377022000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fnoah-greenwald%2Ffueling-extinction-feds_b_11457298.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Fueling Extinction: Fed's Protection of Endangered Species Moving At Snail's Pace
An often cited standard response time for emergency workers in many localities is nine minutes or less. So you can only imagine the outrage, and additional loss of life, if first-responders routinely took six times longer to arrive - 54 minutes.

A new peer-reviewed study suggests that's exactly what's happening when it comes to providing endangered species protections for the Nation's most critically imperiled species.

Under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife is required to determine whether imperiled plants and animals need to be officially listed as threatened or endangered in no more than two years.

But a new study I co-authored in the international scientific journal Biological Conservation found that over the past four decades, imperiled species have waited an average of more than 12 years to receive protection -- six times longer that the law allows.

The study, co-authored with Fordham University postdoctoral associate Dr. Emily Puckett and Dr. Dylan Kesler, a research associate with The Institute for Bird Populations, also found that vertebrate species like mammals and birds move through the process roughly twice as fast as invertebrates and plants. That means species like mollusks, insects and flowers that are critical parts of the web of life are often failing to get the timely protections they need.

What's the solution to these problems? Our study found that increased funding would certainly help the agency protect more species. It also found lawsuits from organizations like the one I work for, the Center for Biological Diversity, targeted species stuck in the process and sped protection.

This latter result directly refutes unsupported assertions routinely spouted by Republicans opposed to the Endangered Species Act -- that lawsuits filed by conservation groups and other interested parties draw resources away from species conservation and hurt the process for protecting species.

For the study, we analyzed the listing process for 1,338 species protected between 1973 and 2014 to determine how budget constraints, species taxonomy, lawsuits and presidential policy choices affected the length of time it took for species to receive protection.

We found that increased funding and lawsuits accelerated protection of species, but that policy choices and taxonomy had mixed impacts on the time required to gain protection.

Unfortunately, even though protection decisions are supposed to be based solely on science, who is in the White House has a tremendous impact on decisions about whether species receive protection. For example, only 62 species gained Endangered Species Act protection under the second Bush administration compared to 268 under the Obama administration and 522 under the Clinton administration.

The study recommends increased funding and better partnerships with nongovernmental organizations interested in biodiversity protection to address lengthy delays in protection.

We already know the cost of doing otherwise: At least 42 species have gone extinct waiting for protection.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1471375368000

science

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdr-david-samadi%2Frobotic-surgery-triumphs-_b_11524280.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Robotic Surgery Triumphs Over Prostate Cancer In Obese
It's yet another feather in the cap of robotic-assisted prostate surgery. Researchers in the Department of Urology of Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine have discovered that robotic-assisted surgery to remove the prostate reduces the risk of blood loss and prolonged hospital stays.

Researchers examined records of 9,108 obese men who underwent radical prostatectomy (removal of the prostate gland and some surrounding tissue). Among all patients, 60.4 percent underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and 39.6 percent underwent open prostatectomy.

Compared with patients who had open surgery, patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery were 83 percent less likely to require blood transfusions and 72 percent less likely to require prolonged hospital stays. But robotic-assisted surgery did not reduce the risk of infections and other complications, the study found.

The robotic system allows surgeons to operate through a few small incisions. Movements by the surgeon's hand or wrist are translated into highly precise movements of the surgical instruments. Every maneuver is directed by the surgeon, in real time, as the surgeon views a magnified, 3D, high-definition image of the surgical site.

Prostate cancer is the most common solid organ cancer in men in the United States. One in six men will develop prostate cancer over their lifetimes, and many will choose to have radical prostatectomies. In the past decade, the use of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has surpassed that of open surgery.

More than one-third of adults in the United States are obese. Obese patients can be challenging, because many have related conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and obstructive sleep apnea that can increase the risk of blood transfusions, complications and prolonged length of stay.

Researchers concluded the study results have these implications:

• The finding that robotic-assisted surgery reduces blood transfusion and prolonged length-of-stay even in obese patients offers a better understanding of the value of robotic surgery in challenging patients.
• For urologists, the finding that robotic and open surgery have similar complication rates implies that both techniques remain interchangeable. The surgeon's comfort level should dictate which surgical approach is used.
• For obese prostate cancer patients, the broad findings suggest that both surgical approaches are feasible and safe.

In the study, researchers examined records from the 2009-2010 Nationwide Impatient Sample maintained by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Dr. Samadi is a board-certified urologic oncologist trained in open and traditional and laparoscopic surgery and is an expert in robotic prostate surgery. He is chairman of urology, chief of robotic surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital and professor of urology at Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine. He is a medical correspondent for the Fox News Channel's Medical A-Team Learn more at roboticoncology.com. Visit Dr. Samadi's blog at SamadiMD.com. Follow Dr. Samadi on Twitter, Instagram, Pintrest and Facebook.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

science

1471373431000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdana-ellis-hunnes%2Fhumans-hubris-against-nature_b_11457288.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Human's Hubris Against Nature

"2016-08-11-1470941288-9938466-FullSizeRender.jpg"

Image Credit: Dana Ellis Hunnes

Earlier this week, an article came out in the New York Times, entitled "against sustainability"

This article was viscerally upsetting and compelled me to write this piece in response:

In a perfect example of hubris, "Against sustainability" argues that nature, the environment, and "resources," are ours for the taking, to do with them as we please. Which, in fact, we pretty much do.

This is a highly biased, and Anthropocentric view of the world, one which does not take into consideration evolution, and our destructive ways against the world. Modern humans (Homo sapiens) more or less fully evolved in the last 100,000 years. And in this time-frame, and even more specifically, in the last 150 years, we have managed to cull large proportions of most species.

Many of the flora and fauna that exist on Earth and in our oceans today evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. For example, the shark evolved some 400 million years ago. Today, most shark species have declined by over 90% or more. Why? Because they get caught in fishing nets, or more importantly, because humans eat them in shark-fin soup; a soup that tastes like nothing.

Slaughtering elephants for their tusks, an elephant-tooth, known as "ivory" is sure not for human survival. It's for a trinket, or an ornament, often fueling terrorist or other illicit organizations.

Murdering rhinoceros for their horns, so that now there are fewer than 25,000 of them, is not for human survival. It's for an "aphrodisiac" with absolutely no proven effects. Thus, the arguments made in "against sustainability" that we preserve things simply for our consumption are base.

The background rate of extinction is about one to five species per year. However, the current rates of extinction, since humans figured out how to cull and mass execute animals, has been 1,000-10,000 times faster than those back ground rates. This is a fact.

Humans are the most destructive species on the planet. We do not use our fair share of the natural resources. Our cities utilize mass amounts of natural and fabricated resources. And our cities are growing. Nearly half of all people live in cities, and this is increasing.

We are reckless with our use of fossil fuels. We are reckless with our fishing methods, destroying ecosystems, habitat, and throwing away unintended fish species.

We are reckless with our clear-cutting of forests, fracturing animal lives. We are reckless in our dietary habits; fueling deforestation.

It is never excusable to say "Mass extinctions are only tragic if nature is viewed as something perfect that we are destroying, rather than as a state of flux in which we are participating."

Extinction is forever. Once a species is gone. It is gone for good. That is inexcusable. Particularly when we can do something to prevent it.

Biodiversity isn't just about protecting what's pretty, or admiring what we want to look at. Biodiversity, ensures a healthy planet, decreases the risk of blight, decreases the risk of disease spread, and decreases the risk of environmental collapse.

Monocultures, where one species of crop is grown, or one type of livestock is reared; there is always the risk of "failure." If a blight goes through the field, you lose your crop. If an illness or disease goes through your livestock, you could lose them all. Biodiversity and sustainability are therefore crucial for the health and safety of the planet; and the health and safety of us.

As E.O. Wilson has said, animals (and other species) do not need us to survive, but we [sure do] need them.

To defame the concept of sustainability is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and to have a blasé and cavalier attitude toward preservation of ecosystems and species is not only negligent, but it is reckless.

Each animal and plant has a place in the web of life.

I'd like to say humans have a place in the web of life too. But mostly, it seems like human's place is in the web of death.

To contact Dana: recipe.for.survival@gmail.com
Twitter: recipe4survival
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RecipeForSurvival/
PlanetExperts: http://www.planetexperts.com/author/danahunnes/

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1471373427000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fpankaj-jain-phd%2Froots-of-the-sand-storms-_b_11450436.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Roots Of The Sand Storms Are In America!
I was born in Pali, a small town in Rajasthan, the largest state of India with a major portion of the Thar desert. Although it is located around the desert region, once every few years it also receives its share of wetter than usual Indian monsoon. And this year in 2016, this part of India is once again flooded as are several other parts of India including Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata and in the recent memory, many other parts such as Kashmir and Chennai. These intense weather patterns in India are of course not isolated incidents as they are matched with similar examples of droughts, hurricanes, typhoons, floods, and other natural disasters throughout the world.

While it is common to read analyses by scholars in which the rise of global terrorism is at least partially blamed on American foreign policy, how can the rise in recent natural disasters be explained? It is true that unplanned and mismanaged urbanization has insufficient ways to deal with natural disasters in most of the African and Asian countries. The effects and the response for these disasters will definitely need to be handled by the local administrations but is the underlying cause for the increasing disasters?

As we know, natural disasters are not new phenomena for our planet and for millions of years, humans have survived them but the underlying cause for the recent upsurge in these disasters is indeed rooted in the recent human activities. Here is how the Nobel prize winning scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are cited on the NASA website:

Climate change may not be responsible for the recent skyrocketing cost of natural disasters, but it is very likely that it will impact future catastrophes. Climate models provide a glimpse of the future, and while they do not agree on all of the details, most models predict a few general trends. First, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will probably boost temperatures over most land surfaces, though the exact change will vary regionally. More uncertain--but possible--outcomes of an increase in global temperatures include increased risk of drought and increased intensity of storms, including tropical cyclones with higher wind speeds, a wetter Asian monsoon, and, possibly, more intense mid-latitude storms. (For more information, see Global Warming: Potential Effects of Global Warming).

Until recently, USA has been the leading country for the greenhouse gas emissions thus the biggest reason for climate change and yet, very little change in American lifestyle or energy consumption or food habits has been accepted in the USA even as America continue to directly or indirectly preach other countries how to "develop." American appetite for beef (cattle meat) is another leading cause for massive deforestation across the world, fueling further the climate change and thus more natural disasters and yet no foreseeable change in decreasing the beef craze in America.

For the majority of the scientists and environmentalists, the above underlying cause for the upsurge in natural disasters and climate change is now common knowledge but for the American administration, this still seems like a blind spot. Sooner, they realize the problem, sooner they will begin to address it and prove their accountability not only to the American taxpayers but also to the mother earth and mother nature.

Several scientists in the late 20th century had coined a phrase the butterfly effect. It explained rather poetically that even flapping of a butterfly in one part of the world can cause hurricanes in other remote parts of the world. We in America are certainly much more significant players than a mere butterfly as far as our carbon footprints are to be counted as the cause for climate change and natural disasters.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia