Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Heidi Sopinka

HEIDI SOPINKA

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 9:32 AM EDT 28/04/07

Can you be single and green? ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: “Every man must have the right fearlessly to think independently and express his opinion about what he knows, what he has personally thought about and experienced, and not merely to express with slightly different variations the opinion which has been inculcated in him.”
    Rostropovich, cellist and freedom defender in 1970... Global walarmists should remember that... instead of this communist era witch hunt the media is promoting!
  2. Angus S Miskers from Victoria, Canada writes: I disagree. These solo hermits don't have the resources to be true carbon gluttons like us couples. It is the double-income-no-kids households like ours that have the SUVs, boats, hot tubs, monster homes and frequent jet-setting that are driving up the price of carbon credits! Singles are spending much higher proportions of their income on rent for tiny abodes and for unshared debt maintenance to waste money on environmental unfriendliness.
  3. John E7 from Salt Spring Island, Canada writes: I live in less than 800 sqr ft and i don't own a car. I ride a bike. I heat at less than 15 C in winter and i don't own an AC. I don't commute. I run one lightbulb at night and i dont have a large plasma screen tv. Do I get a tax credit?
    This article is goofy. Its based on Euro-nonsense. No space left for the population and too much space over here - Apples and oranges.
    Tax singles to death thats the solution...
    But yeah if we stop traveling to yutzy tourist 'all inclusive too much food and booze' vacations we will have a good GHG footprint reduction. Thats a good suggestion...
  4. James Cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: 'Solo dwellers are an Environmental time bomb' ....more sensationalist drivel and meaningless generalizations featured in this ludicrous article. Excuse people for having to live. Excuse people for wanting a sense of privacy. We are not ants. Heidi Sopinka needs a reality check. We can do with less of the subjective, hysterical sensationalism this article purports. My response to this article is.....So What??
  5. Gallows Of Shame. from Gomorrah, On., writes: About successful singles living alone, there's a correlation: corporations love them because: no wife-y or children as an excuse for time off. Also, often, professional singles marry their j-o-b; they don't mind arriving home at 10 pm; no one unincorporated depends on them.

    Ah. Greed is considered a positive societal value. Emotional attachments: bad. Selfishness: rewarded. Generosity: frowned upon.

    Some valuable world we live in.

    My housemate & I have lived together for 20 years or so. Still, it doesn't have the same sensational quality as yuppy articles need on a slow friday.
  6. Dave Porter from Toronto, Canada writes: I had hoped if I made it far enough from the front page of the news, I wouldn't have to read any more of this eco-junk. :-)
    Oh well...Still rather be single than endure some of the relationships/marriages I have seen.
  7. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Halarious. This is your future, Canada. Living with 6 people, in 600 sqft boxes in the sky in the center of your city, bathed in the cold, sterile glow and hum of a nice, efficient, CFC lightbulb, eating raw patatoes grown down the street, shivering in the dark while clutched together to stay warm, but content with the knowledge that you are doing your part to save the planet from warming by 0.1 degrees by 2421 AD.

    Yeah, no thanks.
  8. Ronald Needmayer from Canada writes: The article seems to stress energy use per capita. But really, those that live alone and don't reproduce are reducing their environmental impact for many generations to come. It's the people that are overpopulating the world that concern me.
  9. Michael Sharp from Island Paradise, Canada writes:

    Let the social engineering begin!

    The Brave Green World!
  10. A D from Vancouver, Canada writes: Myself and most single people I know are living in high density areas, live in buildings with access to recycling, and have chosen not to own a car. My home is not big enough to use too much electricity. I have no interest in building a big house in the Vancouver suburbs on formerly pristine land and bear habitat. I'm committed to living a green life. The Globe needs to have balanced, intelligent articles from writers who can interpret and understand research and present a full picture.
  11. Patrick Rioux from Ottawa, Canada writes: Provincial and federal govts should ban single households no later than 2012, to match the ban on incandescent bulbs. Then households with children should be banned, as making more people worsens the carbon footprint and enrages Gaia, our Earth goddess. Fiction today, fact tomorrow.
  12. James P from Toronto, Canada writes: Totally ridiculous. First they feel bad because they are alone and now this nut bar is trying to make them feel about it! Last I looked these single people aren't living in 3000 square foot homes in the burbs, driving their SUVs to work and running their gas mowers for hours a week to mow their massive lawns. Most single people I know live in high density condos! On another note, I wonder what people like this author are going to do when global warming is proven to be a hoax. A whole industry of playing on peoples fear and guild will evaporate.
  13. doug m from vancouver, Canada writes: NOT BREEDING would be the ery best thing singles could do. Just stay single and enjoy your life. In a couple of generations the planetary population would start coming down. Population control is the very best form of greenery.
  14. Mike Baker from Dublin, Ireland writes: The 'Life' section must be the G&M's bow to People magazine. With the exception of an occasional Herald-Tribune at the airport to forego the dreadful airline magazine - tucked in with the vomit bag as seems appropriate - I've not bought a print copy newspaper in years. But if I did, the 'Life' section would be set aside and filed under fire-starter.

    Why is the G&M so keen to confront its readership with the mindset that gapes in awe at Yanni, Martha Stewart and Ophra?

    I could just as well ignore the 'Life' section and leave it to those who take comfort in it. But if you're going to slather barrels of ink on endless streams of newsprint for the sake of a few thousand Canadian fireplaces, or the upcoming fishing season for that matter ... 'Talk about a carbon foot-print.
  15. Karine Private from Canada writes: This article does not sound right - I think that most single people live in apartments, rather than huge houses, have only 1 car (or no car at all) and use 1 TV, one shower and cook less, they often eat out, which again 'saving' on packaging garbage. If you take most couples they have 2 TVs, (and if they have kids the number of TVs grows), 2 cars, bigger houses, bigger fridges, bigger cars.
  16. Jack Mitchell from Worcester, MA, United States writes: W t f, I thought the environment was a non-issue now that we've found Earth 2.0 only 20 lightyears away. Recycling? No thanks!
  17. sonya in lotus land from Vancouver, Canada writes: It's good to think of ways to reduce one's use of resources, but I think it's a bit of a mistake to attack solo dwellers. People who live alone may make many sustainable choices that offset their resource consumption. I live in downtown Vancouver in a small single bedroom apartment. I don't own a car and walk or bike to work. I haven't taken a single-occupant vehicle trip since 2005. I recycle my glass and paper. Many pieces of furniture and housewares were acquired secondhand. My apartment is concrete and retains heat so well that I have turned on the electric heaters exactly once in the year and a half I've lived there. (of course, the temperate climate here helps). My building has shared laundry facilities and I wash a lot of clothing by hand to help it last longer.

    Every time I witness my boyfriend purchasing another household item I already have at my place, I am aware that solo-dwellers do purchase many of the same things, and it would be more sustainable to share these. But is the purchase of a secondhand couch, a new bed and some dishes as worthy of attack as a suburban family's brand new detached suburban home, which family members commute to and from in separate cars? I think my carbon footprint is smaller now than when I lived with my parents in a detached home on an acre lot in a Winnipeg suburb and commuted an hour and a half to and from university every day.
  18. Alan Strangis from Toronto, Canada writes: @ John E7: plasma and LCD TVs (for the most part) are actually much more energy efficient than traditional CRTs. Other than that, I agree with your post.

    -----

    As someone smack in the middle of this demographic, I'm REALLY skeptical of what it's saying. I don't think I know ANYONE who throws away a pound of plastic a day, and I can say for a fact that those suburban monstrosity homes are energy suckers compared to the average single person condo, on a square foot basis.

    Last time I was in the suburbs (springdale) and it was a garbage night, I was shocked at the amount of garbage piled up at the curb, and I didn't NEED to drive a car to pick up something at the corner store, because the corner store is actually ON THE CORNER. ;)

    Single dwellers a ticking timebomb indeed!
  19. Western Girl from Calgary, Canada writes: Great -- first we have the smug marrieds, now we have the smug 'I did all my air travelling before air travel became environmentally uncool -- now all you lot need to stay home like me and live in ant colonies to save the planet' whatever-you-want-to-call-thems. Never mind the couples with the aforementioned kids, suburban homes, SUVs, mini-vans, multiple TVs and computers, Wiis, etc. etc. etc. The 'logic' of this article completely escapes me. The insufferable air of moral superiority does not. As if singles aren't stigmatized already for being single, usually by the smug marrieds themselves who conveniently ignore the infidelities going on right under their upturned noses. Better to be single, I say, than be stuck in a miserable relationship for the dubious benefit of the planet. Besides, having a cat on my lap helps me keep the thermostat down. PPTHPTHTHTHT!
  20. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Karine Private: 'If you take most couples they have 2 TVs, (and if they have kids the number of TVs grows), 2 cars, bigger houses, bigger fridges, bigger cars.'

    Kids usually drive the consumption. Parents no longer have the time or inclination to be with them, and keep stuffing treats into their kids' mouths and pockets ... fast food, iPods, plasma, a fancier car ... anything to distract from a meaningful relationship.
  21. Right On the Left Coast from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is why happy people don't read the news. Good grief. I miss the Globe and Mail of the 90's that didn't care about Global Warming, just like the rest of us.
  22. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Jimmy K: 'Living with 6 people, in 600 sqft boxes in the sky in the center of your city, bathed in the cold, sterile glow and hum of a nice, efficient, CFC lightbulb, eating raw patatoes grown down the street, shivering in the dark while clutched together to stay warm, but content with the knowledge that you are doing your part to save the planet from warming by 0.1 degrees by 2421 AD.'

    Just keep that pedal to the metal, Jimmy K, and you'll see the results in your lifetime -- a chaotic world of overpopulation, climate change, peak oil, and resource wars. The aboriginals of Australia and Africa will have a better likelihood of survival than most of us.
  23. Andrew E from Canada writes: Anybody who lives alone in 800 sq. ft has a larger carbon footprint than a family 3 living in 1500 sq.st, when based on residence costs like light and heat. The heating bills will go up when CFL's are put in.

    If you ride a bike, are you counting on the increased CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by your body, when compared to walking?

    What would Suzuki say?

    As far as overpopulation, we could stop immigration to Canada now, that way all of the overpopulation, (and the associated increase in GHG's) would be in the developing world, mosty of whom breed like rabbits.
    I'm sure any figures about reducing Canada's carbon footprint have not included these new arrivals.
  24. John - from BC Interior, Canada writes: In the small community I live in, it's not the single people using the most resources, it's the family of four living across the street with their big V8 pickup truck, motorboat snowmobile, riding mower, air conditioner and motorcycle. This is the same family that never puts out a blue re-cycling bag. Then you've got the retired couples down the street with their massive homes, motorhomes and SUVs. I would also suggest that low-income people, regardless of marital status, are leaving less of an environmental footprint, because they can't afford to live in monster homes, drive SUVs or motorhomes and all those other gas-powered toys coveted by their richer neighbours. I'll bet those low-income folks even turn their thermostats down and their lights out, because they can't afford to pay higher utility bills. It's these same low-income folks who will suffer the most when their utility rates jump up as a result of the Conservative's new emission plan. This will make them even more energy conscious, because they won't be able to pay for these higher utility rates. If the G&M wants to do a story with substance, why not look at how low-income people will fare with higher utility and gasoline prices? If the government really wants to get tough about emissions, they should put a cap on the amount of resources each Canadian is allowed to consume annually. That would be a much fairer way to reduce energy consumption and emissions.
  25. Dan Wilson from Toronto, Canada writes: Mathematically unsound. Surely the cat should be part of the per capita calculation: she watches the TV more than I do!

    In the words of an ill-advised energy campaign: 'Flick off.'
  26. Insults Ignored from United States writes: --
    We should be very careful that uniformed views as presented in this article do not actually become 'common sense' knowledge.
    --
    While some facts are true, the conclusions are wrong.
    --
  27. Western Girl from Calgary, Canada writes: Andrew E - What do you suppose the ecological footprint of a Third World family of 10 living in a 300 square foot hut with a dirt floor, no running water, sanitation, food, medical care, or electricity is? Pretty small, I'd bet, especially when the kids die off. I'd argue they're doing their part for you.

    And I'll be sure not to exhale when I ride my bike. Thanks for the reminder.
  28. recalcitrant civilian from Toronto, Canada writes: As someone else in this demographic, AD and Karine's comments resonate the most with my own experience. I eat out more often than my friends, and am sure I consume more heavily packaged foods, if only because they come in smaller portions.

    On the other hand, I use far, far, far less water and electricity than my married friends. This the result of having a smaller living space, no car and being a 5 minute walk from almost everything. No television. Washer but no drier. I haven't filled up a gas tank in about four years.

    One of the things I find stunning about visiting friends in suburbia is the amount of material possessions that they seem to accumulate. I wonder if this is just a function of having space to put things in? Settling down clearly changes the sorts of things they purchase - but also broadens them. I couldn't imagine trading my smaller living space downtown and 10 minute walk to work with a car-dependent lifestyle in the suburbs. But that is an easy choice to make when you don't have kids.
  29. Sue W from Canada writes: Ban Singledom.

    Legislate that everyone must marry and have 2 kids and save the planet.
  30. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Nuclear holocaust is the solution to anthropological global warming. Meanwhile, it is much more fun to point fingers, and create another totalitarian system based on the concept. Eco marxist hopes to get his revenge...
  31. Andrew E from Canada writes: Western Girl... according to Gore, they're just perfect! Doing their part for all of us. I'm sure Suzuki would agree... we should really stop using jets - even Richard Branson's- to fly 'Care packages' over there... the environment is more important, and these unfortunates have the right idea.

    And I never said don't exhale... I was inferring that sanctimonious cyclists should consider adjusting their pace or breathing so as not to add incremental CO2 to their normal exhalations.

    I see a market niche developing in the upcoming environmentalist totalitarian regime: Personal CO2 meters worn over the nose and mouth.

    Double-plus Good!
  32. Richard Daystrom from Toronto, Canada writes: Why doesn't one of the nuclear powers set off a few atomic bombs on some deserted South Pacific Island to throw up a huge dust cloud a la Krakatoa? That'll cool us off. Maybe China with its economy set on high production pollution can do it.
  33. Kim de Gannes from Vancouver, Canada writes: Nice Heidi. Paint us all with the same brush. Possibly the stupidest piece of writing I've ever read.

    Kim in Vancouver
    doing my part for the environment, as much as and sometimes more than other co-habitating earth dwellers
  34. mighty conan from Calgary, Canada writes: This article lacks critical thinking. Just because a family splits they don't necessarily create a larger eco footprint. It's about choices. The commenters that point out singleton inner city dwellers walk or ride bikes or use transit often instead of drive cars to work are examples. What's the difference between a restaurant & a group kitchen, really? Some take out containers? What cost to the environment is there attached to washing dishes with hot water as opposed to...I can go on. There are many choices we ALL can make to improve our eco impact performance. Instead of dividing & playing the blame game maybe the focus should be on solutions we can all implement to reduce everyone's impact.
  35. James Cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: 'Leaving a small footprint' is about the most irrational thing that has come down the environmental pike. People have a right to exist; people have a right to survive, people have a right to live a lifestyle superior to that of a cave dweller. Having said that, we should be doing all we can to be energy efficient and reduce pollution. If you want to minimize your 'ecological footprint'--lay down and die. That is the reductio ad absurdum of this argument.
  36. Chandler Day from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm so tired of all the doom and gloom scenarios in the media these days. The sky is falling, we are all going to roast in our own juices, the planet is going to be turned into a desert, there will be economic chaos. Blah blah blah. If nothing else, people gobble this stuff up and the perveyors of it find themselves famous. Enough already. Mount Pinatubo errupted in 1991 spewing more 'Greenhouse Gases' into the atmosphere in a single natural occurance than all of man kind had at that point in time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Everyone jump on the bandwagon.
  37. jim bo from Canada writes: I THINK OTTAWA (BIG BROTHER) SHOULD BAN THESE PEOPLE. LETS BE FAIR THOUGH, LETS GIVE THEM TILL SAY 2012?????. I THINK THATS WHEN THE INCANDESANT LIGHTS GO OUT. (YEAH THATS GONNA HAPPEN). NOT IN MY HOUSE?? PLEASE STOP THE ECO PROPAGANDA. LETS MOVE ON TO THE NEXT BIG FAD???. HOW ABOUT THE UNTRUTHS OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD
  38. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Chandler Day: I'Mount Pinatubo errupted in 1991 spewing more 'Greenhouse Gases' into the atmosphere in a single natural occurance than all of man kind had at that point in time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution'

    BS ALERT!

    http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm

    Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.
  39. A D from Vancouver, Canada writes: The UCL professor who is quoted conducted research specific to the UK and its resistance to high density housing. It's not necessarily applicable to other countries, including Canada, the US and the Scandinavian countries who all have high density options. This writer knows nothing about sustainability or the environment and I'm puzled how this could be published.
  40. jiri Z from Canada writes: Quite a few good suggestions here, uhm, well, sort of, anyway.

    How about these:
    Ban Suzuki, ban Gore, ban Sharpton, ban CBC, ban most of the fear-mongering MSM, ban the terrorists, ban political correctness - and watch a bit of peace settle back on Earth.

    I am ashamed of the kind of world we are about to leave to our progeny. Oh no, not the one you think of, the 0.1 degree warmer planet!
    I talk of the world of greed and stupidity and meanness. The world of consumerism, incessant advertising barrage, media evangelists of all stripes, hate mongers and anarchists, bent on destroying everything from property to human feelings. The world of lies, lies and never ending lies.
  41. William Plut from Vancouver, Canada writes: Well you need 'content' for fill the paper. Let see what will come Monday shall we?
  42. William Plut from Vancouver, Canada writes: Excuse me...ah hem..... We do need 'content' to fill the paper....hmmm.....Let us see what comes Monday....
  43. gord winters from Canada writes: John E7 do you have any idea how unattractive you make environmentalism?
  44. Major T.J. Kong from Russian Federation writes: One of the founders of Greenpeace, once stated, when the Berlin Wall fell many western marxists saw their reason for being evaporate. Many refugees of this bankrupt movement then sought refuge in the ........environmental movement.

    With all the sudden histrionics. I am beginning to think many of the environmentalists are looking for excuses to hire environmental kommisars in a backdoor effort to create a workers paradise.

    Foggedit, I would rather live free and single than share with a communal full of politically correct police informers.
  45. Mark Orr from Toronto, Canada writes: Utter nonsense, Compared to my neighbours, the amount of garbage (take out containers and all) that I throw out is MINISCULE. Lets face it, raising kids (which is important don't get me wrong) is ecologically horrendous.
  46. Getalife Libs from Canada writes: I believe that most of us are trying to do our part. However, this line of thinking is going to cause a negative backlash from those who will feel that their personal freedoms are being trampled on.
  47. James Cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: Mark Orr has made a very important point, and in doing so, has hit at the crux of the environmental movement. He said '...raising kids....is ecologically horrendous'. What that implies is, human life is horrendous to the environment. And, in a way, that is correct. Humans impact on the environment. To survive, we must think, and as a result of that thinking, we must produce. To produce, in order to survive, we must use our minds to utilize earth's resources. That is what life is--a process of self sustaining and goal-directed action. It is not THAT we interact with the environment, it is HOW we interact with the environment. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Yes, humans have an ecological footprint--it is how we survive. Yes, we should reduce pollution, and seek cleaner energy alternatives. But do not apologize for wanting to live. And do not apologize for wanting to have a lifestyle above that of a caveman. Do not let this article incur any sense of guilt. You have a right to live! Do what you can to reduce pollution, but do not let the Suzukis of the world tell you that you have no right to exist!
  48. Nathan Cool from Vancouver, Canada writes: What a bunch of crap. I'm single and I live alone. I also don't drive a car or have a TV. I think that offsets my washing machine usage and then some.

    What a baseless generalization.
  49. Mitch Sprague from Ottawa, Canada writes: This story is not fit for the compost bin although we could spread it on the flowers and make them grow nicely.
  50. Que Sommes-Nous from Canada writes: I live in one of those tiny apartments. I have one really old TV (not QUITE black and white), a toaster that doesn't doesn't pop up, and a lopsided iron. They all work fine in their own fashion. I can't be bothered with replacing them. I can think of better uses for my hard-earned cash, and besides, it does gnaw at me to throw something into a landfill that isn't completely useless. I don't own a dishwasher, because there's only me, so I can easily hand-wash my dishes. I don't even cook much -- just toss a bunch of things into a big salad bowl. I don't like owning too many things: it's produces a lot of clutter and just complicates my life. So I guess I'm really not all that representative of the subject of this article. Probably a tiny bit eccentric, though...
  51. Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru writes: James Cyr: Your chances of getting married, having a family, and staying that way, are probably far higher in Balmertown than they are in the GTA.

    Keep up the good work. Best Regards.
  52. Kerie Nickel from United States writes: Oh, peachy. First my mother, and now the Greens, are after me for not marrying and reproducing. I don't know what is more insulting, the implication that singles aren't environmentally aware, or the slur on our culinary abilities. Fast food packaging is a serious problem? Have you ever watched a carpool mom in a minivan go through a drive-through? After a long day at work, time alone in the kitchen is a blessing. I garden, visit my local farm markets in season, compost, recycle, and toss half the waste my neighbours do. And you'd be lucky to get a dinner invitation, I've baked for Julia Child. There are so many flaws in this story, I don't know where to begin.

    Insulted and offended. Yeah, that's where I begin.
  53. John E7 from Salt Spring Island, Canada writes: I'm sorry I make inconspicuous consumption sound so unattractive. Its not as spartan as I make it sound. I have discovered that most of my perceived necessities were, well, lifestyle addictions.
    But I have high speed internet and nice sized LCD monitor and a good computer.
    My body appreciates the bike riding and I am blessed living on this pastoral island where I could escape the hamster wheel...
  54. Coyote @Acme from Canada writes: Oh geez. Alright, I apologize for buying one-person take-out salads in small plastic containers that I then put in my blue box for recycling. I will find true love and cohabitate so that I (we) buy a bigger two-person take out salad that gets thrown in the blue box. Ok, let me beat the researchers to the punch: - yes it is true - us single people are a cause of cancer. We also had a secret meeting (with the masons and grey aliens) and we've decided to move our plans for world domination ahead as all the married and otherwise committed people are starting to catch on.
  55. Chrissy Simon from Canada writes: I think people with lots of disposable income are more likely to be less green, whether they live alone or in large family groups. Let's face it, poor people aren't usually the ones buying the big SUV's and huge monster houses that must be heated all winter and air conditioned all summer. Lower income people are also more likely to reuse and recycle by shopping at second-hand shops and replacing things less often than those with more money to spend.
  56. Joe D'Agostino from St. Catharines, Canada writes: I have to agree with alot of these posters that there are inaccuracies in this article. I, too, am single and inhabit a 650 square foot abode. I don't have a SUV (stupid, useless vehicle), big-screen television or central air. I walk, bicycle, and use public transportation as I don't own a vehicle. I use the blue, grey and green bins often and have little waste to throw out. Of course I'm far from perfect! There are many of us who are single that use less resources per capita than a family of four. Perhaps the writer can provide can compare singles vs families in her next article by doing some research and providing more details.
  57. Peter Brown from Mimico, Canada writes: We have 3 small kids, one car, live downtown in an old and not-very-big-house that is always needing fixing. The kids walk to school/ or are walked to day-care, one of us drops off the other at work. We can walk to the grocery store, hardware store, bar, barber, park etc. We live this way NOT for any care at all about the environment, or any 'ism', but because it appeals to us. We like to be able to walk to places and dislike driving unnecessarily. That's it.
    Environmentalism is a fine cause, but even living as relatively 'green' family, I find the religious-type righteousness of it all off-putting. I prefer living central to suburan, brie to burgers, but to think myself superior for it is ridiculous - which is precisely the holier than thou sense I get from some of these posts. I think in another era a lot of envirnomentalists would have been quite fervent '..............ists', and quite happy to persecute.
  58. Helen Pettingill from Canada writes: I think most of you people are missing what I perceive the point of this article is. It's about each single person owning a fridge, turning on lights, heating a house, etc - all of which consumes energy but if they were to couple up or get roomates, more than one person would use that one fridge & read under that one lightbulb & bask in the heat from that one furnace. That is what this article is about. It's all about sharing utilities & appliances so that not as many of them are in demand. No one is saying that singles live a gluttoness lifestyle per se. If anything parents are the worst culprits with all the junk they buy for their kids & the huge vehicles they insist on driving, etc.
    Mind you I think it's a pointless article. It's all true but it's not rocket science. I hardly think it'll make people want to share their living space. I'm sure no one past university age would be interested in living with a bunch or roomates or in some old rooming house.
  59. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: James Cyr: 'But do not apologize for wanting to live. And do not apologize for wanting to have a lifestyle above that of a caveman. Do not let this article incur any sense of guilt. You have a right to live! Do what you can to reduce pollution, but do not let the Suzukis of the world tell you that you have no right to exist!'

    Suzuki, Honda, Mazda, Ford, GM ... they've all been blatantly promoting the Happy Motoring fantasy to our obvious detriment for decades.
  60. Major T.J. Kong from Russian Federation writes: Helen Pettingill from Canada writes: I think most of you people are missing what I perceive the point of this article is. I dont think so. In the first part of the article, the author correctly identifies the explosive growth of the single household demographic and briefly touches upon the topic of deevorce. Which combined with feminism is a leading contributor to this phenom. Plainly put, it is no longer viable for men to set up households with women. Since at the end of the day the men will not be only be required to pay for their accomodation but also the females accomodations costs regardless of her circumstances once the deevorce is finalized. Its the second part of the article where reality escapes into fantasy. You are right except for my frat house days it would be hard to share a kitchen with a bunch of strangers. One seems to develop all kinds of quirks and quarks when leaving school, strolling into the kitchen clad only in a birthday suit in the middle of the night may not be such an appetizing sight. My solar panelled house is large enough to have a rommie or two, but I would never consider it for privacy and I would never rent to a female roomie since all she would have to do is make a false accusation of domestic violence or some other balderdash and you lose the house the way the laws are set up in Ontario. Considering the author claims to be a world traveller, her naivette is amazing.
  61. Michael Powers from Smiths Falls, Canada writes: I love it, this is what the eco-nuts want to force onto the world.

    It won't happen but it gives you an insite about the mind set of the Suzuki types.

    You just have to treat these idea's with the contempt that they deserve. However, you must be very careful, they try to sneak this stuff in.

    A novel idea would be to let them live like this while the rest of us live like we want. Since they say that they are the majority, our little extra would not impact the world.
  62. El Kabong from Average, United States writes: 'Heidi Sopinka, a licensed helicopter pilot, has cooked for firefighters in the Yukon, edited Southeast Asian poetry in Singapore, and written two travel books. A seasoned world traveller, she now agrees to stay put until the afterlife in order to neutralize her carbon footprint.'

    ...and all this makes her an expert on Ecology and global warming.

    It must be the Asian poetry editing that gave her her environmental credentials.
  63. A Moron from Canada writes: Right on John from Saltspring Island. My air-conditioning is to keep the curtains down in the day and open them at night. I have a front-load washer and hang things to dry inside in the winter and outside in the summer. But as I always say humans could learn from cats. When it's hot cats take it easy.
  64. Joseph T from Victoria, Canada writes: Any single women out in G & M land who wanna share my place with me to lessen our environmental foot print? I am financially secure, have a killer car, all the toys etc..... ;)
  65. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: Eco-marxism is alive and well! Today's science fiction fantasy becomes tomorrow's reality.

    The point has been made about overpopulation. I suggest that those 65 and over be offered a government sponsored way out (if you know what I mean). This will be particularly important with the coming tremendous increase of aging baby boomers. Just think of the savings! Reduced healthcare demands, no needs for 'senior citizen discounts,' safer roads without old people on them, no requirement for libraries to purchase large print books, reduced requirements for landfill sites to dispose of adult diapers . The possibilities are endless.

    After reading this article, I was quite tempted to bang on my neighbours' doors so that we could whip up a big pot of communal porridge as we sat around singing Kumbyah.
  66. Ed Doerksen from Simcoe, Canada writes: like everything else in this eco-environment crap, its just another form of hype, hype, hype. Its all BS and it is time to look at the reality of nature looking after itself. Gawd I hate environment activist.

    The article sucks big time.
  67. James Mallinson from Toronto, Canada writes: Did the content of this article come from a significant study of the waste and emissions generated by single person households?

    If such a study was done, how does it account for the differences in singles demographics? The younger half of the mentioned 25-44 demographic grew up in a much more eco-conscious environment and would probably have different habits. Are the generations moving in different directions?

    Some stats or a look into the grey areas of the issue might give the article some depth. Please G&M?
  68. K W from Calgary, Canada writes: I have always lived alone and been very conscious of my environmental footprint. After all, the more resources you use, the more money you pay. I heat my house at 17 degrees in the winter, run around shutting lights off when not in the room, and use high efficiency appliances.
    This article is just more eco-claptrap from the filthy commies.
    I am waiting for the day when the roads of the city are deserted, with one lone SUV driving down it, the driver saying 'Its OK, I'm a scientist'. The only difference between them and Swaggart is Swaggart dresses better.
    The morality play of these nutbars never ends. They can all go to hell.
  69. hey you from United States writes: This is the kind of utter nonsense that gives the green movement a bad name. Clearly, if everyone chose not to reproduce -- like the much-maligned singles in this 'article' -- global warming would be solved in a single generation. (Not to mention that most of the singles I know are far more conscious of their 'footprint' than any of the families.) The author's tone is insulting, dismissive, condescending and, ultimately, a bit cruel. Other people's personal relationships -- or lack thereof -- are none of her damn business.
  70. Bob Rollheiser from Canada writes: Dormitories are good, independent living is bad? This article, is arguably one of the 10 least informed ever published by the Globe.
  71. C. H. Oakley from Canada writes: I confess! I don't have a girlfriend and I live alone. Not only does this make me a loser, but an environmental misfit as well. Thank you for showing me the light, Globe and Mail! Now I'm off to the earth temple to beg forgiveness from Gaia. Maybe they will have communal meals there.
    And women.
  72. Still in Montreal from Canada writes: Let me get this straight - the world's population is doubling every 20 years - and single people are the ecology's enemy?
  73. Barry Kojima from Hamilton, ON, Canada writes: 'Heidi Sopinka, a licensed helicopter pilot, has cooked for firefighters in the Yukon, edited Southeast Asian poetry in Singapore, and written two travel books. A seasoned world traveller, she now agrees to stay put until the afterlife in order to neutralize her carbon footprint.'

    She should start by never writing, and thereby killing trees, such self-centered drivel again.

    She cooked for firefighters in the Yukon? What a load of disingenious crap slipped into her confession of being a leading cause to the very thing she decries.

    Perhaps she should mention that the very people she describes comprise about one percent of the single population. Not everyone can afford that condo in downtown Toronto.
  74. Dark Green from Greenland, Cuba writes: Individualism... gone berserk.
  75. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: K W from Calgary, Canada writes: 'This article is just more eco-claptrap from the filthy commies.'

    Filthy commies today, pinko socialists yesterday, eco-fascists tomorrow ... all utterly meaningless tripe indicating only a level of frustration.

    'I am waiting for the day when the roads of the city are deserted, with one lone SUV driving down it, the driver saying 'Its OK, I'm a scientist'. The only difference between them and Swaggart is Swaggart dresses better.'

    Scientists typically try to explore and explain the way the world functions, and to make a decent living while doing it. Swaggart's soul/sole objective is to fill his own pockets with as much filthy lucre as he can, period.
  76. Reasonable Ranter from Toronto, Canada writes: I am a professional engineer and MBA candidate. Single mostly by accident, partly by design. Higher expectations than most women can meet, I'm afraid, and unwilling to settle for someone less adventurous in life than I...and given that 95% of the world loves comfortable, no-risk lives, that only leaves 2.5% of the population for me to choose from. Now, that said, I work 12 hours a day, which is 12 hours I'm NOT at home doing 14 loads of laundry for kids who can't stay clean for 10 minutes, NOT throwing out 10lb of polymer-based diapers every day, or wasting the massive energy 3 televisions and two computers on in the house because every kid has their own domain. I drive a small car, relax at home mostly with the lights off (and those that I have are CFs), and live in a 600sqft space ...which takes NOTHING to heat or cool. I travel abroad once a year for a month at a time...pretty good carbon footprint comparied to the 3 one-week trips to Cuba etc. Go s&%t on the DINKs for a change, with their massive, empty homes and two SUVs in the driveway.
  77. Roland Neissinger from Oakville, Canada writes: Aaah, the dark ages under the guise of 'green environmental religion' get reinvented and foisted upon us again. The 'green' witch and warlock hunt is started: Singles now the target, families next!
    Why don't we all concentrate on less human made pollution hitting the environment and getting our enery consumption off the excess.
    Human or natural earth or solar cycle cause: We got to ride trough a temporary warming cycle in full swing perhaps for a couple centuries already. Who knows how long it last anyway, one large unchecked astroid hitting us or one large volcanic explosion already could make us scrambling for any warmth available due to dust blackening out the sun!
    Get off the panic people, the quacks quack, the rest of us have a living to do!
  78. C. H. Oakley from Canada writes: CHRISSY SIMON: I AGREE. If everyone was poor, the environment would be in much better shape! The government needs to adopt policies to reduce people's incomes as much as possible.

    I propose a 100% income tax. Ninety-five percent of the money would be used to establish more national parks. The remainder would then be allocated equally to provide everyone with the bare minimum of calories per day that they need to survive. Think of how low our carbon footprint would be!!
  79. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: What incentive is there to work hard and save for your old age? Maybe we should all go on cruises, eat out at fancy restaurants, wear designer clothes, and then, when we get old, depend on welfare or subsidized handouts from the government, so that we can save on energy, allowing industries like the Oil Sands to make enough to subsidize our neighbours to the south? This is such a ridiculous article!
  80. J Law from Canada writes: One other comment on this subject: Do you really think such newspapers as the G & M, among others, are doing this issue any good by continually throwing in the muddy waters of argument and negatives for purely political reasons and sale of newspapers.
    This kind of troubled waters thrown there by the uncaring must be ignored and the task at hand concentrated on.
  81. edwardo plazinski from maple ridge, Canada writes: 'From washers and dryers to toasters and television sets, singletons burn through just over twice as much energy per capita as those who live in a four-person household.'

    All my stuff lasts 4 times longer, so there.
  82. D G from Ottawa, Canada writes: A significant portion of the population of the western world appears to have taken leave of its senses. But throughout history every instance of collective madness has had a rational explanation.
    An astute cultural anthropologist might perceive that after 16 centuries or so of Christianity, the doctrine of original sin has made a comeback. We're not happy unless we're begging forgiveness for our sorry existence. Environmental 'guilt' and milennial foreboding have deep cultural roots, totally unrelated to what is happening to the planet. Wake up and smell the structural continuity, people! Our myths are powerful, and enduring, resurrecting themselves in surprising new forms. That is what is so frightening!
  83. Chrissy Simon from Canada writes: CH Oakley, I'm not advocating poverty as a means to help the environment, merely commenting that wealthy, consumers have a heavier environmental footprint than those with less. I made this observation as a response to the article that suggested living alone was environmentally harmful. In my opinion, the number of people per household isn't as important as the amount of energy consumed by all those extra toys that well-off people can afford to collect and replace regularly.

    I only hope that no MP's are reading this thread, as it wouldn't suprise me if some 'green' politician took your tongue in cheek suggestion of a 100% income tax and ran with it! My taxes are already burdensome enough.
  84. Peter Brown from Mimico, Canada writes: Now call me biased as I have kids, and generally don't dislike humanity - but WHY is it so important to save the environment if there will be no-one around to enjoy it in a hundred years? (The logical conclusion of the mass-adoption of an avowedly single life.) For that matter, why bother with art, literature, philosophy, physics - let alone the more prosaic things such as gardens and architecture? What a shame that would be.
    In the same way that children make a mess as they grow up, our species is making a mess. The solution in both cases is not to eliminate children, but simply to mature. We are maturing and getting accustomed to our impact on the environment. We are are in the process of learning to clean up after ourselves, and make less of a mess as we go. I for one think the quasi-religious 'humans are the problem' facet of the environmental movement to be a simplistic black-white view that many adopt out of mental laziness.
  85. Andrew Malcolmson from Canada writes: Wow, this article seems to have really driven the haters to new heights of incentive, if that's possible.

    The basic idea of this article is likely correct: if you're single and need to get groceries, your trip to the mall uses the same amount of gas as does someone shopping for four people. So, the household shopper is more efficient in her/his energy use in this case.

    Same goes for living space: the household dwellers share living space like a kitchen, living room etc., and so the cost of heating is divided by the number of dwellers for a lower cost of heating vs. the single with their own of each.

    People here seem to be reacting like this is an attack on them: instead, think of this as an opportunity to learn about other ways of living with many benefits. When you live in a shared or partially shared arrangement your costs of lower since you don't need your own blender, TV, bike trailer etc., and if you feel like company, you've got people to hang with right around the corner.
  86. Bill Smith from The wilds of the GTA, Canada writes: I can say as a single person, I feel discriminated against.
  87. Walt O'Brien from Binghamton, New York, United States writes: The author contradicts herself by saying the new singletons use more energy, then she says they live near work in the city. That must mean they walk to their jobs, right? Or, bike or jog. Plus, they are already in a communal environment, because they live in condos or apartment buildings, which are much more efficient energy-wise by design than single-family dwellings: unfairly they may be paying more in rent than they pay for a mortgage on a house with three or four times the floor space.

    I'm a city dweller by choice to facilitate my access on foot or by subway, train or bus to the galleries, restaurants, and nifty urban spaces: when I absolutely need a car for a contract, I rent one. Everything I need is uptown. If I want to do the outdoors bit, I fly there, then I end up going on hikes to camp out.

    Zillions of the new singletons do this, too, not my g-generation who remember fondly 383 cubic inch hemi Dodge Chargers which used 5 gallons a mile. I think they're doing better than we did, and I think it is generally getting better BECAUSE of them. Plus most don't smoke. God, remember pipes and cigars? Yaaagh!

    I'll never do roomies again, not ever. I'm the new superhero, Keepingmystuff Man. You pay me the offset in aggravation fees, I'll be glad to do roomies. My rate's $50 an hour, 24/7.
  88. Jeremy F from Alberta, Canada writes: This article makes sense on a per capita basis. If you think about it a single dweller cooks for themselves, use the utilities for themselves, uses the heat for themselves, throws away more packaging, I mean it makes more sense that you save energy on a per capita basis if you share everything with a family and buy in bulk. Lot of you drive cars too and don't share them like the mini van families. So single enviromental wacko's, put your foot where your mouth is and get married and have children so you can save the enviroment:P But more likely I'm sure your interested in those hippie communes since getting married is too conservative for you guys, ha. Nevermind, thank god you guys don't breed.
  89. Jenna Bush from Calgary, Canada writes: This article sums up the coming facisim. Now that the lightbulb has been scheduled for banning, perhaps our governments will hire people to snoop through our garbage like councils in the UK are doing, to make sure we recycle everything we have recycled. My question for Heid