It would be much easier to...

< Previous | Next >

wingedfish

Member
chinese
Hello, guys,
I wrote the following sentence in WORD, and it keeps telling me that this is an ungrammatical sentence, could you check it for me, please?

It would be much easier to slow down climate change if we reduced taxes in bio-energy?

Should I say:

It would be much easier to slow down climate change if we were to reduce taxes in bio-energy.

In fact, I changed this sentence from the original : What is the point of overtaxing fossils fuels when it would be much easier to reduce taxes in bio-energy?
I know that the original one is perfectly right, but I think the WHEN-clause itself contains a hypothetical situation, so I rewrote it. Is my sentence correct in trying to explain the hypothetical sense by the WHEN-clause?

Thank you very much!
 
  • Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Your sentence looks fine to me, except that it should be taxes on bio-energy, not in.
     

    wingedfish

    Member
    chinese
    Thank you Loob, but could you tell me whether I should use "were to reduce" or "reduced"? I think "were to reduce" is better because this is an action not yet achieved. Do you agree with me?
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Both are grammatically correct, wingedfish. "Were to reduce" implies a slightly more remote possibility.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top