Column By Melissa Martin
Global warming fanatics, leave our beloved dogs out of it. Why are you even studying the carbon pawprints of our pets? Hmmm. First, it was the greenhouse-gas emissions of cows, and now it’s moved on to our beloved pets – our babies in fur. What’s next? Our kids?
A 2017 article in Forbes discussed the research on the impact of climate change in reference to our pets and greenhouse-gas emissions. “Dogs tend to eat meat, after all, and meat production is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. By one estimate, it’s even the largest. And dogs tend to eat highly processed meat, so their carbon pawprint grows as their food is manufactured, and again as it is transported.”
According to Forbes, Seth Wynes of Sweden’s Lund University and Kimberly Nicholas of the University of British Columbia found “conclusive evidence” that dog ownership contributes substantially to climate change. Not all studies are created equal. Who funded this study and why?
Visit www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/four-lifestyle-choices-most-reduce-your-carbon-footprint where Wynes found that “having fewer children” was one of four actions that would have the “greatest impact” on greenhouse gas emissions.
Folks, do you comprehend where this is going? Fewer pets. Fewer kids. Here comes the slippery slope. No pets. No kids.
“There are two types of “pawprints” that your pet leaves: carbon and ecological. Your dog’s carbon pawprint considers the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the creation and transportation of products he uses, the resources needed to grow the meat and vegetables that are found in his food, and the waste that he creates. Ecological pawprint (EPP) is an accounting tool based on the ecological footprint (EF) that is used to measure environmental sustainability. It measures how much biologically productive land and water is used for your companion animals’ food consumption.” Visit www.academic.oup.com.
In “Time to Eat the Dog, the Real Guide to Sustainable Living,” Robert and Brenda Vale proclaim that a medium-sized dog has a footprint of 2.1 acres compared with slightly more than one acre for a standard sport utility vehicle.
Sounds like hype to sell their new book! The Vale couple won’t be eating my dogs. And I won’t be buying their book.
“What’s worse for the climate crisis: Your child or your pet?” That question prefaces an article you can read at www.euronews.com/green/2021/04/28/what-s-worse-for-the-climate-crisis-your-child-or-your-pet.“Both owning a pet and having a child can increase your carbon footprint in different ways, but which one is worse?”
So, now there’s a comparison between your pet and your child concerning the warming of the earth and which is worse. Who will be next on the list? I guess, the climate scientists get to decide or the globalists at the United Nations.
Will the future bring a fight for the freedom of dog ownership? Will the killing of our beloved pets be a government mandate? Or a global mandate if/when the New World Order takes over the planet.
But, more imperative, will the global powers demand or mandate a one-child policy. It happened in China. Could this happen in the United States of America?
Will this column brand me as anti-science on climate; a misinformation monger; an enemy of the earth; a drama mama?
I invite readers to write a Letter to the Editor and share their views on this topic.
Melissa Martin, Ph.D., is a child therapist, early literacy advocate, picture book author, and syndicated opinion-editorial columnist. She lives in Ohio.
The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author.