Reuters ran an article today called, “Stay married and save the planet.” It is based on a report by Australian law maker Steve Fielding who argues that
Divorce only made climate change worse.
When couples separated, they needed more rooms, more electricity and more water. This increased their carbon footprint, ‘Australian Associated Press (AAP) quoted Fielding as telling the hearing on environmental issues.’
‘We understand that there is a social problem (with divorce), but now we’re seeing there is also environmental impact as well on the footprint…’
Steve Fielding is from a large family of 16 according to Reuters. He would probably strongly support Nadya Suleman’s 14 kids strong family(see our Nadya posts here: http://www.divorcesaloon.com/index.php?s=nadya).
But isn’t a large family also a strain on the Earth’s resources? I wonder how he feels about the argument that we all need to be mindful about the sizes of the families we choose to have, as the larger the family (even those that are married) the more resources it uses, and the harder the impact on the environment, and the deeper the carbon footprints?
I like the idea of large families, don’t get me wrong. If you have the resources I have no problem with it. It would have been my personal joy to have a truck load of kids if I was a billionaire or something. But I am playing devil’s advocate because if we are making a carbon footprints argument that divorce is bad for the environment because when two people split up they are using twice as much resources as when they stay married, then we need to look at family size which usually involves a lot more than two people who get divorced and see what impact that is, or can have on the environment too. And Steve Fielding has a monstrously large family. So what does he have to say about that?
Check out our post “how to have a green divorce” here: http://www.divorcesaloon.com/how-to-have-a-green-divorce