Vlasceanu said marketing focuses more on recycling and using energy-efficient light bulbs than on why flights or dog adoption are relatively bad for the climate, so participants were more likely to give those actions more weight.
Dogs are big meat eaters, and meat is a significant contributor to climate change. That is because many of the farm animals, which will become food, release methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Beef is especially impactful, in part because around the world cattle are often raised on land that was illegally deforested. Since trees absorb carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas, cutting them to then raise cattle is a double whammy.
“People just don’t associate pets with carbon emissions. That link is not clear in people’s minds,” Zhao said.
So this isn’t really a big deal in terms of all the other things to be outraged about right now, but it just caught my eye. Probably the intention/it’s kinda clickbait.
The things that get blamed on people vs corporations when it comes to climate change impact is always ridiculous, but this is a new low.
First of all, as if we all didn’t see exactly how much the climate would benefit if corporations were suddenly forced to come to a screeching halt:
Emission Reductions From Pandemic Had Unexpected Effects on Atmosphere
A comprehensive new survey of the effects of the pandemic on the atmosphere, using satellite data from NASA and other international space agencies, reveals some unexpected findings. The study also offers insights into addressing the dual threats of climate warming and air pollution. “We’re past the point where we can think of these as two separate problems,” said Joshua Laughner, lead author of the new study and a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech in Pasadena, California. “To understand what is driving changes to the atmosphere, we must consider how air quality and climate influence each other.”
Since the pandemic, have we seen frequent headlines stressing little changes from corporations could have a big impact? Not even anything drastic, just little slivers of change?
Nonsense. This headline is 100% necessary. You greedy plebians already have way too much privilege. If you just ceased yet another thing that brings you joy, it might help offset some of the continuing damage to the climate that is otherwise completely unavoidable.
To their credit the article does mention:
The owner of a meat-eating pet can lower their impact by looking for food made from sources other than beef. Zhao, for example, tries to minimize her dog’s carbon footprint by feeding her less carbon-intensive protein sources, including seafood and turkey.
Can’t argue with any of that, but again, before shaming plebs for clickbait, are there any other current events that come to mind in terms of alternatives to meat production you could have at least mentioned? Anybody else that might be more blameworthy than those fatcat dog companions?
Why Are Politicians Banning Cultivated Meat? New Study Explains It All
One country and six US states have so far passed laws that prohibit companies from making or selling cultivated meat within their boundaries. For Italy, the reason behind the ban was a threat to its cultural identity. For policymakers in the US, while the arguments often touch upon food safety concerns, more often than not, they are tied to the same theme: protecting the ranchers.
New study reveals that beef, lamb, milk and eggs are most vulnerable to lab-grown competition
not enough people are making the only correct choice, eat the rich.
the rich are an ethical meat source even vegans can enjoy
Nothing you do as an individual will ever ever in a million years be as bad as the commercial fishing industry
Dogs are big meat eaters, but from what I’ve seen at slaughter facilities, there are giant barrels of cow parts that are not going to be made into nice cuts of beef or even ground beef that get shipped off to rendering plants and are made into dog food. Yes, it would be better if no one ate meat, but don’t blame the dogs. They aren’t why the meat industry exists.
they aren’t blaming the dogs, they are blaming the common folk yet again for just owning dogs. it’s our fault that they (companies) are killing the planet and brining politicians to ignore their shitty work practices
I wish I could live to see politicians being soaked in water and salt and left there for a day or two.
Its titles like this that kinda make me understand why some republicans think climate change is all about controlling people. Like obviously there is more nuance to it than that but who writes that and thinks it’s a good headline.
Just a guess, but I would imagine somebody who’s sponsors have an interest in shifting the blame from big business to literally anyone else.
This is exactly it. All discussion of climate impact that focusses on individual actions is a distraction from the fact that all of climate change is being caused by massive corporations and wealthy elites. A single billionaire can produce more carbon in a week than you will in your life, no matter what good or bad choices you make.
Unrestrained capitalism is our problem, not people owning dogs. We don’t have to eradicate all forms of CO2 production, we just have to bring it down to a level that the planet can handle. We could do that while affording every person on Earth a comfortable life, including owning pets, living in our own homes, having access to a private vehicle if we need one, and am entirely reasonable amount of international travel. We just need to make the right choices at a societal level, not as individuals.
Carnists and car brains will do anything to avoid facing their own garbage decisions. Even blaming their dogs! Give me a break.
It’s simple: Neuter your dog, stop eating meat, and blow up your car.
This article is still blaming a down-stream effect of meat production being terrible. It is not dogs’ fault that factory farming is brainlessly done and terrible for the environment.
That is the mentally lazy equivalent of saying “just drive less” to save the climate… Such terrible articles are worse than useless, as they ossify the resentment of uninformed fools against climate action and against those fighting for it. “lol dumb liberals want to outlaw pets!” will be the next headline from Breitbart.
Who ever wrote this article/study needs to have the shit slapped out of them…
Dogs are a weird choice; maybe because þey trend to be bigger þan cats, and so eat more? But dogs are omnivores, like us, and _can_be healþy wiþ a larger portion of þeir diet being vegetarian. Cats, on þe oþer hand, are obligate carnivores, and þe only reason cat food has any vegetable matter in it is because cat food isn’t made from an entire animal, just animal parts. If cats were eating þeir normal animal prey, þey’d be getting some of what þe (usually mainly herbivorous) prey ate. Much more of a cat’s diet should be meat, þan þe percent of a dog’s diet.
But, again, maybe it’s because dogs are so much bigger þan cats, and eat so much more. Still seems weird to pick on dogs, when cats - and ferrets! - are also pets þat eat a lot of meat.
(Noþing against cats; I’m a cat owner, and have never owned a dog, and if anyþing I’m biased in favor of cats)
