Divorce is not just a family matter. It exacts a serious toll on the environment by boosting the energy and water consumption of those who used to live together, according to a study by two Michigan State University researchers.
The analysis found that cohabiting couples and families around the globe use resources more efficiently than households that have split up. The researchers calculated that in 2005, divorced American households used between 42 and 61 percent more resources per person than before they separated, spending 46 percent more per person on electricity and 56 percent more on water.
They needed a study for this? Think of the time and money they could have saved if they knew the aphorism "Two can live cheaper than one." Couples can announce to their environmentally conscience parents "We have good news. We are going to be combining water and electric bills."
This line of thought though can also be used to justify "shacking up" that they would be environmentally irresponsible if they didn’t shack up.
12 comments
It just seems like 95% of believable studies are things that you didn’t need a study to prove anyhow.
But the actual motivation for this study would seem to be that, after experiencing a kind of gestalt that–hey, divorce really is bad–they cast about for a way to explain that it was bad, not by showing how it has bad consequences for humans or human society or the kingdom of God, or any of those old-fashioned criteria for sin, but by holding it up to the yardstick of Gaia environmentalism and revealing that it is a “sin” against Mother Earth. Now there’s the kind of “sin” that we in post-Christendom can understand.
It just seems like 95% of believable studies are things that you didn’t need a study to prove anyhow.
I seem to remember someone’s forum sig saying, 78.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.”
And Little Gidding nails it, We are Gaia. We will assimilate you. Resistance is futile.
“Research: experts ‘proving’ what the rest of us thought was common knowledge.” ~mlb
MSU began as a land grant institution — still is, but of course, the payscale at many higher ed institutions is determined by one’s research output. Someone’s not being too careful about the studies they’re awarding grant money to!!
I’m still waiting for the study pointing out the obvious ecological economies of scale obtained by having a LARGE family. ONE household containing many children– clothes and baby equipment get reused instead of thrown away, bulk purchases of food reduce packaging, etc. We have eight kids so far, which under “normal-sized” circumstances would necessitate four separate households. Shouldn’t that qualify us for a grant or something? 🙂
I wondered when this was going to come up…all these single people living on their own, wasting heat and other valuable resources, the materials to build their condos, etc,
“I wondered when this was going to come up…all these single people living on their own, wasting heat and other valuable resources, the materials to build their condos, etc…”
Yes, but the solution is not to marry and be fruitful – it’s to shack up with someone and sterilize yourself to as to avoid producing “little polluters”.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/23/the-latest-eco-fads-abortion-and-tube-tying/
When it’s logical that large, fiscally responsible families actually consume less or equal to DINK couples or singles.
Also, the “green” movement is targeting Hanukkah as contributing to global warming:
http://realdebatewisconsin.blogspot.com/2007/12/add-one-more.html
Nothing is sacred to the religion that is Global Warming.
Another way divorce hurts the environment:
1 divorce
=> 2 lawyers getting big paychecks
=> 2 big car payments with big gas consumption going to 2 cottages on the lake where 2 speedboats pull waterskiers
=> global warming
Just think of the advantages of massive, orgiastic communes! Lots of adults, lots of children, everyone sleeping together = minimal energy spent on heating!
And when the abused children kill themselves in despair, they can eat the bodies right away or smoke them for later!
*roll eyes*
I am the eldest of six kids, and I am wondering how the person with 8 found a home to fit you! I mean we can’t find anything! I mean the house we are renting right now the four girls share the master bedroom, my parents have one of the small bedrooms that shares a jack-n-jill bathroom with the toyroom and the boys sleep in a bedroom with no closet so their clothes are on the complete opposite side of the house in the toy room. (My parents did not want to share a bathroom with my brothers.) So we are uncomfortable! And everytime we look at homes the cheapest ones that are not falling apart that can also fit us are over $1,000,000. We live in Las Vegas and the prices here are rediculous, but still. These homes are built for 2-3 kids at most!
Maybe if they started building homes that were more suited for lots of people living in them then relatives would live with more people and that would be “green.” In the not too distant past it was not strange for a few generations of a family to share a house. Now even one family cannot share a house.
Mary,
My father grew up in a bedroom with no closet. They had a outhouse and a “cold kitchen” (not heated) in Michigan until he was 15 when they built an addition to the house.
Las Vegas is a fairly young town. The house I live in was built in 1917 and has 6 bedrooms, but is only 2,000 feet. Smaller houses were built after World War II because people were having fewer kids. Hopefully your parents can find an older house (probably not in Vegas) that has enough room for you all. This house was originally built for 8 people (two adults and 6 kids). Your parents won’t be able to afford the huge new houses that cost $1 million.
Comments are closed.