From today's Washington Post:
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.
Their paper, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also found that if the divorced couples had stayed together in 2005, the United States would have saved 73 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and 627 billion gallons of water in that year alone.
I'm using more resources, and yet I feel so much poorer since the divorce.
But let's face it, Hoosier already won this thread BIG TIME.
Why would anyone waste time (and energy) to do a study where the conclusion was obvious from the start?
This conclusion assumes that the act of divorcing itself consumes more than what was saved by marrying. But this is not supported by what was reported in the article.
Yet one more case of thoughtless reporting of nonsense research.
Independent women: bad for the environment. Although nunneries could come back into fashion, as sustainable housing communities.
What, exactly, is a "divorced American household"? Isn't this actually two households? I mean, I have heard of arrangements where people are divorced yet live together, but they tend to be the rare (even freaky) exception.
Somehow I'm not surprised that two households of single individuals use up more resources than one household with a married couple.
I assumed as part of the inevitable decline of romance, once married, couples bathe and wash their clothes less often.
Sometimes it seems like the government only funds studies that have obvious results. Judging frmo news stories anyway, which admittedly is a biased sample.
We can even save more energy by living in underground homes--and even better, natural underground homes (also known as caves). No more plastics for clothes; skins only.
If I had to guess (ie, make something up), maybe the formerly-married couple moves from their big house with the lawn and swimming pool they always dreamed of, and moves into a cramped 1 bedroom apartment.
Wouldn't that decrease water use?
Alternative explanation: more use of the dishwasher (who really wants to wait a week to fill it up, if you are used to running it every two days?), two lawns instead of one, cooking two meals (and washing cooking devices therefrom) insteaed of one...
...and, of course, women can take long showers without interruption by their husbands. :)