Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedHas the destruction of the extended family contributed to climate change?
Results so far:
| No | 71% | 134 votes | Total: 188 votes | |
| Yes | 29% | 54 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThis topic actually is two debates in one. I'm pretty sure I could make it three or four debates if you really want me to. No, don't be ridiculous the destruction of the extended family has not contributed to climate change.
I must have been asleep for years now, because I totally missed this climate change thing. Are we talking about global warming that has supposedly happened all over the world, and is destroying the world's icecaps? If global warming is taking place all over the world, then when will it hit where I live? I have lived in the chilly Northeast for my entire life, and we still have winter and we still don't have spring. We launch right from six months of winter to summer, have two months of fall and then we are back to freezing.
So when this global climate change thing happens, let me know so I can stop freezing six months a year.
No, destruction of the extended family certainly has not contributed to climate change. Al Gore has been running around much like Henny Penny did by saying we should all stop using electricity, gas, and go back to existing like early cavemen, and live in caves. Even cavemen set fires, okay so are we to blame them too for causing global warming?
The extended family was never destroyed either. This is what I mean by having several debates in one here. The extended family has been moving away from each other for many years now due to the fact that parents had to find a way to make a living. Therefore, millions of people have been moving for many years away from Mom and Dad in search of a making a sustainable living.
The extended family lived together in one home or a two family home for many years when immigrants from other countries such as Poland, England and Germany came to the United States to find a better way of life. Many families tried to bring their entire families with them, but couldn't afford to bring the entire clan with them. Besides, some were just too old to make the long journey to the Promised Land.
Families came to live in America and even Canada and many lived in one home in the city they chose. They lived with Mom and Dad and Uncles and Aunts and then Nieces and Nephews came along. The extended family was broken apart during the 1950's and 1960's when the members of the family moved away from their parents and their city life to the suburbs for a better way of life than even their immigrant parents could have imagined.
Then over time when factory jobs in the Northeast in the 1970's started to dry up, families moved away from their parents and Grandparents in search of new jobs in the Southeastern and the Western United States. People were moving once again in search of a better land, and better jobs. And they left their parents far behind to fend for themselves.
Climate change can't be blamed on extended families moving in search of better jobs. Then we could trace climate change way back to when immigrants were coming to the new land on boats by the millions for a better way of life. With all that steam rising in the air, from the boats, and the gas and coal used to propel the ships carrying millions of people from Europe, didn't that have an effect on the environment?
Besides, I thought people were laying the blame on President Bush anyways, so why the major change in direction suddenly? Could it be that Al Gore is to blame by flying around the world in many different planes giving speeches on global warming, doesn't he have some blame in this? How about the fact that he owns a large home and uses a lot of electricity in that large home?
Nope, can't blame this one on someone else like extended families. Nature changes and that's what makes it nature. The Ice Age ended after millions of years and created oceans and lakes, so this too can create a major change that will probably take millions of years to happen and by then the sun will have burned out, so what difference does it make anyways?
Learn more about this author, Kate Johns.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
With all the attention on making things 'green' these days, people are trying to do all they can to help the environment. Many of us have turned to recycling and driving hybrid cars, recognizing that small efforts can add up. In our search for ways to help the environment, the results of a recent study come up with a surprising recommendation: stay married.
The results of a study published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences report that remaining married is better for the environment than divorce. In essence, when families have two homes that have to be heated and cooled they are using more energy resources than single-home families. In addition, having more homes contributes to urban sprawl and creates a larger environmental footprint.
The researchers found that in 2005, divorced households in the US used 73 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and 627 billion gallons of water over what would have been needed as a single married household. Thirty-eight million extra rooms required heating, cooling, and lighting. They also report that there would have been 7.4 million less homes between 1998 and 2002 had people in these homes remained married. Finally, the per capita number of rooms for divorced individuals ranged from 33 to 95 percent more than in married households.
People are becoming more concerned with the size of their environmental footprint. We are buying hybrid cars, recycling, and turning down our thermostats. The government, in the meantime, is spending research dollars in an attempt to find more efficient and cleaner energy sources. While are these are worthwhile efforts, it may behoove us to examine the importance of remaining married and in a single home.
In fact, we may also want to examine the benefit that living with extended family has on the environment. Years ago when households were multi-generational families used fewer resources than even married families do now. It all boils down to the fact that when people live together, they use fewer resources, which is ultimately better for the environment.
Source:h ttp://www.csis.msu.e du/Publication%20fil es/PNAS_divorce_envi ronment.pdf
Learn more about this author, Tina Lehman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
