Divorce and the Environment

As if divorce wasn't full of guilt and pain, now you have to worry about....  

A really inconvenient truth: Divorce is not green

Published: Dec. 03, 2007 E-mail Editor ShareThis

EAST LANSING, Mich. - The data are in. Divorce is bad for the environment.  

A novel study that links divorce with the environment shows a global trend of soaring divorce rates has created more households with fewer people, has taken up more space and has gobbled up more energy and water. The findings of Jianguo "Jack" Liu and Eunice Yu at Michigan State University are published in this week's online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A statistical remedy: Fall back in love. Cohabitation means less urban sprawl and softens the environmental hit.

"Not only the United States, but also other countries, including developing countries such as China and places with strict religious policies regarding divorce, are having more divorced households," Liu said. "The consequent increases in consumption of water and energy and using more space are being seen everywhere."

Liu and his research assistant Yu started with the obvious - that divorce rates across the globe are on the rise. Housing units, even if they now have few people in them, require resources to construct them and take up space. They require fuel to heat and cool. A refrigerator uses roughly the same amount of energy whether it belongs to a family of four or a family of two.

When they calculated the cost in terms of increased utilities and unused housing space per capita, they discovered that divorce tosses out economy of scale. Among the findings:

• In the United States alone in 2005, divorced households used 73 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and 627 billion gallons of water that could have been saved had household size remained the same as that of married households. Thirty-eight million extra rooms were needed with associated costs for heating and lighting.
  
• In the United States and 11 other countries such as Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Greece, Mexico and South Africa between 1998 and 2002, if divorced households had combined to have the same average household size as married households, there could have been 7.4 million fewer households in these countries.
  
• The numbers of divorced households in these countries ranged from 40,000 in Costa Rica to almost 16 million in the United States around 2000.
  
• The number of rooms per person in divorced households was 33 percent to 95 percent greater than in married households.

To track what happens when divorced people returned to married life, the study compared married households with households that had weathered marriage, divorce and remarriage. The results: The environmental footprint shrunk back to that of consistently married households.

Liu, a University Distinguished Professor of fisheries and wildlife and Rachel Carson Chair in Ecological Sustainability at MSU's Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, has spent more than two decades integrating ecology with social sciences to understand the complex interrelationships between nature and humans and how those interactions affect the environment and biodiversity. Liu and Yu began to discuss this research project when Yu was a high school student.

This new work also acknowledges that divorce is not the only lifestyle trend changing family living structures - the demise of multigenerational households and people remaining single longer are examples.

"People's first reaction to this research is surprise, and then it seems simple," Liu said. "But a lot of things become simple after research is done. Our challenges were to connect the dots and quantify their relationships. 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."

The research, Liu said, shows that environmental policy is more complex than one single solution. Governments across the world may need to start factoring in divorce when examining environmental policy, Liu said.

"Solutions are beyond a single idea," Liu said. "Consider the production of biofuel. Biofuel is made from plants, which also require water and space. We're showing divorce has significant competition for that water and space. On the other hand, more divorce demands more energy. This creates a challenging dilemma and requires more creative solutions."

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.

A copy of the paper can be downloaded from http://www.pnas.org/  or www.csis.msu.edu/research.htm#publications.

Related Links

• PNAS Study

• PNAS Study

Estate Planning and the Blended Family

The Reality 

We all know the statistics:  50% of all marriages will end in divorce.  Many of these divorces (75% of men and women who divorce under the age of 45) will lead to second marriages and create blended families.   Divorce statistic show that divorced men and women with children tend to remarry more quickly than their counterpart without children.

Putting everything in perspective 

Many estate plans overlook or fail to consider estate planning issues for blended families.  Issues that are often overlooked are disinheriting your ex-spouse, protecting your own children, providing for your new spouse, and considering the children of your new spouse. Top these issues off with the concern of tax savings and you can the need for careful consideration.  

What to do with Your Ex-Spouse

First and foremost on most divorce couple's minds is:  Will my ex-spouse inherit any of your money?  Many divorced adults believe that they are protected as Michigan law automatically terminates an ex-spouses interest in your assets.  Maybe, maybe not!  What if your ex-spouse is designated in an employer provided life insurance policy?  If you fail to act and change the beneficiary designation there is federal law which holds that the insurance policy should be administered according to federal law.  Federal law would provide that the ex-spouse is the beneficiary, contrary to the state law.

Let's take it a step further 

Without proper estate planning, in most cases, your ex-spouse (as surviving parent/guardian) would, likely, be appointed by the probate court to manage the inheritance you might leave to your minor children. So if you die without estate planning, before your ex-spouse, any inheritance you leave to your children will most likely be controlled by your ex-spouse.

One more painful step...

Assume that your children die before your ex-spouse.  Who will inherit the assets your children received when you died?  The answer is your child's next of kin--your ex-spouse. 

Your New Spouse

Now you're remarried and have a new spouse.  How does your new fit into the equation.  Let's assume that you don't have a prenuptial agreement which provides for the separate maintenance of assets.  Let's also assume that your new spouse is the beneficiary on your life insurance, bank accounts, etc.  Now, assume that you predecease you new spouse.  The result of this scenario is that your biological children could be forever disinherited.  This goes on and on, for example, upon the death of your new spouse, most likely all the "blended assets"  will be inherited by your step children, a replacement spouse, and subsequent children.

There is no right or wrong when it comes to estate planning.  There is only "wrong" when you fail to plan.  The new spouses must address planning so that they can carefully craft documents that will meet their estate planning needs as it relates to their newly created family dynamics.

YOU CAN PROTECT YOURSELF, YOUR NEW SPOUSE, AND ALL THE CHILDREN OF YOUR NEW FAMILY.  YOU JUST NEED TO PLAN.

Call Dykema Law Offices to discuss your estate planning needs. 

 

Divorce Mediation: Lose the custody mentality

 Mediation:  A Better Choice

A recent article in the Michigan Family Law Journal(Vol. 40 No. $ April 2010) by Carole Chiamp discusses the benefits of divorce mediation as it relates to the issues of custody and parenting time.  Her article relies on the wisdom found in a book titled, Divorce and Family Mediation,by Folberg, Milne & Salem. 

The article points out that custody disputes have a contest mentality.  There is a relentless need to evaluate who is the "better parent".  We question; who should be in charge?  We evaluate each parent's past behavior in light of a set of standards call the "best interest of the child test".  The court then applies the test to the past behavior of the parents. 

The above fails for three reasons, according to the article.  First, it assumes that people cannot and will not change.  Second, it assumes that circumstances are static and will never change.  Third, it ignores the high cost of "the contest".  The cost of evaluating past conduct and placing a score on that conduct is always exponentially more expensive than building a parenting plan in a mediation setting.

Most importantly, is the plain and simple fact that the children always get caught up in the contest.  The children are always the losers in the contest.  They lose a united front of two parents working together for them.  They lose the example of showing respect by both their parents.  They lose from the loss of financial resources spent on the contest (litigation, arbitration, motions, evaluations......).  They lose a feeling of security.  Often they lose as they are placed in the middle of the game.

 What to do?  First, we need to change the mindset of custody and parenting time determination.  The article suggests we need to "change the game".  Parents need to come to the table with the mindset that no one is trying to steal the child from them.  No one is trying to be "in charge" of the other or be the "owner".  Both parents need to work together to put a plan in place for the best interest of the child.

Let's stop talking custody and start talking parenting.  When we talk parenting, we have made the first step towards working together.

Dykema Law and Mediation: A better choice

Your first step towards parenting.  Take this step for the sake of your child.  Contact us today.

Avoid Personal Injury

Personal Injury and Texting

By The Associated Press

April 30, 2010, 11:00AM

DETROIT - Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia beat Michigan to the punch when it comes to banning texting while driving. Yet it was Michigan's governor who was the one who signed it into law Friday under the approving gaze of Oprah Winfrey.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed the legislation that bans sending, typing or reading text messages or e-mails about halfway through the broadcast of "The Oprah Winfrey Show" via satellite from Detroit's Renaissance Center. The law takes effect July 1.

"Thank you, Gov. Granholm. Thanks for your leadership," Winfrey said while Granholm signed the three-bill package at a public rally. Attendees included lawmakers behind the bills and high school students who hooted, hollered and held up signs affirming their stance against texting and driving.

Other "No Phone Zone" rallies held in Los Angeles, Boston, Atlanta and Washington, D.C., also were part of the broadcast.

AP PhotoGov. Jennifer Granholm holds up the state's texting-while-driving ban law after signing it Friday in Detroit during a broadcast of "The Oprah Winfrey Show."Winfrey launched the campaign against distracted driving in January and has sponsored a pledge on her website asking motorists to commit to not text or talk on phones while driving.

"Today is a call to action to stop the madness of distracted driving," Winfrey said.

General Motors Co. officials said Friday they will ask the company's 77,000 U.S. employees as well as dealers and other affiliates to sign the pledge. Many GM workers attended the rally, since the building is the automaker's global headquarters.

Among those who spoke at the pre-show rally in Detroit was Loretta Strong, 66, paralyzed since a 2008 crash caused by a teenage girl who was texting while driving. On the back of Strong's wheelchair is a sign that reads, "I got this ride because someone decided to text and drive."

"We need to take this more seriously," said Strong, who goes to therapy three times a week and lives with her daughter in the suburban Detroit community of Macomb Township. The law, she said, is "going to be a good thing," and "I want to promote this in any way I can."

Texting will be a primary offense under Michigan's law, meaning police can pull over motorists solely for using phones to send text messages. Michigan is the 19th state with a primary ban.

The legislation does not ban using cell phones to make calls while driving, but that's clearly part of Winfrey's campaign.

"Put down your phone when you drive - simple as that," she said during the show.

Granholm said texting is the biggest culprit of distracted driving because the driver's eyes, hands and mind are distracted. Still, she told reporters after the event that she hopes lawmakers take the "next step" and require the use of handsfree phone technology

West Michigan News: Smoking Ban in Bar and Restaurants

 

GRAND RAPIDS (WZZM) - Michigan's smoking ban went into effect at 6 a.m. Saturday, May 1. It bans lighting up in most workplaces.

Some bars and restaurants celebrated the new smoke free Michigan law with discounts. They are hoping it will actually give business a boost.

You will no longer find people smoking inside Michigan restaurants and bars.

"I think it's fantastic," says customer Paul Huizinga. "Enjoy a nice night out with some clean air."

But you can find people going outside the restaurants and bars to smoke.

"It makes me not smoke as much, instead of chain smoking,"says one smoker.  "I come outside every once in a while."

"I think in restaurants, its okay," says smoker Connie Hull. "But, in bars, come on. If you go to a bar, you know, expect smoking."

Joel Epstein helped organize "Go out. Breathe easy." on May 1 as a celebration of a smoke free Michigan.

"I'm a former smoker and I'm a heart patient. So I had to quit smoking to save my life," he says.

Fifty restaurants offered various discounts to people with "Go out. Breathe easy." t-shirts or wristbands.

Epstein says, "Many of us are concerned that we can't go to restaurants with our families and enjoy smoke free dining. We're really happy that now we don't have to worry about that."

Paul Huizinga agrees.  "We may actually head out a little more often, especially taking the kids."

Many restaurants and bars hope others agree, and that the new law will help business. J. Gardella's Assistant Manager Joshua Jones hopes the law will  bring people in who don't smoke.

"There's probably a lot more non-smokers out there than there are smokers," he says.  "So, it will actually help us out."

Jones is a smoker himself, but doesn't like to smell the smoke while he works.

"I've got three levels here so I'm running up and down the stairs. It'll just be nice not to breathe it in while I'm doing all my work and stuff," he says. 

The B.O.B. went mostly smoke free months ago, during ArtPrize, to keep smoke away from the artwork. The restaurant complex kept the policy.

"The staff has been really happy about not having to deal with the smoke and the second hand smoke," says the general manager of Dr. Grin's.  "We'd have to do extra dry cleaning even if you don't smoke because you go home, you've got that stench on you."

Michigan is the 38th state to ban smoking in public buildings. WZZM 13 talked with several people who used to live in or visited other states with smoking bans. They say it isn't an issue in those states and they don't think it will be a problem in Michigan either.