You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
proko5 's review for:
I found this book fascinating, informative, and accessible. Geography has always been an interest of mine, but mostly the knowing where things are and what they're called, and not so much the how they got that way and what it all means. Prisoners of Geography looks at each global power, and when it runs out of those the continents, and lastly the Arctic, and discusses how each one' geography (mountain ranges, coastal plains, river networks, etc) has effected their development, their partners in trade, and their enemies at war. For me, it was an eye-opening reminder of my naive, sheltered life that keeps me far from war.
Oil, gas, and coal come up a lot, water power comes up a little, and wind and solar do not make an appearance (since they're accessible to everyone regardless of geography). He doesn't really discuss the ramifications of coal mining, oil drilling, or shale gas extraction, except for a brief, very veiled allusion to fracking in the Latin America chapter. He also takes a neutral stance on global warming: acknowledging the danger of rising ocean levels to low-lying countries, but pointing out less Arctic ice means easier navigation and a smaller carbon footprint, plus an increase in vegetation and arable land. I've never heard this point of view, and I worry he's not accurately assessing the risks of climate change.
But to sum up, a great read. It filled in a lot of holes for me regarding international relations in the Middle East and Afghanistan, how the US got and keeps its power, and who's friends with who on the global stage.
Oil, gas, and coal come up a lot, water power comes up a little, and wind and solar do not make an appearance (since they're accessible to everyone regardless of geography). He doesn't really discuss the ramifications of coal mining, oil drilling, or shale gas extraction, except for a brief, very veiled allusion to fracking in the Latin America chapter. He also takes a neutral stance on global warming: acknowledging the danger of rising ocean levels to low-lying countries, but pointing out less Arctic ice means easier navigation and a smaller carbon footprint, plus an increase in vegetation and arable land. I've never heard this point of view, and I worry he's not accurately assessing the risks of climate change.
But to sum up, a great read. It filled in a lot of holes for me regarding international relations in the Middle East and Afghanistan, how the US got and keeps its power, and who's friends with who on the global stage.