Divorce isn't resource efficient, study finds

[Refugee 7]

WASHINGTON — Divorce can be bad for the environment. Each time a family dissolves, the result is two new households.

"A married household actually uses resources more efficiently than a divorced household," said Jianguo Liu, a sustainability expert with Michigan State University.

He and fellow researcher Eunice Yu concluded that in 2005, in the United States alone, divorced households could have saved 38 million rooms, 73 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and 627 billion gallons of water if their "resource-use efficiency" had been comparable to that of married households.

Liu's analysis of the environmental impact of divorce appears in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Besides the United States, Liu looked at 11 other countries, including Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Greece, Mexico and South Africa between 1998 and 2002.

In the 11, if divorced households had combined to have the same average household size as married households, there could have been a million fewer households using energy and water in these countries.

"People have been talking about how to protect the environment and combat climate change, but divorce is an overlooked factor that needs to be considered," Liu said.

Orly Zeewy, a brand-name consultant from Wynnewood, Pa., said when she and her husband split, the fate of the planet was the least of her worries.

But now, she can see the point, and not just related to the per-capita use of resources.

Her children, now 10 and 13, have two of just about everything, from clothing to toys. "You're basically setting up two households for the kids, so that they feel they live there."

Stuff "can get multiplied pretty quickly," she said.

Liu said that with the number of divorces rising, so is the number of households, outpacing population growth itself.

Liu, who is married, suggested that if more people knew the environmental consequences of divorce, more of them might choose to stay together.

Not likely, Zeewy said. "I can't imagine anyone would ever tell you they would stay together for the sake of the environment. That would not be at the top of my list."

[WildflowerNJ 136]

This was very interesting....thanks for posting it, Linda....

[Echosoftom 3]

Liu, who is married, suggested that if more people knew the environmental consequences of divorce, more of them might choose to stay together.

Is this idiot really serious?? This just goes to prove what I've been saying all along about these researchers and their studies...it's CRAP!!!!

[Starfish 0]

Is this idiot really serious?? This just goes to prove what I've been saying all along about these researchers and their studies...it's CRAP!!!!

Amen, sister. "Oh yes, my husband beats me and the children but we're staying together for the environment!"

[WildflowerNJ 136]

:085:

[agirl 0]

^ LMAO!

[Mary Jane 49 0]

What a load of pap --LOL

[surfnburn 5]

Is this idiot really serious?? This just goes to prove what I've been saying all along about these researchers and their studies...it's CRAP!!!!

Well, I'll get back with my ex when hell freezes over... It might solve the polar icecap problem...lol

Actually, I think this is an argument for communal living and free love...lol

[Dynabeat Tim 0]

Its nice to know that funding is spent on such great research ! How bout taking all that funding and finding a cancer cure, or how to heat our homes without using oil or electric ? Or drive our cars without gasoline ? Its nice to know that my tax dollars is being so well spent by both the dems and the reps. A strong third party anyone ?

[LizzieB 0]

Why did it take a study to conclude that families living in two homes are less effiecient than families living in one. Duh!

[Echosoftom 3]

^ Because they're IDIOTS!!!

I agree Tim. All this money could go to much better use and what really burns my ass is that these guys get government funding for this moronic bullshit! So essentially we're paying for the crap. Arghhh!

(Sorry but this is one of my sore subjects. Can you tell? lol)

[KansasPettyFan 1]

Another stupid study. I couldn't agree more, Tim!

[Magnolia 171]

Actually, I think this is an argument for communal living and free love...

Where do I sign up?? :045:

[surfnburn 5]

^LOL...We should do our own study, Barb. How much energy can we save if cute guys keep us warm...lol They have to be cute... I bet we can correlate energy conservation and how hot the guy is...LOL

[Echosoftom 3]

^ LMAO! I'm sure you could get the government to fund your study.

[surfnburn 5]

^LOL...I think we're on to something...

[Refugee 7]

Oh you people are no fun, lol.

[WildflowerNJ 136]

Haha, Ames and Barb.....:003:

[Starfish 0]

Hey I want to get in on that study, too, lol!

[Dynabeat Tim 0]

Ever think of how much tax a family with both parents working pay daily ? I'm watching cars go by my window right now , people on their way to work, and its about 30 since i've began typing, roads are slippery,.....all those people paying tax today to fund this stuff ! But getting back to tax....think lights, gas, heating of homes, phones tax, etc. It adds up to a good daily amount then times it by how many live on your street or block.......