CampusProgress.org | Annika Carlson's Blog: Save the Planet by Staying Married

Community Blogs

Post from Annika Carlson's Blog:

Save the Planet by Staying Married

By Annika - Dec 4th, 2007 at 7:38 pm EST

Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog

Comments | Mail to a Friend

Tags: divorce, environment, Focus on the Family Action, Marriage

Bad? Brilliant?

You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.

Focus on the Family Action thinks Americans should stop getting divorced because divorces are bad for the environment. No, seriously.

According to the jubilant email alert I just received, a study from Michigan State University found that

married households are more efficient with water, energy and land use. On the other hand, divorced couples require an extra 38 million rooms and spend 46 percent more per capita on electricity and 56 percent more on water than married couples.

Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst for Focus on the Family Action, was tickled pink by these findings. “The results of this study support the benefits of marriage, not just for families, but for our environment…We're pleased to see that God's design for family is consistent with good environmental stewardship.”

Indeed. Now, if we could just find the part of the Bible that guarantees that bad relationships breed happiness and domestic abuse doesn't exist—then we could all accept God's blessing and save the planet by getting hitched!

Reader Comments

Domestic abuse...

By Superduperficial Dec 5th 2007 at 9:42 pm EST

...is a whole 'nother beast entirely. But with over 50% of all marriages ending in divorce now... do you really believe that there's domestic abuse in over 50% of marriages?

It's possible that people are rushing into marriage too quickly -- but it's also possible that people of our generation are (on average)becoming too self-centered to appreciate the mutual sacrifices that marriage entails, and they'd be better off if they toughed it out in a lot of cases?

No need for the sarcasm

By Erin Dec 6th 2007 at 5:41 pm EST

While I don't agree with the God's Plan etc. rhetoric used by their representative, I think that the sarcasm in your piece is a little bit unnecessary. In my Population and environment class, my professor mentioned this study yesterday. He specializes in demographics and was called by USA Today to see if he agreed with the study. The results, he says, are nothing new. An increased number of households means an increased number of fixed needs such as the building of an additional home, electricity, need for transportation, etc. So, divorce is bad for the environment simply because it means a larger number of households and therefore larger fixed costs in energy needs.

Re: No need for the sarcasm

By J Jan 2nd 2008 at 12:48 pm EST

If divorce is bad for the environment, then all couples living together out of wed-lock (in sin) are also being good stewards of the environment as are people who live with roommates. I think the sarcasam is completely warranted because the article is bogus and the fact that somebody spent money to conduct this study is rediculous. It's called common sense, my friend.

the elementary basics of correlation vs. causation

By Bridget Dec 6th 2007 at 5:58 pm EST

Well, yes...of course breaking up households increases environmental impact. A family's environmental impact also increases when children leave the home but they still have the house set at the same temperature. In contrast, it decreases when more people live under the same roof and share water, heat, and so on (why dorms and apartment buildings are more sustainable in general, but also why homes with more people in them get more bang for their buck).

The basic message to take away from this study is an idea of consumption awareness: whether divorced or not, it is crucial to recognize the effect that you and those around you have on the environment. Thus, instead of trumpeting the correlation between divorce and hurting the environment, the argument could be made for conscious consumption of resources like heat, electricity, gas, and water. Simple as that...

We Deserve Better

By Stuart Whitaker Dec 6th 2007 at 6:07 pm EST

Climate change is not, in my opinion, a joke. We need to avoid the type of sarcasm and partisan bickering displayed in this post in order to solve the climate change crisis before it is too late.

everyone can be right once

By Eric Probola Dec 6th 2007 at 6:31 pm EST

Look, while I don't like the messenger, perhaps there is a point that when divorce occurs, we are left with more houses supporting less people. I don't agree that divorce is somehow wrong, and I don't like marriage. But we need to change the way we exist and live in this world, and that means trying to stop all of the destructive things that we do to the world. Don't stay married for the environment, but this is just more reason to rethink marriage and make sure one is sure before tying the knot.

Living Together

By D. Kalob Dec 6th 2007 at 7:33 pm EST

Sure, staying married can have certain environmental benefits, but this is not about the specific institution of marriage. It is about sharing resources and utilizing them in more efficient ways. Aside from getting married, two people can also live together, without the approval of church or state. Come to think of it, weddings can be so expensive and wasteful, it would appear that living together can be even more beneficial for the environment than marriage. But if those Focus on the Family people are going to be such sticklers, then lets stick to marriage. Gay marriage. Thanks Focus for giving us another reason to support marriage for gays and lesbians. It is not just a human right, but good for the environment, too!

Missing the Point

By Jon Dec 7th 2007 at 9:38 am EST

I think Annika's sarcasm is totally justified and most of the posters have completely missed the point. Does any one really think and a person stuck in a bad marriage, whatever the cause, will consider the environment when considering a divorce? Isn't it obvious that two people living seperately will use more resources than two people living together? What brilliant person thought up this study and who paid for it? If I didn't know better I would think this is one of those fake studies who's only purpose is to justify "God's Law".

Re: Missing the Point

By Erin Dec 7th 2007 at 11:51 pm EST

I think maybe you've missed the point as well. Pegging the group as conservative and automatically scoffing at whatever it has to say is the kind of partisan immaturity that has created such political divides in this country. The study may offer obvious results, but they are true regardless of the spin that they put on it. Maybe the spin could have been addressed more effectively but I think that the attitude in this piece presents an attitude of: those dumb conservatives are at it again. What does this do for the political future of our country?

Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.