A World Without Pets?

[enigma]

Taking the dog for a walk to the store would seem like a more environmentally-friendly option than piling into the SUV.

Robert and Brenda Vale blast pets in their new book for having more of a carbon footprint than a gas-guzzling SUV.
(Getty Images)

Not so, say two New Zealand scientists whose new book claims pets have a carbon footprint that is about twice the size of the gas guzzling vehicles that have long been a bane of environmentalism.
In "Time to Eat the Dog, the Real Guide to Sustainable Living," Robert and Brenda Vale charge that a medium-size dog has a footprint of 2.1 acres compared with slightly more than one acre for a standard sport utility vehicle.
The New Scientist Web site relayed other carbon footprint comparisons from the Vales' book. Cats are roughly equal to small Volkswagens while two hamsters have the same footprint as a plasma television. Goldfish are comparable to a pair of cell phones.

 

[Wyst]

If they try and take away the INFJ's cats, heads will roll.

 

[Raccoon Love]

I could not imagine a world wihout pets, and we have no right to take them away, we are all living things and art of a cycle and we all deserve an equal chance.

 

[enigma]

I am still stuped by this article. What a croc of BS

 

[Soulful]

Hmm.. this sounds familiar. I think there might already be a thread about this, probably buried somewhere.

 

[Wyst]

Proposal for pet
population reduction.

 

[Wyst]

Hmm.. this sounds familiar. I think there might already be a thread about this, probably buried somewhere.

I read an article similar to this that had to do with reducing the demand for beef by everyone becoming vegetarian. Ridiculous.

 

[Skoffin]

I will dismember anyone who attempts to take my pets away.

What the hell is the point of this book? Should we eliminate all animal life just to reduce carbon?
Might be a tad tricksy though, without carbon wouldn't the plants then be fucked too?

 

[testing]

If they try and take away the INFJ's cats, heads will roll.

You've got that right!

 

[randomsomeone]

Dogs? Cats? What about the carbon footprint of children?!?!?! And grandma??? Why not get rid of them, too??

btw, I have no pets.

 

[fairypotter]

I agree, Wyst taking away the CATS would HURT.

 

[Faye]

The real problem isn't pets. The real problem is the like 40 billion + animals that are killed and eaten each year. If you really want to reduce the carbon footprint of animals, place restrictions on meat production and consumption. After that is done, work on encouraging people to have less children, less pets, and use mass transit more.

Of course, what is the chance that any of this is actually going to happen? Other than mass transit, I don't see it as very likely. Child laws might take effect if overpopulation becomes a tangible issues in western countries, but that will probably take decades.