Monday, October 26, 2009

The Eco-Nazis Now Want Us To Get Rid Of Fido


An article in New Scientist says that the dog (and other pets) have too big of a carbon paw-print and this is a problem regarding the sustainability of our planet.
"As well as guzzling resources, cats and dogs devastate wildlife populations, spread disease and add to pollution. It is time to take eco-stock of our pets."
Apparently a SUV has a smaller carbon footprint than your average medium-sized dog, and if you have a German Shepard - well then you really are harming the Earth! Their calculations are based on how much land it takes to cultivate the food necessary to feed said animals.
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat...

Doing similar calculations for a variety of pets and their foods, the Vales found that cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf), hamsters come in at 0.014 hectares apiece (buy two, and you might as well have bought a plasma TV) and canaries half that. Even a goldfish requires 0.00034 hectares (3.4 square metres) of land to sustain it, giving it an ecological fin-print equal to two cellphones."
The "scientists" (and I use the term quite loosely) who did the study continue to whine about how animals create other problems like feces production, and the fact that animals kill other animals. (Now that's real news eh?)

Actually, I think these people have too much time on their hands, and to tell you the truth my cat is definitely more fun and more soulfully satisfying than a Volkswagon Golf. I honestly do not care how much "energy" my pets consume. Children consume energy too; shall we do away with them as well?

These people are also not very honest in their research either - animal food is made from people food by-products. You know, the stuff that really isn't suitable for your dinner table. We aren't spending any more land to produce animal foods then we are in producing our own food.

I believe studies like this are merely going to be used to set us all up for higher taxation.
You'll be taxed on the number of animals/pets you own - and perhaps even the number of children you have. Talk about environmental fascism!

It's all BS - and not the carbon producing kind.
Period.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

why are you right wingers always about fear?

KimL said...

Amen! I've forwarded a link to your blog to all of my friends! It's great!

Judy Aron said...

Anonymous - There's no FEAR here. Just stating the facts.

Your comment is silly - I am surprised you didn't bring race into the issue too. That's all you folks can counter with is cries of fear mongering and racism. How about a discussion about the real issues for once? Can you honestly defend an idiotic study like this that says we ought to consider the carbon footprint of our pets? That is freaking laughable! Getting a poodle instead of a great dane is not going to save the planet.

Maybe we should do away with having children too - they consume a lot of energy; they eat and poop and breathe.

Libertarian Advocate said...

Judy:

Don't feed anonymous Plouffian trolls. We need to eradicate their carbon footprints (metaphorically of course).

Eric H said...

I find it refreshing to see the greenies actually beginning to acknowledge the end game of their belief: population control. Even if you only used "renewable" resources, there is still a limited "sustainable" population for the earth.

They are always operating in Algore's 10-years-to-meltdown window and never consider where it all leads.