We have big box stores for pets.
We have semi trucks burning diesel to bring pet food and pet supplies to all parts of the world.
We devote some amount of farm land and livestock to feeding those pets.
It’s interesting when people suggest to reduce global human population but I have never heard anyone suggest to reduce pet populations as a method for combating climate change or for simply reducing resource usage.
The worldwide dog population is estimated to be 900 million.
There are 600 million to 1 billion cats living in the world today.
I would if there weren’t 100 better places to start first.
Also, it’s probably too late to make enough difference short of rewriting how modern civilization works.
I’m sure there is a noticable carbon footprint regarding pets, but it pales in comparison to other industries. The entire pet market was 0.005% of the US GDP in 2022, which includes veterinary services. So yeah, while there probably is some carbon reduction we could do with in the pet world, our efforts are better directed elsewhere.
Also, good luck getting people to give up Waffles and Spunky. If anything, they improve our world via people’s quality of life.
Yeah, my dog takes like 6 months to eat a giant bag of dog food, it’s not contributing in any meaningful way to climate change.
Pretty sure OP is mad people talk about how the beef/pork industry actual.is contributing.
The figure is off by two decimal places. 136 billion is about .5% of 25.6 trillion.
Shit, right you are. Edited, thanks.
quality of life is a big one… you can get people to change their ways only a certain amount, and if you get people to give up pets they’re gonna tell you where to shove your impactful changes
And if Sir Chauncey Barksalot kills enough infants, his carbon pawprint will be negative.
I think quality of life is an important point. I know it’s selfish / narcissistic of me, but the main reason to stop climatic crisis is to improve people’s quality of life. The planet will keep turning and life will survive in some form, despite our best efforts. The rest of the solar system, galaxy, universe, won’t even notice. But humans on earth will notice. And if we are destroying quality of life to stop the climate crisis, what’s the point?
(Of course, changes are needed and some quality of life will be lost for the net gain of not dying slowly in an uninhabitable world, but I feel like the companionship of pets is a big deal to some people but a very small cost climate-wise)
This is a valid unpopular opinion too, you could have made your own post.
I’m against it though because I think it would be worth adapting to a simpler lifestyle if everyone agreed to ditch the idea of profit and infinite growth and focused on the problem at hand.
People could even keep their pets lol.
There’s always gonna be “a better place to start first”, no matter what the suggestion is. That’s a popular delaying tactic, and it’s part of the problem. At least this is something we can control ourselves, instead of waiting for governments/corporations to act.
Calls for individualized actions on smaller contributors to climate change is the stalling tactic. Oils companies popularized the idea of personal carbon footprint as a way to steer attention away from their larger role in climate change. Instead of organizing to end fossil fuel use, create infrastructure to reduce our dependence on cars, or cutting back on the US war machine, people instead focus on changing their spending habits in minor ways that won’t fix anything but will give them catharsis and social capital. And for people who are even less committed to climate action, they see people pushing for these kind of things and they just see people telling you to give up stuff you like or even depend on for no reason.
Climate change is an emergency that we’re running out of time to fix. We need massive, society wide changes if we’re going to avoid catastrophe. Little incremental changes are not only insufficient to solve the problem, they reduce the political will needed to make the necessary changes.
Yeah, this is something that I just can’t understand why a human would ask something like this. Pets help people exist. They make people happy. There are things we should do to reduce pet related things, like a lot of breeding programs. But I’m looking at this similar to someone saying “we should reduce the amount of vegetables we eat because harvesting them causes the climate damage.”
I dunno man. I think I’ll start by wearing a condom, rather than curb stomping puppies.
Self extinguishing bloodlines are interesting.
Eh, intelligent people have always had fewer kids.
It’s nothing new.
not more intelligent, more educated. there is a distinction.
I don’t have pets or kids and I rarely drive or fly.
I do as best I can to minimise my “carbon footprint” despite knowing it’s a concept dreamed up by BP’s PR team to shift the attention away from the industries responsible.
I used to try to suggest others do similar but at this point it’s likely too late. And you propose I go around telling my friends and family to take their pets out back as a starting point? I’d laugh if the naivety wasn’t so tragic.
OP isn’t suggesting killing pets, and I’m sure not, so I don’t know where you’re getting that dramatic, emotional idea from. Since you don’t have any pets, and you’re already trying to reduce your impact on the environment, we all appreciate your efforts!
If anyone is thinking about buying a pet, though, think twice. Things may seem okay for now, but humanity is going to have to live MUCH more efficiently in order to survive.
Please explain how you envisage this idea making the slightest bit of difference in time without a pet cull lol.
Do I really have to explain that if people own fewer pets, there will be less demand for pet related products?
I’m done wasting my time on this.
Lol I think you severely overestimate the amount of time we have to change things.
You want to educate the populace that they should not buy a pet when their current one dies? So, in an optimistic scenario, in 10 years time you think what 10% of the entire population might have listened to you? Meanwhile we’ll be well on our way to the planet becoming unlivable.
Same.
at this point I think the biggest single CO2 source from me is my electricity usage, and I have no direct control over my electricity source. it’s not like I can call up the utility company and tell them to only send solar, wind, and nuclear power to my house.
You may not, but some actually can. My utility has renewable programs, and they explicitly are for over and above government requirements.
Why start on something useful and realistic, like reducing car use, but instead let’s look at pet owners.
This is the stupidest fossil lobby effort to blaming everyone else instead themselves.