I like writing. And I love what you can conjure up with words. So I am always interested in learning more on using them. Hence I subscribe to a nice little site called Daily Writing Tips.
You do learn a lot. Usually it's more factual stuff but, in this case, they delved into an area more concerned with the writer's lot: telecommuting.
And my interest was further piqued by the point made about the environmental advantages conferred.
However, as it is a rather critical aspect of the way these issues get discussed, explained, etc, I rather dangerously (these guys are literature experts) decided to pose a question and offer a thought as something didn't read right:
‘Global warming is a benefactor of telecommuting!’
Just chewing this over and wondering (which is why I read and value the tips posted), but isn’t it more the other way round: that ‘telecommuting is a benefactor to global warming mitigation’?
I do believe that ‘global warming’ (though I prefer the longer, but perhaps more accurate ‘probably man-worsened climate change’, as often the negative effects of climate change can result in colder conditions. And there is also still some credible debate on whether ‘man’ is responsible exclusively, though we sure are not helping anything much) is not a good thing, and hence for preference should be in some way dealt with through positive environmental actions on our parts. Hence the value of some qualifying descriptor.
So, might one suggest:
‘Reduced global warming is another beneficial result (or can a process be a beneficary?) of telecommuting!’
Just playing with the words. What is for sure is that reducing our need and/or desire to travel will certainly go a long way in helping lower our negative environmental impacts!
I just hope I was correct or I am going to get soooo flamed!
No comments:
Post a Comment