Is Divorce Bad for the Environment?

As if the encumbrance of divorce weren't heavy enough. Now parents of failed marriages can feel doubly guilty. Never mind breaking up the family, permanently damaging the kids and upsetting the in-laws--research now says divorce causes global warming!

According to a recent study from Michigan State University (MSU), divorced families have significantly larger carbon footprints than non-divorced families. Distinguished Professor and Chair of Ecological Sustainability at MSU's Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Jianguo Liu, discovered the "inconvenient truth" while surveying domestic situations across the United States and 11 additional countries including Brazil, Ecuador, Kenya, Mexico and Spain. Liu and his team of researchers found that family splits consistently lead to hefty surges in transportation, construction and consumption.

It makes perfect sense. Divorce most often ends in dual residences. And we all know that housing sprawl is not good for the environment. (According to calculations by Architecture 2030, a nonprofit organization supported by the American Institute of Architects and the U.S. Green Building Council, the residential building sector is responsible for 21 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions).

With so many families moving from one residence to two, its no wonder the environmental impact is intense. According to the US Census, the year 2000 saw the addition of six million "extra" households from divorce. Now, let's do the math . . . double the resources to build the house, twice the fuel to heat, cool and run the house and twice the provisions (cars, can openers, Spunky the house cat).

To pour some salt in the wound, split households have fewer people in them, yet they use close to the same amount of energy as a full house. For example, a refrigerator uses roughly the same amount of energy whether it runs for a family of four or for a single dad eating Tyson's Microwaveable Chicken Parm. 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 family's in a single dwelling. It all harks back to the simple principles of resource allocation and efficiency.

Finally, lets not forget all the environmental damage of celebrity splits. Though a miniscule portion of the population, celebrity divorcees wreak eco-havoc. First there are those carbon emissions. Jetting off to the Dominican Republic for a quickie annulment takes fuel--separate jets and respective entourages required. Then, if you're someone like Henry VIII you may have to create your own church--and God knows that's resource intensive. In Britney and K-Feds case there are custody battles that lead to constant shuffling of tots around Los Angeles. Multiply car emissions by 250 for following paparazzi and police motorcades.

Two houses, a rented apartment across town, weekdays with mom, weekends at Dad's, and every third Monday dinner at your maternal grandmother's. Divorce isn't easy for anyone. . . especially the environment.

Follow Olivia Zaleski on Twitter: www.twitter.com/oliviazaleski

Comments

[LordMoon]

I wonder if this child would have ever been born if Paul was a Taxi Driver?

But that being said, I think that child support fees should be limited to only what's necessary to a child's care and well being. Rent, health insurance, clothes, etc. dollars? At the same rate that the government pays for AFDC. Does a child really need $55 million dollars?

Either that, or it should be made illegal to have a child for the sole purpose of taking someone to court for child support, i.e. Gold digging.

Why should anyone pay you to take care of your child? That's your responsibility, and yours alone.

I seriously doubt that Paul would ever deny a child of his, all the care and love she deserves to have.

I don't believe Ms. Mills should benefit financially from the Marriage. She's an adult she can take care of herself, get a job, work. The money should be placed in a trust for the child's care and administered by the court, to protect her from her mother.

[enilorac]

Your next post Olivia, might want to get into the huge environmental impact tourism has had upon once untainted locales over the past thirty odd years. That divorced couple jetting off to the Dominican Republic will also end up in a vacation high voltage paradise with mega-hotels and golf courses that the locals only work in, but do not invest in. And in the end, their environments become drastically altered: traffic, stale air, no fish in the sea because the reefs die from too much sewage and so on and so on. So, it's all about all of us being carefull, divorced or not, travelors and tourists or not. Used to be that people went to hot places for the heat and the breezes. Now because they insist in staying in air conditioned hotels, the heat outside is worse and the breezes aren't there any more because of climate change and big hoggy concrete hotels all along the coasts. Blah blah blah. How to turn it around? Uuum. This is the big conundrum.

[2liveNdie]

Mills is a greedy Bitch! Paul had all that money before she was even born. Now that they have a child together she somehow thinks she deserves $100 million dollars is a joke. Hop along chick

[dora rice]

she deserves every bit from this arrogant , superficial potz, bearing his child and putting up with his arrogant undermining daughter she should get every cent she deserves.

[AdLibitum]

In the McCartney/Mills case,
unless you are intimately familiar with the details of their personal circumstances, why do you immediately side with one party against the other?

In such instances, I prefer to use logic.
You refer to her bearing his child.
Actually, more correct would be 'their' child,
as it was no doubt a joint decision.
However, looking at the two individuals,
a man in his sixties already with grown-up children, the other a young woman with no other children, who is more likely to have been keener to have a baby and go through
all the growing pains again ?

As for her 'putting up with' his grown-up children, did he not show his commitment to her, despite his childrens objections, by marrying her? Does that not count for anything ? He married her without a pre-nup too, I believe.

I despair when I see such astronomical settlement figures for short marriages,
as they are both encouragement for gold-diggers
(of which there are female AND male e.g. K-Fed), and disincentives to people with wealth
to believe in and commit to marriage.
We rich people are looking for love too,
you know! ; )

[2liveNdie]

Mills is a greedy Bitch! Paul had all that money before she was even born. Now that they have a child together she somehow thinks she deserves $100 million dollars is a joke. Hop along chick

[WilliePilgrim]

How about all the hot air generated by insecure women and men who can't seem to accept the fact that not every marriage is meant to last forever. As for carbon footprint, is there any subject in the entire universe that some dimwit won't connect to the immaginary modelling being proffered on the ill-educated non-scientific leadership who will be conferring their dubious wisdom on us in hopes of keeping the status quo and while they look to enlarge their personal power?

[LordMoon]

You, know actually the pictures of Ms. Spears and K. Fed are in poor taste. Anyone who has been through a custody battle knows what divorce can do to your mental health.

Maybe that's why lots of people never get married. A trend that's increasing everyday.

Maybe it's time to take a look at the causes of the financial disaster that is divorce, And the financial incentives to file.

[jay1975]

How desperate we become to spread the word? This kind of nonsense is why people are turned off by the "Global Warming" crowd.

[OliviaZ]

Dear Jay1975,
Maybe the sarcasm didn't come across, but I was trying to point out the absurdity-­-everythin­g contributes to global warming. Thanks for the comment, but as meant to make you laugh, not make you angry.

Sincerely,

Olivia Zaleski

[lamarguerite]

This is a bit ridiculous! I was already feeling guilty about divorcing. Now is one more reason :)

Everything we do contribute to CO2 emissions, with the exception of planting trees. Breathing itself is a big contributor. Overpopulation is another huge problem. How about pets?

Let us concentrate instead on what we can control:

Switching to CFLs lights, turning down our thermostat, insulating our houses, driving less and more efficient cars, using energy-efficient appliances, eating less meat, eating less in general, buying less things, turning off our appliances and electronics, limiting our dryer use, . . .

And last, but not least, voting, advocating for leaders who will set in place the policies we need to go carbon neutral.

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com
'Listening to the Planet'

[OliviaZ]

Dear Lamarguerite,

Yikes! This post wasn't meant to make you feel guilty about divorce. The opposite actually. Just trying to point out (in a roundabout and sarcastic way) that everything we do contributes to global warming. Not meant to make anyone feel badly about getting a divorce. I agree very much with your other comments. "Let us concentrate instead on what we can control:

- switching to CFLs
- turning down the thermostat
- insulating our houses
- driving less
- turning off our appliances.
- voting for leaders who will set in place the policies we need to go carbon neutral.

Thank you for your comment!

Sincerely,
Olivia Zaleski

[caesarf]

""Yikes! This post wasn't meant to make you feel guilty about divorce. The opposite actually..."

Really? The opposite?

You have simply reported on the study. Where you may see sarcasm and roundabout, I read snark and condemnation.

That said; there needed to be a study undertaken to tell us this?

I was going to produce a study of my own entitled: Researching Something that is Blatantly Obvious is Bad for the Environment. But I decided to conserve resources.

[FearlessFreep]

Blaming failed marriages on divorce is like blaming death on the undertaker.