Monday, December 14, 2015

Semantic antics

So, agreement was finally reached in Paris on "the most significant international climate change deal in history". But it nearly didn't happen - thanks to a single word. "Shall" and "should" may seem pretty much synonymous, but they're not - the former conveying obligation (in this particular instance, binding legal obligation to set targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution). The switch from "should" to "shall" caused alarm among the American delegation and they only agreed to the deal once the wording was changed back. It all just goes to show the value of, ahem, an eagle-eyed proofreader...

That the change of wording might have caused such consternation for the Americans shouldn't really come as any surprise. After all, this is a country in which even former science teachers are ignorant enough (or brainwashed by the climate-deniers enough) to believe that it's reasonable to reject plans for a proposed solar farm on the grounds that the panels "suck up all the energy from the sun"...

(Thanks to Owen for the second link.)

No comments: