Powered by Blogger.

Pages

  • Home
  • About me
  • Contact me
  • Wildlife Conservation
  • Climate Change
  • Travel
  • Sustainable Living

Conservation With Kate

 ** This post is a repost of a blog I wrote for SheSapiens **



There is a stigma of perfectionism around environmentalism which arguable does more harm than good. By definition, perfection is unattainable. Therefore, the concept of perfectionism is more alienating than it is inspiring. When it comes to environmentalism, this can be damaging.

CHOICES

It is impossible to live a zero impact life. Just by existing, you are exhibiting a carbon footprint. Equally, all products have a carbon footprint. But we need certain things to survive and so we have to engage in some level of consumerism. Therefore, we do inevitably buy things which contribute to our carbon footprint.
 
However, you can make “better” or “worse” choices. For example, most of us have to go to work. Let’s say you live 30 minutes away from work. You can either get the bus or drive yourself. The “better” choice here is the bus: the bus is driving the journey anyway and if you’re on it, then that’s one less car on the road.
 
That was a relatively simple example: choice 1 (bus) has a much lower carbon footprint than choice 2 (car). But the thing with environmentalism is, it’s inherently complex. What if the bus takes 1 hour and the car takes 30 minutes? Furthermore, what if the more obviously “greener” choice, isn’t what it seems?
 
Let’s say the zero waste store is a 30 minute drive from where you live, but a regular supermarket is a 5 minute walk. Do you drive to the zero waste store, your boot/trunk brimming with Tupperwares and tote bags, to avoid plastic packaging on your food; or do you walk to the supermarket and accept that your pasta and vegetables might be individually wrapped in plastic?
 
Environmentalism involves constant trade-offs like these, and it’s important not to beat yourself up for not being perfect. It’s also important not to be deterred from trying to make environmentally conscious choices. Just because you can’t be perfect, doesn’t mean you can’t help.

 

WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTALISM?

Another added complication of environmentalism is, it’s an umbrella term for a lot of different stuff. Tackling climate change, preventing pollution, and conserving wildlife: all of these (massive) movements come under ‘environmentalism’. While they have similar overall objectives (a more sustainable and greener future), they are nuanced in their approaches and multifaceted in their aims. Balancing every branch of environmentalism in every decision you make is almost impossible. Balancing every branch of environmentalism overall in your lifestyle is much more achievable and much more beneficial.

 

THE ACHILLES HEEL

Convenience is the Achilles heel of most environmentalists. The ‘easy’ sustainable choices often do not have the biggest impact. Yes, it’s great you use your reusable coffee cup and don’t accept straws anymore, but neither of those things massively affect your carbon footprint or prevent the decline of endangered species. Plastic pollution and climate change are often conflated together, whereas their only real overlap is the carbon used in the manufacturing and distribution of plastic products. If you want to help tackle climate change, then you need to make choices that reduce your individual carbon emissions. If you want to tackle plastic pollution then you need to make choices than minimise how much single-use plastic you are using and dispose of plastic in a sustainable way so it doesn’t end up on land-fill. If you want to tackle the decline of biodiversity, then you need to make choices that conserve nature and wildlife.
 
Some sustainable choices are easier and cheaper than the alternative (e.g. reusable coffee cups or moon cups). But sometimes it’s quicker to jump in the car. It’s also ‘simpler’ to stick with what you know. Some people don’t want to learn to cook vegetarian food or stop buying from cheap well-known fast fashion giants over sustainable fashion brands. If you stick with the norm, you don’t have to do any research, go anywhere new, or try anything different. Many people don’t want to sacrifice convenience for sustainability, and until sustainability becomes the norm, this will continue to hinder the movement.

 


WHAT YOU CAN DO

Strive for progress, not perfectionism. Accept that you can never be the perfect environmentalist, and use this to motivate you to be the best you possibly can. Don’t worry that you cannot be 100% zero waste, flawlessly vegan, carbon neutral all the time or save every species yourself. Just worry about what you can do and inspiring others to do the same. In the words of Earthrise Studio:
“If you have to be perfect, we’d have a very small movement.”
We do not need a few perfect people: we need everyone to TRY.

 

Here’s some simple things anyone can do:

  1. Minimise your single-use plastic waste. Reuse plastic before recycling it. Throw away as little as possible.
  2. Minimise your carbon transport footprint: utilise public transport as much as you can (if/when it is safe to do so with the pandemic) and walk/cycle short journeys.
  3. Minimise your meat consumption. Start by cutting down and gradually reduce it. Why not try going 4 or 5 days a week without meat?
  4. Compost! 6.6million tonnes of food was wasted in the UK in 2018, 70% of which could have been eaten.
  5. Buy second hand clothes.
  6. Support local and sustainable businesses.
  7. Support conservation efforts and organisations.
  8. Only plant indigenous species in your gardens and homes. Avoid invasives or introduced species which could negatively impact local wildlife.
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
2 comments


One of the joys of social media is that you have control of the content you see. Therefore, aside from advertising space, your feed looks how you want it to. You can choose to fill it either with just your friends and family, with celebrities you admire, cooking channels, fitness videos or wildlife photography. There are communities on all social media platforms tailored to specific interests, and so you can find yours. 

Overall, this is a great thing. It means you can remove toxic content from your feed at will and it means you are never forced into seeing something you don't want to. Equally, it means you can have direct access to what interests you most.

However, for scientists and conservationists, this can be an issue. Communication is a key aspect of research: informing relevant stakeholders and the public of your findings is a crucial aspect of the scientific process. Social media can be a great way to do this. Many scientists use social media as a tool to their advantage, myself included.

But when you look at who is following you, you often see you're in an echo chamber. The majority of your followers are fellow scientists or conservationists, or at least have a keen interest in your field. For conservation, this worries me. The people who don't care about the environment or climate change, or maybe even don't believe in it, are no where to be seen. Essentially, you're preaching to the choir.

Now this can be great. Meeting and interacting with like-minded people is incredible gratifying. I've definitely found it inspiring to know that there are lots of people out there just like me: who care deeply about these issues and wish to help. But these aren't the people who would benefit most from this content. 

I started thinking about this when a friend said she loved my feed, but found it overwhelming and hard to understand sometimes. She's not a scientist and hasn't ever studied conservation or climate change. She has attended protests about climate change and I would count her as someone who cares about the future of this planet and her impact on it. But she self-admits not to understanding these issues. I would wager I'm the only conservationist she follows, and only because I am her friend. 

As she is someone who cares about the issues, this isn't so bad. But what about all the people out there who don't? And not because they're bad or selfish people, but because they simply don't understand them? And maybe they don't understand them because they've never had access to the right information? Understanding how to fix this is one of sciences greatest challenges. 

But the thing is: everyone does have access to the information, because it's all on social media. Of course, social media isn't peer reviewed. In fact there's no review process whatsoever and anyone can post something and claim it's true. But, there is a lot of accurate, clear scientific information shared on social media everyday. A lot of well known scientists are verified and share resources to back up their statements. Unfortunately, a lot of the time they're sharing this to someone who already knows, someone already converted, and not the people who need to hear it most. 

Now, just because something is on social media does not mean everyone who could access it is choosing not to, for whatever reason. Algorithms are designed to show you what you want to see. So if you've never expressed an interest in climate change publicly online before, the algorithm is not going to point you in the direction of climate scientists of activists. The people we need to target are the people who know nothing about these issues already. But how do we reach them if they don't know who we are, and we don't know who they are? How to we break out of the echo chamber? 

I honestly have no idea. I'm very open to suggestions. I always want this blog and my instagram to be somewhere anyone can come to learn about conservation. But I have no control on who clicks on my page. I can't force someone to read this, and the only people likely to click on it are people who already care, either about the topic or me. How do I access everyone else? How do we make people care about conservation?

It should be simple. If we don't tackle climate change, millions, if not billions, will die. Our lives will never be the same and we will all suffer the consequences. The science alone should prompt people to want to do everything they can to stop this from happening. But it's not. And we can't blame ordinary people for this. The gravity of the situation is not effectively communicated and when it is, it's easily dismissed. The actions of governments do not back up the words of science, and if the government isn't taking it seriously, why should you? This is the attitude of a lot of people, about more than just climate change, and I don't blame them for it. How can we?

But if we know this problem exists, how do we solve it?
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
2 comments

At the beginning of the pandemic, there were a lot of parallels drawn to climate change. You can see why: disaster on a global scale, disproportionate impacts on those less privileged, both systematic and individual change necessary to combat the problem. Many environmentalists also took the opportunity to highlight the global panic around coronavirus contrasted with the startling lack of panic relating to climate change. 

I think the more obvious parallel of the pandemic to a conservation issue is the spread of invasive species. Invasive species are species that occur outside of their native range AND cause negative impacts to the indigenous species or ecosystems in their new space. Grey squirrels in the UK are a classic example. Due to their introduction, for ornamental reasons by humans in the 1876, red squirrels have declined almost to the point of extinction. Grey squirrels are more generalist and so out-compete red squirrels for food and space, meaning reds have been pushed out. For example, red squirrels find tannins in acorns unpalatable, whereas greys can digest them fine. Another classic example of a successful invasion is of two lionfish species in the USA, Caribbean and Mediterranean. Lionfish are endemic to the Pacific (red lion fish; Pterois volitans) and Indian (devil filefish; Pterois miles) Oceans. It is thought their invasion into the Atlantic was a result of exotic pet owners dumping them when they realised they could not look after them (they're are predators and can be aggressive). A small number were thought to be released in the 1980s, and since their population has exploded. They have few predators in these new environments and their arrival has had severe implications on the native fish and coal reef systems.

The reason I link invasive species to COVID-19 is that invasive species and zoonotic diseases sometimes spread in similar ways. Just like a virus, invasive species do not pay attention to country borders or boundaries, and globalisation enables the spread of invasive species through travel - via airplanes, boats, or just carrying them on you (eg insects or bacteria). As with the grey squirrels and lion fish, humans are responsible for a significant number of cases where invasive species have been introduced. During the invasive species module in my CB masters, I drew the parallel that we spray planes for diseases, but not invasives. We are much more diligent of our impact on the planet when we are the victims. But our impact on the planet goes far beyond our own species. COVID-19 is showcasing to us how powerful nature is, and gives an insight into how easily things can spread around the shrinking world we’ve created.

Zoonotic diseases are diseases that spread from animals to humans and cause illness in humans. They are caused by harmful germs like bacteria, fungi, parasites, and viruses. They can spread from animals to humans in various ways: through both direct and indirect contact, through eating contaminated food or drinking contaminated water, or through vectors (e.g. ticks, mosquitoes). Scientists believe COVID-19 spread from animals to humans at a wet market in Wuhan, China.

The current way we treat the natural world is damaging. We know that we are polluting the planet and destroying natural habitats at an alarming rate. What this pandemic has done is show us how these actions are also incredibly harmful to us. We have been playing with fire, and now we've been burnt. 

If the way we treat wildlife does not change, this will happen again. Professor Paula Cannon of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California said: "Humans are increasing the odds of diseases happening as we move into wild areas and catch wild animal.s We are creating the circumstance where it is only a matter of time when this was going to happen, and it will only be a matter of time before it happens again."

As we continue to encroach on wild space, continue to travel so much, and continue to disregard nature as we have been doing, the spread of zoonotic diseases and invasive species will persist. Every invasive species case is different, but there are simple ways to help minimise their spread:

  1. In the same way you must wash your hands to avoid corona, wash your clothes when you visit new places. 
  2. Take all your rubbish with you (even biodegradable produce). 
  3. Never release your pets - re-home them if you don’t want them or can no longer look after them. 
  4. After leaving any water body (river, lake, ocean etc.) clean & dry everything thoroughly - from swimming stuff to surf boards to boats! The tiniest little creatures can remain if not and you might mistakenly transport them to a new home. Same goes for hiking gear: clean it thoroughly before entering a new system.
  5. Keep your pets out of waterways where possible. They can act as a vector for invasive species. 
  6. Join removal efforts.
  7. Report invasive species you find to local nature trusts/organisations. Take pictures and mark your location if you can. 
  8. If a species is classed as invasive, do not breed, buy, import, sell or keep this species as a pet.
And remember during this pandemic, many species are face their own version of COVID-19 everyday because of us. 
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments

Following the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Artery and international outcry over police brutality in the US and systemic racism which plagues societies all over the world, many people have educated themselves on these issues more than ever before. Thus, for the first time, black women have topped the paperback charts for both fiction and non-fiction writing in the UK (Reni Eddo-Lodge, Why I'm No Longer Talking To White People About Race, and Bernardine Evaristo, Girl, Woman, Other), which prompted criticism of the publishing industry over why it's taken this long. Countless petitions have been circulated via https://petition.parliament.uk generating over 100,000 signatures so parliament has to debate them (links to which are at the end of this post). Protests have broken out, forcing communities to examine why we still have statues of slavers and colonisers, and anti-racism has been at the forefront of everyone's mind in the past couple of weeks.

Conservationists are no exception, and have been engaging in this global conversation. At most climate change protests, or really whenever climate change is mentioned, you often hear the phrase: there is no climate justice without social justice. Intersectional environmentalism advocates for both the protection of the planet, and of people, whereby social issues are valued as highly as environmental issues.

The human-element of conservation is as prevalent  if not more  than any other animal. While the term "wildlife conservation" emphasises the importance of wildlife, conservation as a discipline centres around people. The needs of people, the impacts of environmental issues on people, the reliance of people on the environment, and the promotion of cultural values and equality, are at the forefront of all conservation conundrums.

Leah Thomas wrote a beautiful article for Vogue entitled "Why Every Environmentalist Should Be Anti-Racist".  In the article she explains how social justice can often be seen as an add-on to environmental justice campaigns, instead of a core element of those campaigns. To believe we can solve environmental issues without first tackling racism is a nonsense. The two issues are so deeply embedded within one another that to separate them is to deny such links between them, and to deny that is to deny the oppression of BAME people as a result of both environmental injustices and conservation actions.

For example, climate justice involves revolutionising our economies and infrastructure. This process will undoubtably create thousands of jobs. Who gets those jobs? Who benefits from a green economy? In the past, minority communities have been left out of these answers. ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣

Furthermore, climate change impacts disadvantaged and minority communities more than it does anyone else. Black people are 3x more likely to die from asthma-related causes than white people (US data), 80% of people displaced by climate change are women, and 75,000 African Americans were displaced by hurricane Katrina. The impacts of that hurricane (2005) were disproportionately felt by the black community of New Orleans, and the population has not yet recovered. ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣

Conservation historically has not been innocent of oppression and racism. The history of white conservationists in Africa, Asia and South America is an ugly one: "white saviours" telling local people what to do and how to do it. Conservation has historically followed a fortress model: acquire some land -> put a fence around it -> proclaim it a protected area for nature conservation. This has led to thousands of indigenous communities being pushed out of their homes; people who have unrivalled knowledge of the terrain and ecology have been deliberately excluded.

A vast majority of conservation efforts are still held by foreigners or descendants of colonial settlers. White foreigners often occupy higher paying jobs or managerial positions, over local people who often have greater local knowledge and experience of the land. Black voices in conservation are often lost in a sea of white, often male, voices who can shout the loudest because they're shouting from a raised platform of privilege.  Recent years have seen a move towards more inclusive, community based management, which is essential and important and we need to see more of. I found this instagram post explained the white saviour problem in conservation well. This article is also well worth a read, detailing how young black Africans are often not offered the same opportunities as young, white foreigners. I am very aware that a lot of the experiences I have had in conservation in Africa would not have been available to me if I was African, and that's just wrong. I hope to do more to right this wrong. 

Furthermore, treating environmentalism and racism as two separate entities is a luxury for white people that black people cannot afford. In this must-read article in the Washington Post by Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, "Racism derails our attempts to fight the climate crisis", she explains that not only do BAME communities experience disproportionate impacts due to climate change, but black conservationists and climate scientists cannot  simply ignore racism and focus solely on the environment. Racism makes it harder for them to do their jobs. She wrote: "Even at its most benign, racism is incredibly time consuming." Without fully understanding the toll racism has on black people and addressing it, we are doing a disservice to black people within our industry. The article is so powerful and thought-provoking: please read it.

The reason social equality cannot be treated separately from climate change & conservation is because they have 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦, and they aren’t now.⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣


A lot of us are undergoing a process of unlearning the white story we have been told and replacing it with the truth. The history of racism, colonisation, slavery, and exclusion. The on-going suffering of BAME communities and structural racism present in every facet of society. The disproportionate impacts of the climate crisis on black communities. 

Be critical of who you get your information from. I have been deeply disappointed in many white conservationists I admired in the past weeks, who have said either nothing, or very little on these issues. You cannot call yourself a conservationist if your brand of conservation only focusses on wildlife or white people. 

I appreciate anyone who takes the time to read my blog. I put a lot of thought into my posts and I hope they are informative and enjoyable to read. However, I want to use this platform to amplify black voices. As a white person, it is easier for me to be seen and heard. But I can never fully understand what BAME people go through. Nor can I speak to these issues with the same authority as I am someone who learns about racism, rather than experiences it. All the articles I have linked throughout this blog post were written by black scientists/conservationists. Please, if you're reading this, read them. I am also going to link some social media accounts to follow. 

We have a responsibility to be actively anti-racist, to continue supporting the BLM movement in its entirety and to educate ourselves. Thank you again for reading and supporting this blog. 



Black conservationists to follow:

Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson: if you only follow one instagram account, let it be hers. She is an incredible scientist and powerful black, female voice in this field and we should all be listening to her:  https://www.instagram.com/ayanaeliza/

Danni Washington was the first black woman science TV host and her feed is full of stunning photos and great information: https://www.instagram.com/danniwashington/

Leah Thomas, an activist who speaks so clearly on intersectional environmentalist: https://www.instagram.com/greengirlleah/

Dr Raychelle Burks. Chemistry academic with great tweets about being a scientist  and science in general: https://twitter.com/DrRubidium

I could go on for ages but THIS POST links several accounts and so does THIS POST. Check them both out.



Petitions to sign:

Here are some petitions for UK citizens/residents to sign. They need over 100,000 for parliament to debate that but the more they have the better! So do sign even when they're over 100,000 already. 

  1. Teach Britain's Colonial Past as part of the UK's Compulsory Curriculum: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/324092
  2. Improve Maternal Mortality Rates and Health Care for Black Women in the UK: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/301079
  3. Add education on diversity and racism to all school curriculums: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323808
  4. Introduce Mandatory Ethnicity Pay Gap Reporting: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300105
  5. Condemn the US government for the use of force against its citizens: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323863
  6. Create an independent investigatory commission to help protect ethnic minorities: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323867
  7. Making the UK education curriculum more inclusive of BAME history: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323961
  8. Make is compulsory for Black and POC UK histories to be taught in the Welsh education curriculum: https://petitions.senedd.wales/petitions/200034
  9. Suspend future sales of tear gas and other crowd control equipment to the USA: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/324208
If there are more that I have missed, please leave a link to them in the comments so everyone can access it. They take less than a minute to sign & confirm via email, and it really can make a difference.
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments

Various national lockdowns as a result of COVID-19 have showcased the relationship between tourism and conservation: how dependent they are on one another, how fragile the relationship is, and how important.

In the absence of tourists, many conservation areas are severely under-funded. This applies to national parks and privately owned nature areas and wildlife reserves. Many of these places derive the majority of their income through tourism, whether it be a 5-star luxury lodge or simply through daily park entrance fees. Each year, approximately 950,000 tourists visit Kruger National Park, South Africa, every year, and over 400,000 visited India's Ranthambore National Park in 2019. In India's Ranthambore, an international tourist can spend up to £16/US$20 for one game drive. In Kruger, the daily entrance fee for South African citizens is R100 (~£4-5/US$5-6), and R400 (~£17/US$22) for internationals. Bottom line: the wildlife tourism industry can make a lot of money. 

Travel bans mean no tourists. No tourists mean this entire sector of income for these businesses is reduced to nothing. Many now have to rely on donations, in a time where people all over the world are receiving lower incomes than usual or no income at all. Donations at the best of times are an unstable and unpredictable source of income.


The relationship

The relationship between tourism and conservation is not purely economic. There are other benefits. Enabling people to witness wildlife in its natural state often sets off a passion for said wildlife. People who have experienced the best of nature tend to leave caring more for it than when they arrived. This kind of relationship is priceless. Equally, sending people home with a greater understanding and appreciation of the natural world and the threats against it can empower them to help, whether that be through sharing their experience with others, educating people, or through donating themselves.

There are of course, also drawbacks. Inviting thousands of people annually into natural spaces is bound to have negative effects on those spaces and the wildlife inhabiting there. Noise, light, plastic, litter, and vehicle pollution are just some examples of how humans disrupt natural environments. Many tourists are considerate of their environment, but some aren't. 
Invasive species is another major concern associated with tourism. International travel, like with the coronavirus, makes it easier than ever for species to move form one system to another. International travel by humans is a major contributor to the global invasive species problem. Tourists could transport bacteria or microorganisms into new natural systems they visit while on holiday, which could become invasive. 
There is an also ethical question surrounding tourism and conservation. A lot of safari parks or national parks have strict guidelines regarding treatment of the area and the wildlife that are well enforced. But this is not always the case. Restrictions can include setting a minimum distance a vehicle can be to an animal, a maximum number of vehicles at one particular wildlife sighting, vehicle restrictions regarding noise, restricted opening times to create hours where the park is empty and the wildlife is free of cars. In some areas, breaches incur heavy fines, but these are often guidelines, or not universally enforced. Certain parks might adopt them, where other don't. Parks that allow self-drive safaris are particularly hard to police. I have sat in traffic in a national park before at a wildlife sighting. This should never be the case. 

Overall, the benefits outweigh the costs for me. I think wildlife tourism is one of conservationists most valuable tools. I do believe many parks could do a lot better at enforcing more ethical practices and this is critical. But overall, without tourism, many conservation organisations wouldn't exist. Thousands would be left unemployed, and many reserves would be forced to close. What happens to the land and the wildlife then?



The impact of COVID-19

The coronavirus crisis has seen an unprecedented ban on international travel. Borders have closed, flights have been cancelled, and airlines are facing bankruptcy. While we can celebrate the grounding of flights from a carbon perspective, the impact of this complete halt on tourism on wildlife conservation in the developing world especially, is astronomical and dangerous. 

If you want to help, look for reserves who need donations to keep their business alive, to keep their staff employed, and to keep their wildlife safe. Endangered Rhino Conservation is a good example: their donations help fund anti-poaching efforts for private game reserves in South Africa.  
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2020 (12)
    • ▼  December (1)
      • Having a Sustainable Christmas: Some Tips
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2019 (9)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2018 (12)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (2)
  • ►  2017 (8)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2016 (45)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (7)
    • ►  June (8)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (2)

Follow Me

  • Instagram
  • Twitter

Popular Posts

  • CITES CoP17 Fails to Legalise the Rhino Horn Trade
  • China Bans Ivory Trade
  • Debate: Should the global trade of rhino horn be legalised?
  • How Legalising the Rhino Horn Trade helps People
  • You don't need to be a perfect environmentalist

Instagram

Follow

Pages

  • Home
  • Privacy Policy

Created with by ThemeXpose | Copy Blogger Themes