The magazine Fast Company has done a story on golf courses and how they're trying to "clean up their act."
It's probably a bad sign when the descriptions "water-sucking" and "pesticide-covered" are both used in a headline, isn't it?
Well, they tried to do a story that was positive. And three of their sources -- Audubon International, the GCSAA and the Golf Environmental Organization -- did a fine job of representing the industry. It's the in-between that hurts.
Why compare a golf course's water use with the water use of a family of four? Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare a business versus a business? Maybe even use a business like golf that depends on water?
1 comment:
If the Lawn grasses can cope up with the stress, it will be healthy and dense and will be able to resist disease. Sometime the disease may spread and it becomes out of any control. However, the disease resistant cultivars can be implemented to avoid future problems.
Post a Comment