Traveling for your long-distance relationship may be trashing the environment.
Is American Airlines part of your lovelife? Does "fill 'er up" have several different meanings for you on a romantic weekend?
Bad news for you: the hundreds of miles between you and your sweet baboo are killing the planet, suggests Slate.com's article, "The Environmental Case Against Long-Distance Relationships."
Unfortunately, his face lit-up on the other side of arrivals' gate is not going diminish the carbon footprint you left getting there. So should long distance lovebirds should flap their arms and fly instead? Or just break up for the greater, greener good?
For the sake of your own greenhouse gas emissions, you might look for lovin' closer to home. Locasexual, the author calls it: sleep with someone who dates a public-transportation's length away to keep your conscience clear.
Slate crunched a lot of numbers proving all the reasons why long-distance daters aren't very green. But I suspect most sensible long-distance daters will just ignore this locasexual moniker. Most will move closer to each other eventually, or break up due to the distance or the cost. Besides, the trip your bananas, salmon tataki and Swiss chocolate take week in and week out probably do a lot more damage to the environment. Maybe try being a locavore before being a locasexual.
It's important to remember most followers of social movements aren't perfect in every way. Some feminists color their hair and wear makeup. Some vegetarians eat sushi. It's not called being a hypocrite -- it's called being human.
I'll leave it up to you to figure this demon-banishing out for yourself. Meanwhile, I feel just a little bit smug that my conscience is clear. No, I don't "date sustainably"... I'm just single.