Skip Nav
Relationships
My Boyfriend Had to Choose Between His Mom and Me — and He Chose Me
Viral Videos
This Guy Surprised His Grandma With the SWEETEST Birthday Gift
Relationships
Successful Couples SWEAR By This Practical Secret to a Happy and Long Relationship

Planning a Trip? 20 Cities Global Warming Might Melt Off Map

Got your passport and itchy feet in search of a vacation destination? Consider this first. It's not a scared-straight story on global warming I promise — it's a traveler's perspective on how the world's climate and it's info served up like a gorgeous guidebook — and, I'll admit, food for thought. ProTraveller put together this list of 20 places that are ripe to change dramatically if the world heats up — and it's a where's where of dream vacations.

Here's part of their list, and some info that caught my eye:

  • Great Barrier Reef, Australia
  • Virgin Islands, Caribbean
  • Cook Islands, Pacific Ocean
  • Galapagos Islands, Pacific Ocean (pictured here)
  • Belize Barrier Reef, Belize
  • Red Sea Reefs, Egypt
  • Tokyo, Japan — This major international city is in some serious danger; its temperatures have been rising five times faster than the average global warming rate around the world.
  • London, United Kingdom — Scientists say that the city could be underwater as early as within the next one hundred years.
  • New York City, USA
  • New Orleans, USA
  • Jakarta, Indonesia — The capital city of Indonesia has already experienced serious flooding last year, which many believe was a direct result of the climate change affecting the world. With more than twenty million people living in its metropolitan area, Jakarta is a city that has a lot to lose if the global warming issue continues unabated.

With Britain already having its warmest May since 1772 and alarming weather becoming a mainstay, it's nice to be reminded of the beauty we need to take care of — sans PowerPoint. (Sorry Al.)
Source

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
Anniina Anniina 7 years
I don't think Melt Off would be the right thing to say. It could be that in years and years from now, heat wave comes and makes living in certain places too unbearable
danixk danixk 7 years
I think it's crap. Period.
princess-s princess-s 8 years
for those who say its a hoax...go to the top link where is says list of 20 places. This will take you to the original article. They reference their information from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ Which states they are getting their stats from NASA! Greenhouse Gas people is very real and the EPA would not lie about this. Can any one of you say that NASA and the EPA are purposly lieing? I believe that they just care about our furture. Is that so bad?
Shannybaby Shannybaby 8 years
I heard that in 30 yrs there will be no more oil. Then what. Might as well start now with alternative energy sources. Even if you don't believe in the whole global warming craze what or should I say who does it hurt to recycle, drive a smaller car, walk more, eat less meat and more veggies. Just do what you can do and live your life.
rationalperson rationalperson 8 years
I think there are a lot of well-intentioned people missing the point here. We currently do NOT have viable energy sources capable of replacing fossil fuels. It is likely that we will waste vast amounts of time, money, and resources in a pointless attempt to reduce tiny amounts of CO2, whose minuscule effect is logarithmic, not linear. In doing so, we could affect the world's economy in such a way that we might not have the resources to develop alternative energy sources when they are finally needed. These measures to reduce CO2 will have no effect on climate, will give more power, money, and control to world governments, will destroy developing nations, hurt the poor, and help the rich (including those oil companies). By the way, transportation is the least of our concerns with regard to the loss of oil - almost everything we use is petro-based. What was the road to hell paved with?
fizzissist fizzissist 8 years
LOL!!!! rationalperson's link is to a paper with John Christy and Fred Singer!! What a funny coincidence! Sure is nice to see there's people here that have been paying attention.
fizzissist fizzissist 8 years
The article's point was global warming causing cities to be "unvisitable", and it's all based on the CO2 alarmism. Pollution in general is not argued by anyone to be a positive, but this article is about AGW warming. The GCMs (like the Hadley Center's) predict troposheric warming, and it isn't happening. The models predict lots of things that simply aren't happening. CO2 has risen, yet the global temps haven't followed accordingly. Even Michael Mann, one of the now famously debunked Hockey Stick acknowledges that CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases by anywhere from 800-2500 years, and some studies show a lag as little as a century. Bang, pollution goes away? Not in the case of ethanol. 'Nuther subject... Those who kneel at Al Gore's feet need to Google Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, John Christie, and read what these actual scientists have to say on the subject. And before the screaming starts that says they're on EvilBigOil's payroll, some of these guys were lead authors for the IPCC's TAR, and AR4 reports. These guys are a mere handful of the so-called "deniers". If Sugar wants to be a happy place, it should accept the responsibility for fair, balanced, and TRUE stories. Otherwise, we should all just stick to reading Weekly World News. At least everyone knows it's just entertainment.
WACtravel WACtravel 8 years
I'm with you Krydon! If the developing countries of the world could produce this new energy and get rich instead of exploited for once I would be even happier.
Krydon50 Krydon50 8 years
FOR THE LOVE OF MIKE - The issue isn't whether our world is getting warmer. It is. The issue is not one of if global pollution getting worse, it is. Get over it. THE ISSUE IS OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOSSIL FUELS - for the unscientific, that means oil and gasoline. What we need to do is BE ALARMED, GET EXCITED, WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN - We have alternate energy souces. WE NEED TO DEVELOP THEM. Bang, the rising cost of transportation goes away. Bang, the need to fight in the middle east goes away. Bang, a happy side effect, pollution decreases and possibly the rate of global temps climbing slows (not a guarantee, but something to consider). World peace, more money in our pocket for what matters - I'm for it. Are you with me?
rationalperson rationalperson 8 years
Anyone who looks at actual scientific data and can comprehend it knows that FreedomGuy is dead on. Anyone who reads politicized agenda-driven reports might have a problem with what he says. Religion starts with a hypothesis and then looks for evidence to prove it. Science starts with gathering evidence and then formulating a hypothesis. When new evidence arrives that contradicts the hypothesis, it must be altered or thrown out. That's how science works. Since recent scientific reports have indicated that any recent warming is not greenhouse warming, then the idea that CO2 and, more importantly, man's contribution to CO2 levels have cause any significant warming must be thrown out. Because anthropogenic global warming is religion, we will still have people who believe that carbon dioxide is bad even in the face of great cooling. The real crime is that we will divert valuable effort and resources to this non-problem, shifting even more money and power to government, when we could be fighting so many real problems. http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions
desertman desertman 8 years
FreedomGuy ... Thank you..
fizzissist fizzissist 8 years
FreedomGuy is dead nuts on the money on the science and politics. This hysteria is a religion, a cult. NOT science. Anyone swallowing Al Gore's preaching is sorely in need of some reality checking. Thanks! You saved me a whole bunch of typing!!!
fizzissist fizzissist 8 years
Oh boy...here it comes.... Jesus wants us to stop global warming, and he sent his only begotten son, Al Gore, to spread the message... Hey, science boy... How do you explain the receding ice caps on Mars and Triton?? Oh, must be somebody burning some wood that makes carbon...duh...Chemistry 101. How do you explain drowning cities when the RATE of sea level rise DECREASED in the 2nd half of the 20th century, when it should have increased? No, it wasn't more surfboards soaking up water at Zuma. How do you explain the Maunder? How do you explain the fact that Vikings settled Greenland when it was WARMER than today?? Oh, no...couldn't be natural variability. Again, for your educational viewing enjoyment (unless you're too engrossed getting your science from Robot Chicken)... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/videos/bobcarter.html Worse yet...here's a 15yr old girl's high school project that blows your science out of the water! http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaundercf/id12.html
theLemonMerchant theLemonMerchant 8 years
Bravo FreedomGuy! While it would be unrealistic to include your adherence to the laws of argument and your levels of knowledge and eloquence on the list of attainable aspirations for participants in politically-charged discussions, it's nice to dream. I have some reading to do. Thanks.
Loren-Rorex Loren-Rorex 8 years
Freedom Guy: Good logic but you leave out the reality of the Elephant in the room. Overpopulation. NEVER in any known history has the demand for resouces been higher. Now either everyone gets their way and gets to drive a Beemer. Which frankly is impossible to sustain globally, or only an overclass gets to while everyone else gets to "eat rocks". Or there has to be a dramatic reduction in population. Such being effected by a global or collective totalitarian regime(s) or by some natural calamities, plague, famine, etc. Famine is already being reported given the dramttic sudden surge of food prices driven up by commodities speculators, and the wasteful and inefficient use of corn as fuel subsidizations. Our government is just giving lip service to the populace while actually implementing policies that serve to only enrich those "riding the gravy train" at the expense of everyone else. The real problem is that most of the populace is too "somatized" by their unbroken supply of PBR, Doritos, and the 40th year of syndicated re-runs to get off their butts and protest. The politics of inertia. If you can't turn around a Titannic before it runs aground well one should leastways try to get out of the way.
Loren-Rorex Loren-Rorex 8 years
"Man made global warming aside, if we ever have to confront a real threat that someone - left or right - brings to our attention, we're doomed." The wise man see's before others see and makes fast his ark. That is the secret to surving through the millenia. The complexity of the hordes of humanity will spin out of control by the nature of it's multiplicity of influences. "Koyanisquatsi" is the word used by the ancient ones. Spinning out of control. Outcomes of complex interedependent situations become unpredictable other than to realize the lesson taught by the guy who used to be on the Ed Sullivan show twirling all the plates on top of dowels. When you stop inputting energy to the plates or acquire too many to service, they all come crashing down. Kind of like the new relationship between the FRB and "investment bankers". The "input energy" being fiat dollars and the investment bankers spinning as many plates as they can to keep the markets ARTIFICIALLY pumped up with those investment dollars while at the same time, exchanging their "bad loan" portfolios as collateral, and profiteering in oil and food commodity speculations at the expense of the beleagured lower classes. A sham shell game that is only sustainable as long as the fiat dollars continue. But sooner or later the fiat dollars will have to cease elsewise they will have devalued so much that a wheelbarrow full will get you a loaf of bread. The two resultants are either a worthless currency of just "monopoly money", or a withdrawl of the "energy input" now freely given to keep the markets "liquid". The writing is on the wall. The question is how many are literate enough to read it, and earnest enough to prepare a plan for when those "probable" outcomes occur. . . As the verse goes in "When The Levee Breaks": "Crying won't help ya, prayin' won't do you no good . . . when the levee breaks mama you got to move."
wazzupyou wazzupyou 8 years
Well said FreedomGuy. In response to a few coments above... Actually Jesus is the Son of God and the Bible is God's Words and has stood the test of time. It takes more faith to believe that this world happened into existence. Seriously the intricacies of the human body alone are enough to boggle the mind. Each person with their own fingerprint, eye pattern, and personality. Every face is unique. Not to mention how the earth is the only planet in which human life can exist. God created it to support human life. In fact if the earth were a few degrees one way, we would freeze to death and if it were a few degrees the other way we would be incinerated. Talk about global warming!
wazzupyou wazzupyou 8 years
Well said FreedomGuy. In response to a few coments above... Actually Jesus is the Son of God and the Bible is God's Words and has stood the test of time. It takes more faith to believe that this world happened into existence. Seriously the intricacies of the human body alone are enough to boggle the mind. Each person with their own fingerprint, eye pattern, and personality. Every face is unique. Not to mention how the earth is the only planet in which human life can exist. God created it to support human life. In fact if the earth were a few degrees one way, we would freeze to death and if it were a few degrees the other way we would be incinerated. Talk about global warming!
WACtravel WACtravel 8 years
Thank you Freedom Guy for your very comforting argument... and the Lemon Merchant - don't worry I have no intention on believing the media, the government or anyone else for that matter! On that note.. where do you get your facts from Freedom Guy? Why should I trust you instead of all of the 'experts' with years of training in their fields of research who would willingly put their reputations on the line, speaking on the film, 11th Hour?
WACtravel WACtravel 8 years
Thank you Freedom Guy for your very comforting argument... and the Lemon Merchant - don't worry I have no intention on believing the media, the government or anyone else for that matter!On that note.. where do you get your facts from Freedom Guy? Why should I trust you instead of all of the 'experts' with years of training in their fields of research who would willingly put their reputations on the line, speaking on the film, 11th Hour?
FreedomGuy FreedomGuy 8 years
Yahoo has a bad habit of posting every global warming alarmist story without doing their journalistic due diligence (not that the mainstream media is any better). There are a lot of extremists out there feeding press releases to the media on a regular basis, which the media accept unquestionably. The science of climate is fairly straightforward to anyone who does his or her homework. The earth's average temperature has tracked within a range of about 3-4 degrees for thousands of years. Within the last 1000 years, for example, it has ranged from about 1-2 degree C warmer than today in the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 A.D.) to the Little Ice Age when it was 1-2 degrees colder than today (1300-1850 A.D.). We are presently emerging from this Little Ice Age. Not surprisingly, after 150 years of emerging from this Little Ice Age, the average temperature is just about at the long-term average. Given the fact that we are emerging from this prolonged cold period, it is possible to report that it is warmer today than it has been in about 700-800 years and, yet, have this be relatively unremarkable. Certainly, nothing to be alarmed about. The problem is that there are people out there with other (largely socialistic, big government) agendas who want us to look at the past 30 years of slightly rising temperatures (three-tenths of a degree C) and hand over our freedoms to them to control. They hope you will not place temperature in its historical context, but will behave like a "presentist" and interpret everything by recent experience. The call for all this sacrifice is both wrongheaded and dangerous because prosperity equals improvement in environmental quality. Affluent nations are the ones with the money to clean up the environment (by contrast, witness the degradation in the former Soviet Union). Kyoto-like measures to unnecessarily reduce CO2 will only serve to dramatically harm the U.S. and world economies. The impact will be felt most strongly on the world's poor, 1.6 billion of whom lack access to electricity. In Africa, millions die early deaths because they heat with wood and animal dung. It is mostly women in these countries who spend hours just scouring the countryside for fuel when they could more productively use their time. Global warming measures will only serve to make their lives more unbearable. In order to justify the draconian measures proposed by the Kyoto Protocol, for example, the alarmists have to inject the results of computer models (Global Climate Models or GCMs) which attempt to predict future climate. But most climatologists will admit that these are highly problematic and were never intended to be a justification for government policy. Among their major limitations is an inability to account for the effect of cloud cover, which has an enormous effect on weather. And they can't even backcast with any precision (i.e. replicate recent temperature experience). Worst case scenario: temperatures will follow a linear path like that of the past 150 years and increase about .11 degrees C per decade to 2100, bringing us to about 1 degree above the long-term average. But if we repeat the experience of the 20th century, that increase would only be .6 degrees C. As for CO2, 70-90% of which is water vapor, not pollution from fossil fuels, many of the leading climatologists believe that CO2 follows warming, not the other way around. This is because rising temperatures cause CO2 in the oceans to be released. And what of this CO2 about which the alarmists rant? It constitutes a mere 38 molecules per 100,000 molecules of air (it's often expressed as 380 parts per million), and is increasing at the rate of one molecule every five years. There is no way that this minor increase is going to have an effect on a highly complex and largely self-regulating weather or climate system. Does CO2 have an effect on the earth's temperature? Perhaps, but it has to be extremely modest, probably in the range of 10-20% at best. The rest is natural climate cycle, or variability. The far more significant factors are solar activity (specifically cosmic ray particles), as well as the earth's axial tilt, its axial wobble, and the shape of the earth's orbit around the sun. Finally, this premise of article has no basis in fact. The leading scientists measuring sea levels predict about a 6-inch increase per century, give or take 4 inches, the same level it has experienced for hundreds of years. In fact, Nils Axel Morner, the Swedish geologist who was president of the Sea Level Commission, reported that there has been no increase over the past 300 years and that satellite telemetry shows no increase over the past decade. He is quoted as saying of these alarmists claims that "this is nothing but falsification of scientific observational facts." So whether you plan on vacationing in London, Venice, the Galapagos Islands, or Tuvalu, go and enjoy yourself and don't let Al Gore spoil your vacation.
FreedomGuy FreedomGuy 8 years
Yahoo has a bad habit of posting every global warming alarmist story without doing their journalistic due diligence (not that the mainstream media is any better). There are a lot of extremists out there feeding press releases to the media on a regular basis, which the media accept unquestionably.The science of climate is fairly straightforward to anyone who does his or her homework. The earth's average temperature has tracked within a range of about 3-4 degrees for thousands of years. Within the last 1000 years, for example, it has ranged from about 1-2 degree C warmer than today in the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 A.D.) to the Little Ice Age when it was 1-2 degrees colder than today (1300-1850 A.D.). We are presently emerging from this Little Ice Age. Not surprisingly, after 150 years of emerging from this Little Ice Age, the average temperature is just about at the long-term average. Given the fact that we are emerging from this prolonged cold period, it is possible to report that it is warmer today than it has been in about 700-800 years and, yet, have this be relatively unremarkable. Certainly, nothing to be alarmed about. The problem is that there are people out there with other (largely socialistic, big government) agendas who want us to look at the past 30 years of slightly rising temperatures (three-tenths of a degree C) and hand over our freedoms to them to control. They hope you will not place temperature in its historical context, but will behave like a "presentist" and interpret everything by recent experience.The call for all this sacrifice is both wrongheaded and dangerousbecause prosperity equals improvement in environmental quality. Affluent nations are the ones with the money to clean up the environment (by contrast, witness the degradation in the former Soviet Union). Kyoto-like measures to unnecessarily reduce CO2 will only serve to dramatically harm the U.S. and world economies. The impact will be felt most strongly on the world's poor, 1.6 billion of whom lack access to electricity. In Africa, millions die early deaths because they heat with wood and animal dung.It is mostly women in these countries who spend hours just scouring the countryside for fuel when they could more productively use their time. Global warming measures will only serve to make their lives more unbearable. In order to justify the draconian measures proposed by the Kyoto Protocol, for example, the alarmists have to inject the results of computer models (Global Climate Models or GCMs) which attempt to predict future climate. But most climatologists will admit that these are highly problematic and were never intended to be a justification for government policy. Among their major limitations is an inability to account for the effect of cloud cover, which has an enormous effect on weather. And they can't even backcast with any precision (i.e. replicate recent temperature experience). Worst case scenario: temperatures will follow a linear path like that of the past 150 years and increase about .11 degrees C per decade to 2100, bringing us to about 1 degree above the long-term average. But if we repeat the experience of the 20th century, that increase would only be .6 degrees C.As for CO2, 70-90% of which is water vapor, not pollution from fossil fuels, many of the leading climatologists believe that CO2 follows warming, not the other way around. This is because rising temperatures cause CO2 in the oceans to be released. And what of this CO2 about which the alarmists rant? It constitutes a mere 38 molecules per 100,000 molecules of air (it's often expressed as 380 parts per million), and is increasing at the rate of one molecule every five years. There is no way that this minor increase is going to have an effect on a highly complex and largely self-regulating weather or climate system. Does CO2 have an effect on the earth's temperature? Perhaps, but it has to be extremely modest, probably in the range of 10-20% at best. The rest is natural climate cycle, or variability. The far more significant factors are solar activity (specifically cosmic ray particles), as well as the earth's axial tilt, its axial wobble, and the shape of the earth's orbit around the sun.Finally, this premise of article has no basis in fact. The leading scientists measuring sea levels predict about a 6-inch increase per century, give or take 4 inches, the same level it has experienced for hundreds of years. In fact, Nils Axel Morner, the Swedish geologist who was president of the Sea Level Commission, reported that there has been no increase over the past 300 years and that satellite telemetry shows no increase over the past decade. He is quoted as saying of these alarmists claims that "this is nothing but falsification of scientific observational facts." So whether you plan on vacationing in London, Venice, the Galapagos Islands, or Tuvalu, go and enjoy yourself and don't let Al Gore spoil your vacation.
theLemonMerchant theLemonMerchant 8 years
Holy Elizabeth Mother of John, who are you people talking to? Most every poster believes that man made global warming is a hoax. It seems like you're rallying against comments from another Web site. But here's a question: why do people get so worked up about this? Really? Let's begin by granting that Al Gore is wrong. I have no idea if he is or not. There are thousands of bright people out there in the field on both sides vehemently defending their beliefs. I could never know who's right. Never. I could dedicate the rest of my life studying the climate, and I would never know the answer. Never, never, ever, never ever. But let's grant that Al's wrong. And, although I may lose some of you on this one, let's grant that Al Gore is not motivated by a socialistic lust to control you. But he's wrong. He’s wrong up there on the world stage, and people are amused, and scared and inspired and pissed. But why pissed? Here it comes, that most anticipated moment: the part where I bash Bush. Well, yes. But it's more the part where I talk about us – on both sides of the aisle. Honestly. We all know about the President's abysmal approval ratings, and we also all remember when they soared. His support has dwindled over the years, slowly. But he's still the same guy with the same philosophies making the same decisions. It's only our perception that's changed. Why did it take so long? I think it would be impossible to argue that it's not because we've been conditioned to caricature each other. It's harder to admit that your team is a walking calamity if you have so much of your ego invested in trashing the morons on the other team. Maybe you're walking down 42nd Street munching on some freedom fries and turn your head at the sight of Times headline about Walter Reed scandal. It's not the government who conditions us to think the same way or use the same initially clever but ultimately vapid insults, but we’re conditioned nonetheless. But at some point, you'd think we'd be humbled. You'd think that when we finally see that we were misled into backing and bearing policies only to reap their disastrous consequences- all the while mocking the other guys (sometimes by calling them sheep) - that we'd take a step back instead of listening to the same voices. Their enemies are always the same, even if their champions fall into ruins. Man made global warming aside, if we ever have to confront a real threat that someone - left or right - brings to our attention, we're doomed. And if an alien newspaper were to publish the story, the headline wouldn’t read: "Oppressive, Bible thumping, racist conservatives blow up Earth" or "Military-hating, Communist, tax-and-spend, Godless liberals destroy planet". It would read: "Infantile, partisan citizenry absorbed in petty squabbles while cockroaches devour world's supply of electromagnetism". Or something.
theLemonMerchant theLemonMerchant 8 years
Holy Elizabeth Mother of John, who are you people talking to? Most every poster believes that man made global warming is a hoax. It seems like you're rallying against comments from another Web site. But here's a question: why do people get so worked up about this? Really? Let's begin by granting that Al Gore is wrong. I have no idea if he is or not. There are thousands of bright people out there in the field on both sides vehemently defending their beliefs. I could never know who's right. Never. I could dedicate the rest of my life studying the climate, and I would never know the answer. Never, never, ever, never ever. But let's grant that Al's wrong. And, although I may lose some of you on this one, let's grant that Al Gore is not motivated by a socialistic lust to control you. But he's wrong. He’s wrong up there on the world stage, and people are amused, and scared and inspired and pissed. But why pissed?Here it comes, that most anticipated moment: the part where I bash Bush. Well, yes. But it's more the part where I talk about us – on both sides of the aisle. Honestly. We all know about the President's abysmal approval ratings, and we also all remember when they soared. His support has dwindled over the years, slowly. But he's still the same guy with the same philosophies making the same decisions. It's only our perception that's changed. Why did it take so long? I think it would be impossible to argue that it's not because we've been conditioned to caricature each other. It's harder to admit that your team is a walking calamity if you have so much of your ego invested in trashing the morons on the other team. Maybe you're walking down 42nd Street munching on some freedom fries and turn your head at the sight of Times headline about Walter Reed scandal.It's not the government who conditions us to think the same way or use the same initially clever but ultimately vapid insults, but we’re conditioned nonetheless. But at some point, you'd think we'd be humbled. You'd think that when we finally see that we were misled into backing and bearing policies only to reap their disastrous consequences- all the while mocking the other guys (sometimes by calling them sheep) - that we'd take a step back instead of listening to the same voices. Their enemies are always the same, even if their champions fall into ruins. Man made global warming aside, if we ever have to confront a real threat that someone - left or right - brings to our attention, we're doomed. And if an alien newspaper were to publish the story, the headline wouldn’t read: "Oppressive, Bible thumping, racist conservatives blow up Earth" or "Military-hating, Communist, tax-and-spend, Godless liberals destroy planet". It would read: "Infantile, partisan citizenry absorbed in petty squabbles while cockroaches devour world's supply of electromagnetism". Or something.
AmazonQueen AmazonQueen 8 years
When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. -Abraham Lincoln
Homemade Drain Cleaner
Cool Upcycling Projects
List of Things to Dispose Of
Clean Hard Water Stains
How to Freeze Bread
How to Store Tomatoes
DIY Cleaning Products

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
X