Editorial Draft—bmdpiano

Will Ignorance Ultimately Kill Our Planet?

Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro, among other politicians are slow to aid Earth’s cry for help and people are becoming angry.   

It all began in the 1800’s, when the curiosity of human produced gases, such as CO2 being able to collect in the Earth’s atmosphere and insulate us provoked many experiments. By the time it was the late 1950’s, CO2 readings could begin to foreshadow the future of climate changing world. It is now 2019, and though there is activism to push the idea of slowing the global warming process, many politicians (of all countries) refuse to agree with science and take action. 

Take Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro for example. The Amazon Rainforest fires have hit an 80% increase in this alone. The Amazon holds many important resources for survival, and they continue to burn with the slow help of Bolsonaro. After the refusal of $22 million from the member of G7, Bolsonaro painted an even worse image of himself not only to the citizens of Brazil, but to the entire world. Many environmentalists say that a bulk of wildfires were set by cattle ranchers and loggers to utilize the bare land. It is understandable that the Brazilian government wants to aid their people and provide more resources, but killing a planet’s ecosystem is not the way to go about it. Though Bolsonaro has sent 2,500 troops to aid the fires, he continues to fuel them. When the worries over the Amazon rose and the leaders of European countries began to criticize Bolsonaro’s policies, he refuted that “the Amazon is Brazil’s, not yours.” This shows that it all comes down to money and other politicians follow in these footsteps. 

The youth continues to protest as this is becoming a more serious issue each day. The anxiety of saving the planet has now turned into anger towards those who have the power to do so, but refuse to do their part. Money seems to be their main concern rather than a generation who is being handed down this beautiful planet. They should consider the question, how will you make money when there won’t be a world to make money in anymore? 

While a set of politicians recline in their expensive office chairs, we can do our part by recycling and reducing our carbon footprint. A little goes a long way in a world of 7 billion people, and a smaller amount of destruction to Earth can help slow the global warming process. To those who still do not partake in these activities, it’s time to quit being ignorant and apathetic. Everyday, species become more endangered because of human made gases and a poor job of keeping our planet clean. Endangering species changes the ecosystem which in turn affects us. What is more important, an easy trip to throw an aluminum can in the garbage or the future of a bright generation?

This entry was posted in bmdpiano, BMDPiano Portfolio, Editorial Draft. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Editorial Draft—bmdpiano

  1. davidbdale says:

    I like your plan to ask first about structure, Piano, so I’ll try to restrict my comments to structure on this round of feedback, saving notes about individual sentences, grammar, and punctuation for a later round.

    You start with a title that is a Rhetorical Question. It’s a good one, provocative and crucial. It makes a big promise you’ll need to answer. If the answer isn’t here, change your title.

    Your subtitle is good too but it might be misleading. Will you hold many politicians to account, or just Bolsonaro? If not, why mention them? Also, one can aid the Earth, but not a cry. A cry does not need aid.

    P1. Your first paragraph does not create the urgency you intend, Piano.
    —We have no idea what you mean by “It.”
    —If you mean that in the 1800s we became curious about the possible effects of human-produced CO2 on the atmostphere and as a result conducted experiments, then I understand, but I’m really guessing.
    —Insulation sounds like a good thing. After all, without the atmosphere insulating us from sunlight, we’d cook.
    —Half a century later(?) we concluded that what? “The future of a climate changing world” could be anything.
    —Now activists are beginning to make noise about global warming and governments are slow to act.
    As you narrate the slow approach to understanding today’s better awareness, you actually give humanity a pass here, Piano, instead of sounding out the urgency that should have motivated us to change at each step of our education. We were curious, we conducted thoughtful experiments, we began to gather data that changed our curiosity to concern until the most nervous among us began to sound the alarm. Can’t blame anyone for that.

    P2. To be effective here, Piano, you need to establish why the Amazon Rainforest is critical to the environmental health of the planet. You haven’t done that.
    —Apparently there are fires there.
    —They’ve “hit an 80% increase,” but we don’t know if that’s a big deal. A fire that starts in my wastebasket hits 80% by the time it spreads to my bathtowel, but it doesn’t threaten the planet.
    —The Amazon holds resources for sure, but are they the primary concern? Or is the real danger that without the actual trees in the actual forest producing O2 and absorbing CO2 we lose our biggest hedge against planetary warming?
    —We don’t know what it means to refuse $22 million from the G7. Were they offering aid to help put out fires?
    —Try to avoid metaphors that don’t advance your argument. What does it mean to “paint an image of oneself”?
    —Ranchers are clearing land to make more room for cattle?
    —Do they have to use fire?
    —Why not bulldoze the trees?
    —How does the government “aid their people” in this scenario? By setting fires? Or by refusing to prevent the fires?
    —Did Bolsonaro send troops to STOP the fires?
    —What does it mean to fuel them?
    —What are Bolsonaro’s “policies” that world leaders decry?
    —Don’t you want to argue that the rainforest grows in Brazil, but that the whole world shares the atmosphere?
    —When you say “it all comes down to money,” what do you mean? Is Bolsonaro personally profiting from the fires? Or is this a government policy to cut environmental regulation as a way to boost the beef industry?

    P3. Like the two examples of vague “its” earlier, your “this” is unclear in “this is becoming a more serious issue each day.” Again you’re not clear how the failure to contain or prevent fires is a matter of money. Who’s benefitting, and could they do so without bribing officials? Are you suggesting government corruption? We’re not sure.

    P4. This shift to our individual responsibility is a bit abrupt, Piano. I was expecting something with more bite. Yes we can each do a little to use aluminum twice, but that won’t begin to offset the burning of the last of our carbon-fixing plants. The stronger strategy here would be to invoke the passion and anger of Greta Thunberg and suggest that we all bicycle to the next big rally we can find to add our angry voices to the chorus demanding massive changes to the global economy that will burn anything if the fire throws off a few pennies of profit.

    You have a good topic here, and pointing out the complicity of governments to promote short-term profits for their local economy even when businesses threaten the planet is certainly worth 1000 words. But you’ll need to be clearer on how Bolsonaro benefits to explain why he would turn down aid and dig in so hard on what is obviously a big problem for the planet.

    Was that helpful? I understand it can sometimes be discouraging to receive so much feedback. Please respond and of course request more help when you’ve made significant revisions. Thank you for the opportunity to interact.


  2. morra2024 says:

    I’ll be back to provide peer review for this one.


    • morra2024 says:

      A passionate piece of work – loved it. As I have mentioned in the review of the work of others, checking for logical flow isn’t necessarily my strong point. I prefer to check for grammar and the wording in sentences:
      1. “man-made gases” would sound much better than “human produced”, with the latter looking more like a noun and verb to, which, in the context of your sentence, does not make sense to me.
      2. I believe a comma is necessary before “provoked.”
      3. Comma before “for example,” in the second paragraph.
      4. What does “Slow help of Bolsonaro” mean? Does it mean that he is directly committing acts of arson?
      5. I think that the “not only, but also” should be used like this, “To not only the citizens of Brazil, but to the entire world.”
      6. “Though Bolsonaro has sent 2,500 troops to aid the fires, he continues to fuel them.” What does “aid the fires,” mean? Who or what does he fuel? The troops or the fires?
      7. “Smaller amount of destruction,” implies to me one of two things: that either destruction is okay and we just need lesser amounts of it; or that we need additional destruction, just in slower amounts.

      I did my best. Hope it helps!


  3. bmdpiano says:

    Hello, would I able to get feedback on how I structured my editorial? I tried following the editorials on the NY Times cite, but I think it would be beneficial to double check how I interpreted it. Thank you!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s