Enviro Wanna Save the Planet?
posted by on December 4 at 8:42 AM
Don’t divorce the bastard.
Forget about staying together for the sake of the kids. Researchers have a new reason: Do it for the planet.An analysis of data on domestic relations and resource use in the U.S. and 11 other countries shows that divorce leads to more households—so more land gets built up and more building materials are used. They concluded that in the U.S. circa 2000, there were about 6 million “extra” households due to divorce.
Worse yet, the households have fewer people in them. So on a per capita basis, divorced residents consume more goods, use more electricity and water, and thus contribute to the emission of more greenhouse gases than those whose marriages are intact.
I've always been anti-divorce, now I have scientific data to back up my position. Thanx Dan!
"Always been anti-divorce?" How quaint.
But really this makes another case for same-sex marriage. If more of us can marry we can save the planet.
I'm going to use this to try and get a date. Oh what my sad sad life has come to.
Actually this is a case for murdering your spouse instead of divorcing him - one less person in the world spreading their carbon around (and no alimony!).
And another good argument for polygamy as well.
Not to mention parents that divorice and remary, make more babies, and their first kids are doomed to shuttle visits to go "visit" daddy or go "visit" mommy. Ugh!
Yes, think of all the emissions being put out just from shuttling those kids around all the time.
Join my harem, ladies. It's for the sake of Mother Earth.
This is a great argument for polygamy. Also, a great argument for "live in your parents' basements until you're 45". Better still, practice polygamy while living in your parents' basement.
If you're that concerned about the planet,
the best thing for it would be for everyone to kill each other.
Are we there yet?
I could do more for the planet by killing any random ten people in Medina.
This study has nothing to do with "marriage," it's cohabitation that saves the earth.
I'm with #4 on this one. Just make sure a good life insurance policy is in place.
Why don't they just recommend co-habitation? It takes trees to make a marriage license.
Just another way the right is keeping women stuck in bad marriages. Besides why MARRIAGE? Most of the good relationships I have seen don't involve walking down the aisle (but, of course, if someone wants to do that I am all for it.)
Jeezus! You're just looking for a fight, aren't you?
Part of this is due to the divorce decrees - I remember some divorced moms telling me they legally had to rent a 2 bedroom place, even if they had a small kid and the kid wanted to sleep in the same bed as them.
Blame the lawyers. I find that always works.
Let's see how I'm doing:
1. In an 11-year relationship (+)
2. Not married (-)
3. Not living together (-)
4. No kids (+)
5. Share one rarely-used camper van (+)
Looks okay to me. Cohabitation is overrated!
Yes, cohabitation.
Many Seattleites live by themselves, in a house (1800-3000 SF) that decades ago housed 3-5 people (in something called a "family," I think). Neighborhood groups/the City prevent such single dwellers from easily turning the upstairs or the basement (or the garage) into another dwelling unit.
Or three. Even though this would _create_ hoursing, _create_ affordable housing, and _create_ more rentals -- exactly what we need.
And be more eco-logical.
We call 75% or our land "single family" zone, but really lots of it is a wasteful "single person" zone.
Not slamming those who want to live alone; our general policies should give us more choices when the basic family structure has changed so much.
No one has 3 kids any more, really.
That doesn't even make sense! Didn't separate households exist between members of most couples BEFORE they got married?
Left wingers are such closeted social conservatives it's ridiculous.
Posting or proliferating this line of thinking is stupid.
Plague, famine, pestilence and famine would go a long way to reducing global warmimg, as well.
I'm sure carbon-dioxide levels fell when a third of Europe died of the Black Plague in the Fourteenth Century.
In Russia, the high cost of housing often forces divorced couples to keep living together. It's a perfect solution. No increase in carbon footprint, and it leads to plenty of murders.
Of course, in my condo association, we started off with four single people and now we have three couples and one dad with a kid, so condos can be good too.
Let's model that against no one getting married in the first place, huh? wouldn't that be the more appropriate denominator?
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).