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’ve got zero kids and two dogs. The carbon footprint definitely tips in favor of my dogs.
I’m not driving the dogs to school and soccer practice every day, sitting in traffic, nor buying them new clothes every year. I don’t feel the need to buy a small bus-sized SUV to give my King Kong sized baby room to play.
We have semi trucks burning diesel to bring baby food, diapers, cribs, etc to all parts of the world. We devote some of the best produce to make baby food and create a shit load of plastic waste with bottles and other assorted baby paraphernalia. Don’t even get me started on disposable diapers.
I say keep the pets, ban the kids. That’ll definitely address climate change within a generation.
Or, we could hold accountable the handful of large companies producing the bulk of the emissions because all of our individual emissions combined are but a drop in the bucket.
/s if not obvious (except the part about holding polluting companies accountable - we should definitely do that)
Monster.
Same here. We have no kids and 2 dogs. We can eat bacon every day and not even come close to the load child families create not to mention long term!
They’ve studied this. IIRC 3 medium sized dogs equals one kid, adjusted to be per year. So you’re almost there!
But my dogs may live 10-12 years and won’t have puppies. The line (and pollution) stops there. Whereas kids will make even more kids and keep increasing the total consumption
Yes that was adjusted to be per year because dogs don’t live as long. After that depends on the existence of either a dog or child, which depends on the demand for dogs for that part of the equation, and is still 3 to 1 at present time.
Do you have a link to that research? I can’t see how this can be true in the larger picture. I will stop having dogs when I die but children will crow up, and have children of their own who also will do the same.
Me having pets instead of children puts a stop to that chain of placing consumers into the world and stopping such a strain, must be worth much more
Sigh. The study was not about children having children which is a different matter entirely. That’s a different choice, by different people, and no they won’t necessarily have children just like (shock) you were a child once and decided not to have children. It’s about ownership of pets, adjusted to per year because yes pets don’t live as long. Jfc. This seems like you don’t like the result so you’re trying to get out of it. Chow.
No - I’m simply stating that not having children is better for the environment than having pets especially in the long run (as I mentioned in my original comment). What I am arguing is that not having children sets a definite stop to a growing and (potentially) continually branching line of consumers and poluters. I am not looking at the comparison simply here and now, but as a whole and as a long term effect
I think we are comparing two slightly different things and thisbis why I wanted to compare what you are refering to, with what I was trying to explain