There is a swamp of commentary surrounding climate change. With every disappearing iceberg comes another pundit explaining the need for action over frivolous infighting.
This does not reflect my opinion of Friedman’s article “Putin’s War is a Crime Against the Planet,” though. Friedman does a fantastic job of bringing to light the under-discussed repercussions of war, namely focusing on how war is harmful to the climate of the Earth.
He begins by explaining how far reaching this war’s impact is and how it has such a reach. The world has become so interconnected. There is now instant communication, travel methods that are faster than anything the human race has seen prior, and large amounts of international trade. The world has become a singular ecosystem as opposed to the many microcosms it was before. “[T]he world is flatter than ever.”
With this newly connected organism, it now means that any change to one part affects the whole. This is why Putin’s reprehensible attack will have widespread effects. The large amount of fuel and other natural resources used will expel huge quantities of gases into the atmosphere. Global trade commerce will take a large hit, and people’s lives will be affected by the pictures and reports sent over instant communication. It is a wave placed upon a calm lake.
Of specific interest to Friedman was the exorbitant use of natural resources by the war. Necessary valuables such as oil and gas is of the most talked about. The war has led to shortages on these products, and with necessity comes desperation. Friedman explains that there are large amounts of untapped oil reserves hidden in the thick foliage of remote forests. Ranging from The Amazon to Canada, these tree sanctuaries are ripe with natural resources, and they become threatened because of that. Friedman goes into minute detail over this correlation, and that is appreciated.
Overall, Friedman’s article serves a great purpose and lays out sources to justify itself. As an opinion piece, it is important to not only say how one feels, but why one feels. Friedman does thing incredibly well. Personally, I would have enjoyed a magnifying glass placed on how the political climate’s affect on the world would look like. Explaining the repercussions more thoroughly might have added a bit more punch to the writing and would have helped to strengthen Friedman’s points. This article was a great read over a topic that unfortunately must be spoken about.
Cheesecakeify My Opinion 
Trying to get people to grasp the scale of the climate problem or other environmental challenges often times feels like pulling teeth. Even when its directly impacting their community, the old saying “you can take a horse to water but you can’t make him drink” holds very true.
I oftentimes think we need to reconsider the ways we talk about climate. Screeching about it on Twitter probably doesn’t do enough to move the needle. Writing about it in blogs read by our personal networks might get it to wiggle, but not much. The real challenge in getting people to acknowledge the situation is having an effective way to show them the scale of the catastrophes being caused. There’s an argument for doing that through VR, but developers are competing with the alternate movement in VR to provide escapism in the long term.
I have to say I don’t have the answers, but I’m happy to see there’s people out there asking the questions.
LikeLike
I really like what you say here: “As an opinion piece, it is important to not only say how one feels, but why one feels.”
Friedman has always been good at this. Really thoughtful analysis.
LikeLike