Now our pets are to blame for climate change
This crackpot theory is barking up the wrong tree.
Americans love their pets. In fact, we spend over $60 billion on them annually. Furthermore, many social justice warriors who seemingly despise their fellow humans will often be found protesting on behalf of animals.
Progressives who love animals and truly believe in climate change may have trouble fully embracing the assertions of a UCLA professor who says our pets are contributing to global warming.
In a study released Wednesday, a geography professor at UCLA calculated that the meat-based food Americans’ dogs and cats eat – and the waste those pets produce – generate the equivalent of about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
That’s as much as about 13.6 million cars driving for a year, says professor Gregory Okin in a paper published in the journal PLOS One.
Put another way: Dogs and cats are responsible for 25 to 30 percent of the environmental impact of meat consumption in the United States.
The professor leading the study explains:
I like dogs and cats, and I’m definitely not recommending that people get rid of their pets or put them on a vegetarian diet, which would be unhealthy,’ said Professor Gregory Okin who led the research.
‘But I do think we should consider all the impacts that pets have so we can have an honest conversation about them. Pets have many benefits, but also a huge environmental impact.’
Legal Insurrection readers may recall that a group of Swedish researchers were recently telling people to have fewer kids to prevent catastrophic climate impacts. The authors from the “Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies” added a few more quality-of-life killing recommendations in their paper for good measure.
We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions:
– having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year)
– living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year)
– avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) –
– eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year).
I am so old that I can remember when the population explosion was going to lead to a planetary climate catastrophe:
Many environmentalists in the 1960s and 1970s were concerned about how the rapid population growth in the post-World War II era was straining human ability to produce for itself. Nature imposed limits. When it was published in 1968, Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb predicted global famine due to rapid population growth. Much before this famous book, William Vogt’s 1948 Road to Survival warned that rapid population growth would make us feel “scarcity’s damp breath.”
Vogt, the Ehrlich’s, and others like Donella Meadows (one of the co-authors of The Limits to Growth) were labeled neo-Malthusians. Their critics now crow that food supply has kept up with rapid population growth since the 1970s. We did not see widespread famine in the 1980s and when famines did occur it was typically due to civil war and other forms of violence. Certainly, inadequate nutrition remains a problem in many parts of the world, but it is not because we are unable to produce enough food to feed everyone fully. Indeed many more people on the planet today are overfed than ever before. Malnutrition is a matter of income inequality, not food production capacity as was thought by many environmentalists.
So, you might say, the critics were right.
And critics of climate change inanity are equally correct today.
So, enjoy your pets, because the UCLA researchers are barking up the wrong tree. Furthermore, I suspect this theory may be the one that cause many progressive pet-lovers to question their entire climate change belief system.
To cleanse your palate of the UCLA’s climate change banality, here is a more amusing look at cats and dogs:
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I think attacking Americans for having pets is precisely what the Democratic Party needs right now. In conjunction with their super new slogan, I have to say, just a great job all around guys! Keep it up!
I don’t have a problem with pets contributing “the equivalent of about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide”. Carbon Dioxide is plant food.
As long as they don’t poop in my lawn, they can fart all the CO2 they want.
Water is necessary for life. But a flood is a problem.
Vauge, off topic platitude…neato*
*…unless you were insinuating that we have a deluge of destructive pet adoption in this country…in that case, go for it, captain!
At this point in history, our society would be a lot better off if dogs and cats were running UCLA.
my kittens fart in their general direction…
Another pro-vegan screed about eating meat causing global warming. They tried to convince people dogs and cats could exist on an entirely veggie diet. We can see how that worked out. When their critters started dying, they changed their tune real quick. Someone should send these idiots to a deserted island in the South Pacific and let them live off the land. 10-1 these idiots will be canniblizing each other in two weeks. Hmmmm now that is not a bad thing to think about.
Dogs in theory could be vegetarians – there is nothing in their constitution that requires them to eat meat. Cats, on the other hand, are obligate carnivores; if they do not incorporate animal flesh in their diet, they will die.
Leftists are anti-science, as demonstrated time and time again.
You’re incorrect. Dogs lack the digestive symbiosis and/or GI tract anatomy seen in other herbivores like rodents or ruminants to break down cellulose.
They are most definitely obligate carnivores and domesticated breeds are overfed corn, rice, and other grain as it stands today. They can handle some plant-based foods but are not as anthropologically or physiologically omnivorous as we essentially have conditioned them to be in captivity.
Your most essential duty for averting climate change is to give up simple, innocent pleasures, at great personal cost, that are unlikely to make any difference whatsoever. Self-inflicted misery is proof of virtue, not matter how pointless the gestures.
In short, FEEL GUILTY ABOUT BEING ALIVE. That makes you a good person.
Professor Gregory Okin probably caused at least two icebergs to melt with his study. After all, imagine how many trees had to die to put out his paper and the Sacbee newspaper that covered his amazing nonsense.
Plus he probably used most of one day’s electrical output of the Hoover Dam getting all the stuff online.
I’ll bet he contributes more global warming than a couple dozen pets. Maybe he should look into stopping his own contributions to globull warming.
I’ll keep my cat – at least until he decides to wake me up at 1 a.m. again. Then his future might not be so bright.
I could see a great video parody of this as someone gives their dog a stern talking-to (while treating him of course) about his carbon footprint.
*or her….we shouldn’t absolve the feminist doggies either, equal rights and yadda yadda.
Termites are vastly the most prolific of CO2 producers, iirc.
CO2 is generated, along with most of the gases of decompositon of vegatation, by rot. Burning just generates them faster, and with some additional particulate stuff in the air. For the planet, no biggie whatsoever between one or the other.
I still stand by my assumption that the Left are completely retarded. No rational human being thinks this way.
And not a day passes where they don’t disappoint.
I propose we declare open season on liberals, like Orkin. Ship all the bodies to rendering plants to make pet food of. Then and only then will Liberals have contributed something positive toward a clean and health environment.
I propose we declare open season on liberals, like Orkin. Ship all the bodies to rendering plants to make pet food of. Then and only then will Liberals have contributed something positive toward a clean and healthy environment.
Soylent Green dog food?
I will keep my dog, but am willing to euthanize a dozen liberals to offset his carbon paw-print.
Dog’s have, what are they called again? Oh yes…
…whose primary function is for tearing off ears of corn or the heads off of wheat stalks….
No, that’s not it.
They’re for tearing MEAT — animal flesh.
When’s the last time these nut-cases watched a wildlife documentary and saw a pack of dogs voraciously attacking a soy bean field?
And THESE are the smart-science/smart-diplomacy uber-educated elites who fancy themselves the “betters” of the rest of humanity.
Oh, the humanity!
How much co2 do polar bears produce?