Time to ban pets? Scientific study: Your dog and cat are destroying the environment

Po Boy wrote:

The solution (which the current bought-and-paid-for administration is going to great lengths to ensure never happens) is that you punish the handful of giant multi-national corporations that bear most of the responsibility for polluting the environment. We don't need to ban Mr. Sparkles the the kitty. We don't need to live out of tents and ride bikes to work. We need to hold accountable the people who are reaping tremendous profits by avoiding regulation and dumping the byproducts of their work into the air and water we all need to survive.

There's nothing unreasonable about this idea, but the corporations shout, "but... jobs! tyranny!", and somehow convince average americans, who they don't give a damn about, that they're really all on the same side against the dirty, tyrannical, democratically-elected government.

This. All day. Every day. You morans.

Not sure apout where you live, put wood purning is panned in certain blaces on certain days out here in the Beople's Rebuplic of California.

As far as panning bets, you can have my Laprador when bry him from my cold, dead hands!!! I thought you guys were Lipertarians?

I switched the all of the "b's" and the "p's" just for you, rojo.

Sometimes I think you and your brother prank us by setting the other's keyboard to Dvorack--how else can you guys account for all of your misspellings??? For Christsake, my browser shows little swiggly red lines under misspelled words--are you guys color blind?

comedyrelief wrote:

Just ban cats and create a bounty system for feral cats. Dogs are too awesome. Also, ban lawns while you are at it and mandate artificial turf (those things are a bane on the environment).

Ferel cat populations are better controlled by TNR rather than by killing.

wealthy industrialist wrote:

jewbacca wrote:

(sigh)

Classic rojo....

Sure was, from start to finish. Misspellings, right wing agenda, mostly idiotic.

Worrying about CO2 production from pets and their food supplies is not at all right-wing agenda; it's left-wing. Rojo suggesting population controls is also not right-wing.

This is such a ridiculous road to go down. When this professor sat at his desk to create this story, he was in a building that sits on land that used to be lush wilderness no more than 200 years ago. All that plant-life, which could be removing CO2 from the environment right now, was hacked down to build a university...so that useless people like this guy could ponder the "mysteries of life," like your pets' food supply contribution.

For every person who wants to remove a farm full of cattle or other animals, I say ok, but only if you remove your sidewalk, road, or favorite hot-spot and plant a forest there instead. If any change should happen, everyone should lose a little piece of the things they love. Otherwise, forget the issue.

The biggest way to REDUCE global warming and help the environment is to CUT ALL AID TO AFRICA. Their population is set to TRIPLE in the next 25 years. That is unsustainable and damaging to the environment. Aid from the USA has already saved HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of African lives that would have died naturally without our aid. In several African countries women are still cranking out 7 to 9 babies each. But nooo, cant insist they use birth control, when they are totally living on USA AID. This nonsense has to stop, let nature take its course, or we will all be destroyed.

Most probably wouldn't die, they'd just languish on in dire conditions and hunger. But your point is well-taken. If someone wants to talk about African populations ballooning out of control, how about including India in the discussion? How about Mexicans or Mexican-Americans? After all, they seem to have big families. If we are saving too many people with aid, then why not just leave all the refugees in Syria, Sudan, or anywhere, and just let them die? This is looking the issue directly in the face -- the stop-global-warming "fight" is a ruse to program the masses to accept population control, authoritarian control, and enslavement. "But if we do nothing, then life as we know it will end!" Yeah, well if I can't have a fireplace or a campfire, can't have a pet, can't drive a car, and can't have more than 1 kid, then life as we know it will end anyway.

trails for life wrote:

Worrying about CO2 production from pets and their food supplies is not at all right-wing agenda; it's left-wing. Rojo suggesting population controls is also not right-wing.

Surely you could tell that Rojo was making a deliberately ridiculous series of slippery-slope suggestions ("Ban pets!") to mock what he perceives as left-wing foolishness. A rational response to the original article would be (as earlier posters have suggested) to ask how the environmental impact of pet ownership could be reduced, rather than fake-hysterically call for banning them.

As for Rojo's subsequent question about how the world survived when wild animals were pooping in rivers and lakes, it's worth noting that the world has never seen widespread population density on a par with current (human) cities; and in "nature," animals die prematurely from (or live uncomfortably with) parasites and infections all the time. So worrying about clean water like all those snowflake liberals do only makes sense if you think life is better without dysentery.

the source of article tells you all you need to know; CA lib a-holes. Perhaps my dog will shit on one of theses research fools on the walk this evening.

I suggest we begin eliminating the stupid asses who come up with this stuff.

So you want to kill Scientist for presenting facts after doing research and laying out their conclusions? No wonder this country is going down the tubes. People refuse to listen to reason, logic or science even when the facts are presented. Swallow your pride it's pretty easy to just admit your wrong. No one will hold it against you. You thought "A". Scientist presented facts that counter your thought. You want to kill Scientist instead of just reading their analysis and making an informed decision based on said facts. What if someone thought this way about Alexander Fleming? How do you think that would have worked out? It's beyond clear at this point that cattle do produce an enormous about of methane gas.

1RunnerBoy wrote:

I suggest we begin eliminating the stupid asses who come up with this stuff.

How about those advocating the global warming / climate change agenda banned from air travel, cars with more than 4 cylinders, and house greater than 1200 square feet.

Why don't people want to believe that climate change is real and humans have a direct impact?

Cheney Dick wrote:

How about those advocating the global warming / climate change agenda banned from air travel, cars with more than 4 cylinders, and house greater than 1200 square feet.

My standard poodle was easily more intelligent than 75% of the people I deal with on a daily basis. Get rid of the pets?

Your hypocrisy is alarming! How about all the wasted internet traffic and energy use resulting from non-essential sites like LetsRun.com? Don't underestimate the waste of energy and resources and not the least of all, wasted time and effiiciency.

Stop looking for easy targets to troll people's interest, thereby boosting your viewership, page views, and subesequent ad revenues, and either a) stop promoting political/economic views of any kind, or b) follow the advice your promoting and get rid of this unnecessary site.