5 ms·
Well, the title doesn't say "100% of Costa Rica's Electricity is Now Renewable", it says "Costa Rica Is Now Running on 100% Renewable Electricity." That transl
by mattlutze 12y ago
Well, the title doesn't say "100% of Costa Rica's Electricity is Now Renewable", it says "Costa Rica Is Now Running on 100% Renewable Electricity."
That translates out to "What Costa Rica runs on is 100% renewable." It's likely pedantic to discuss it, but I will wager that no, the construction of that title was less than explicitly mindful. The ambiguity is reinforced multiple times throughout the article.
- jacquesm 12y ago> That translates out to "What Costa Rica runs on is 100% renewable." No it doesn't. You changed the meaning.
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y agoThat's pretty much correct. The article's title at first glance looks like it says (Costa Rica Is Now Running on) (100% Renewable Electricity). This is a subjective grammatical nitpick, but it would be foolish to say that it's not there at all. Further, the article text isn't mindful of the distinction either , so I'm happy that I raised the topic, with the resulting discussion around the share of total energy used for transport vs grid, and with my original wording of "as the title might suggest". (emphasis now on "might". YMMV. )
- mikeash 12y agoThat title can just as easily mean that Costa Rica's electricity is 100% renewable as it could mean that all of Costa Rica's energy is 100% renewable electricity. Given two equally correct meanings, choose the one that actually makes any sense in context.