By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment(independent.co.uk)
independent.co.uk
By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/opinion/pets-uk-ownership-cats-dogs-carbon-environmental-impact-b1249610.html
8 comments
The implication seems to be, "it might be one thing if they ate the whole bird, but mostly the bird deaths are completely needless". Not that it's much of a consolation prize if the cat enjoyed their snack.
Well, my decades of pet ownership didn’t kill any birds because they were indoor pets. All sorts of other things, natural and otherwise, killed them without my help. We fed and watered them from time to time, so I think of myself as a net positive re birds.
And is the impact of pet ownership larger than, say, the impact of those involved in sports? Huge amounts of unnatural green spaces are maintained and direct and indirect carbon emissions are created. This directly impacts the former natural population of these areas, usually driving them away or just eliminating them. And I suspect the economic distortion caused by those into sports exceeds those into pets (although there is significant overlap).
Will the authors propose banning sports?
I would think that the impact on the biosphere from having children greatly exceeds having pets. We only had the latter, so I guess we did our part in reducing aggregate damage?
And is the impact of pet ownership larger than, say, the impact of those involved in sports? Huge amounts of unnatural green spaces are maintained and direct and indirect carbon emissions are created. This directly impacts the former natural population of these areas, usually driving them away or just eliminating them. And I suspect the economic distortion caused by those into sports exceeds those into pets (although there is significant overlap).
Will the authors propose banning sports?
I would think that the impact on the biosphere from having children greatly exceeds having pets. We only had the latter, so I guess we did our part in reducing aggregate damage?
Will the authors propose banning sports?
That there are other things that are possibly harmful to the environment does not negate the author’s points. You sound overly defensive. Given the number of rescue cats and dogs I think it’s safe to assume that there are a lot of irresponsible pet owners.
That there are other things that are possibly harmful to the environment does not negate the author’s points. You sound overly defensive. Given the number of rescue cats and dogs I think it’s safe to assume that there are a lot of irresponsible pet owners.
Huge amounts of green space? There are only 5.6 square miles of football fields in all of north america. Other sports have a similar footprint.
Every golf course, recreation field, stadium, their parking areas, …. These areas can’t be lived in and in n America at least they’re car playgrounds.
The UK doesn’t have the same thoughts about indoor pets as other countries especially cats.
More communist propoganda!
The logic in this article is unreal. I genuinely cannot follow how they're connecting "percent of carcass consumed" to "threatening endangered suburban bird species" here.