Robert Urbanek wrote:The average-sized dog consumes about 360 pounds of meat a year and its impact on the environment is double that of a typical SUV. “Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat,” says John Barrett of the Stockholm Environment Institute.
Cats are not much better. If you really care about the planet, do not acquire a meat-eating pet. Also, many pet food bags and toys are made of plastic, another environmental hazard.
The argument that cats and dogs mainly eat the remains of animals not consumed by humans also falls short as those remains can be recycled into other products. And, of course, if humans eat less meat to preserve the environment, there will be less remnants for pets to consume anyway.
You just kicked up a shit storm.
There was another thread where I said that pet ownership is unethical, because they encourage the meat industry and produce a lot of waste (toys, gadgets, etc. etc.). I got a lot of shit for it.
Good to see I'm not alone in being anti-pets, and it's good to see some actual data, as I've previously just been going on a hunch that pets have a large carbon footprint. A large Dog's foot print can be 2x an SUV, that's significant
Aside from that, I find the idea of having a pet inside the house absolutely revolting. Rubbing their anuses on fucking everything.
Would you let me sit on your couch naked after having a shit?
@Ter, sounds like you are anti-pets as well? Stand tall! I stand with you!
All that said, I dont think we should ban pet ownership or anytjing like that, but let's not kid ourselves that it's harmless either.