It seems your pets are peeving off some liberals these days.
According to a new study, dogs’ and cats’ eating patterns have as much of an
effect on the U.S.’s carbon footprint as does driving 13.6 million cars for a
year.
Fifi,
say it isn’t so!
The
findings were published in the journal PLOS ONE (Get your subscription now! Operators are standing by!) and illustrate
how these pets’ consumption of meat and other animal products has a massive and
adverse- if largely unrecognized- effect on the climate. A 2014 study published
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Buy one subscription,
get the second for 50% off!) found that meat is the villain. (Imagine that). Apparently,
cat’s and dogs’ meat-filled diets are responsible for 25 to 30 percent of the
impact of meat production in the U.S. Experts aver that, compared to a
plant-based diet, meat production requires more energy, land, and water, and
has greater environmental consequences in terms of erosion, pesticides, and
waste. Additionally, simply feeding American pets leads to approximately 5.1
million tons of feces every year, roughly equivalent to the total trash
production of Massachusetts, and fully twice the fecal matter annually
generated by Rosie O’Donnell.
According to the study, producing
one kilogram of chicken results in roughly 3.7 kilograms of carbon dioxide,
while generating one kilogram of pork produces 24 kilograms of carbon dioxide.
The scientists real beef, however, is, of course, with beef. They claim that
producing one kilogram of beef can generate up to 1,000 kilograms of carbon
dioxide, the greenhouse gas thought to be largely responsible for the supposed
warming of the Earth’s climate.
The Los
Angeles Times reports that UCLA geographer Gregory Orkin calculated that the
163 million dogs and cats living in the United States accounted for an “overall
caloric consumption” of “about 19 percent that of humans in the U.S,”
approximately the same amount of calories that the country of France consumes.
Moreover, American doggies and kitties “eat enough animal product to account
for about 64 million tons of methane and nitrous oxide, two other powerful
greenhouse gases.”
The
climate change alarmists (CCA) are concerned that not only do developed
countries such as the U.S. consume so much meat, but that developing countries
are increasing their meat consumption, too.
“Dad,
stop buying Fido that meat-centric dog food…and put own that f!#%*ng burger and
pick up some arugula for Christ’s sake.”
The
Times article helpfully explains that dogs can readily digest starches, so they
could get much more of their required protein from non-animal sources than
their owners may realize.
Orkin
adds: “I certainly hope these kinds of numbers will encourage the market to
consider adding those as market choices, and I also think that individuals can
make choices.” Individuals can make choices? Really? Not if leftists have their
way.
To a committed progressive, the planet would be far better off if humans, their pets, and their livestock would simply cease to be.
Other humans, that is.
To a committed progressive, the planet would be far better off if humans, their pets, and their livestock would simply cease to be.
Other humans, that is.
It may
indeed be hard to teach an old dog new tricks. But this is just another dog and
pony show.
No comments:
Post a Comment