TIME magazine (which is a website) named Greta Thunberg “Person of the Year” back in 2019.

I have a couple quibbles… First, the qualification for ‘Person of the Year’ as defined by TIME Magazine (which is a website) states that the title goes to the person who has the biggest effect on the planet. If you’ll recall, TIME named Adolf Hitler as a ‘Person of the Year.’

Now, the obvious thought that comes to my mind is, well… Wouldn’t that person ALWAYS be the President of the United States, as the U.S. President CLEARLY has the biggest global impact every year? The answer is yes. But TIME doesn’t think that plays very well, so instead, they pick (objectively) the second most influential person.

While there is always contention of who is selected as ‘Person of the Year’ in TIME Magazine (which is a website), two years ago was my biggest eye roll when Greta Thunberg graced the TIME cover (header on their website). Of all the people, the shouty European 17-year-old? Seemed like an odd choice for TIME Magazine (which is a website).

BUT as the years have gone by, I think I’m coming around to Greta having the biggest impact on the globe. I just think TIME Magazine (which is a website) gave her the title just a few years too early.

Here’s why… Greta is arguably the biggest voice in the green movement. She’s been invited to the UN, and her crowd’s energy has no doubt spurred policy changes around the globe. While those policy changes, when enacted, weren’t exactly headline news, the fallout seems to have been.

Over the past several years, the world, and primarily Europe, have become dependent (to an extent) on Russian oil. Why? Well, because much of the developed world decided they didn’t want to produce their own oil for fear of being called a ‘climate meanie’ by the then 17-year-old, Greta. So they halted large parts of their crude oil production within their countries to appease the ‘Person of the Year.’

Here’s the problem, just because a country wants to ‘go green’ immediately doesn’t mean they immediately lessen their need for energy… Just because those countries’ politicians didn’t want to be caught producing oil didn’t mean they stopped needing it. So instead, they decided to start buying much of their oil abroad, and many turned to countries whose leaders didn’t care about becoming the focal point of mean Greta tweets.

Enter Putin.

Because the angry 17-year old’s wrath didn’t affect Putin, he and Russia continued to produce oil and have since become the third-largest producer of oil in the world. Fast forward, Russia was able to 1) stockpile cash by selling oil and 2) create European dependency on their energy, WHICH many would say is the reason Putin (ill-advised as it may be) felt he had the ability to invade Ukraine.

SO am I blaming Greta Thunberg for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? Not exactly. But I’m also not doing that because IF it were the case that the shouting 17-year old’s wrath put the developed world on a path to Russian energy independence, which led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I think she quite possibly could have had the biggest effect on the globe and therefore should be the ‘Person of the Year’ in TIME Magazine (which is a website).