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?

Gallery | This entry was posted in Editorial Draft, Feedback Please. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Editorial Draft – bmdpiano

  1. morra2024 says:

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

    Like

    • 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!

      Like

  2. 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!

    Like

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s