Going pet free to reduce climate change

[LittleLottieChaos]

I don’t think I’ve seen a thread where people get told not to have a pet because it contributes to climate change… but more often than not when someone asks ‘shall I have a child’ there’s an immediate ‘but think of the planet’ response.

Does anyone else find this ridiculous as a double standard? Pet food farming IS an issue and pets are not necessary (yes yes nor are kids but that’s not the debate here), we should be keeping less domestic animals. Why does a dog owner need 3+ dogs?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.euronews.com/green/amp/2021/04/28/what-s-worse-for-the-climate-crisis-your-child-or-your-pet

One thing I will say is that growing up with dogs (whom I considered to be my hairy sisters) gave me huge empathy for animals, including wildlife; which ultimately led to my environmentalism. I think it's very good for children to have companion animals in their lives.
Obviously, as a vegan, I'd say adopt don't shop, wherever possible.

Some prefer to have company of a cat and a dog than jetting about on holiday.

Absolutely agree

Heat damage in roses is not hard to prevent. We grew roses in a climate far hotter than England but we also knew how to protect them.

People unironically are suffering from a shortage of fossil fuels rather than an abundance

People with usernames like ilovemydoggiesmorethanhumans like to rage about climate change on here.
Their dog food is flown in from China but that's ok.

I'm pretty sure it's too late to do anything about climate change anyway

Dogs like companions. Cats are happy being the only cat in the house.

so we do nothing? I’d like to think that the rate of progression could be altered? Even if not totally reversible.

It needs to be part of the discussion. It is easy for me to say no dogs. I don't have a dog nor want one. A car on the other hand..(due to my disability makes life easier)

I think we need to get the general understanding that we can't have it all. No-one should be having a couple of cars they use a lot, lots of kids, pets and holidays and tumble dryer and all the trappings of a well off life. It should be normal that people budget their carbon emissions and choose things knowing the cost. People with young children may choose a tumble dryer and no flying holidays. Another person may choose a dog or dog share. Eg (dog looked after in another home during the day or overnight so two families get the benefit of one dog, dogs not left alone in the day) some will give up their car...

Everyone will have to think about it, including the superrich and we'll off.

It's true we cannot change the environmental damage caused by past events, but it is equally true that we can restrict the level of climate change by reducing our CO2e emissions now and in the future. Ultimately we need to get to net zero emissions and beyond that to negative emissions.

Net zero emissions, as soon as possible, are what's needed. Even if we all halve our carbon emissions, that doesn't do the job, as it just slightly slows the problem.

Honestly, I can't see humanity managing that by being careful and restricting what we want to do, whether that's pet ownership or travel, because we're a bolshy species and don't necessarily do the right thing. It needs to happen (and fast) by making carbon-free alternatives the only viable option in the main emitting sectors.

That's electricity and heat production; transport; forestry and agriculture; and manufacturing. Food production (including dog kibble, as far as I know!) accounts for about 10% of global emissions.

@FernPotts we don't need to restrict what we do. I think it's a dangerous misconception and too often leads to arguments for delay. We need to change what we do, net zero and sustainability will make people healthier and happier living richer and more rewarding lives. Unfortunately I think people are more afraid of charge than almost anything else.

I think we are saying the same thing.

As a dog owner who is herself moving steadily towards a vegan diet I am well aware of my hypocrisy.
But I'm not that oft-criticised apocryphal vegan who preaches their diet to others. So I'll continue enjoying the company of my wonderful dog while the doing the best I can elsewhere in my life.

@FernPotts I think we are!

An interesting article here on a recent study here

I'm immersed in this daily at the moment and hadn't seen that, thanks.

Too much to keep up with.

@FernPotts I'm a long in the tooth research engineer and never in my career have I seen anything like the pace of change that we are currently witnessing almost all related to sustainability. It's actually really hard to keep up.

I definitely do. The dog comes with us.
Why do humans think they have more right to the planet than any other animal?

An important and uncomfortable conversation.
For full disclosure: 2DC, 2 cats.

What I find so frustrating is the knee-jerk "...and I won't be lectured" response that invariably arises whenever measures for reducing personal carbon emissions are discussed (vehicles, fast fashion, buying new, children, flights, pets, diet etc).
Sharing information and facts isn't lecturing. Feeling personally miffed that one's preference for long haul flights or gratuitous acquisition has been called out as environmentally suboptimal does not make it less true. It signals an understandable disappointment that the things we enjoy or value are not congruent with a collective commitment to reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change, and the most useful thing to do is to process those uncomfortable feelings in private, not try to mobilise others in outrage at being "told what to do".

We have 3 cats (indoors unless supervised by one of the humans, to protect birds and other wildlife), 2 who showed up on our doorstep, ill and hungry, and one from our local rescue. We are also (hopefully) temporarily caring for a relative’s 3 cats. I’ve switched the lot to poultry only food, no beef or fish, in the hopes of less environmental impact.

While I believe keeping cats indoor is the responsible thing to do, in many places habitat destruction and use of pesticides has a much more negative, and much bigger, impact on birds and wildlife than cats could ever have.

I think that breeding licenses should be very limited, and that spay/neuter should be mandatory for all pets that are old enough.

As for kids, we already know we need to reduce the population, not add to it. Otherwise there won’t be much quality of life for anyone. But many people are too selfish to care, they decide they want 2 or 3 or more kids and to hell with the eventual consequences.

I think there's nothing wrong with wanting 1 or 2 kids. We have 2 but won't have any more and a big part of that decision was based around population and that 2 will replace us but not contribute to population growth. for us, I couldn't justify 3 or more. and I am the eldest of 5, so I am not particularly outspoken about this!

The population is too high for maintaining at the current numbers. Ideally, people would have none, or stop at one. But I know that’ll never happen and therefore it is a moot point. In addition to feeling so sorry for all the wildlife suffering due to deteriorating conditions, I feel sorry for kids. They are going to have to deal with hellish conditions much of their lives.

As for people, the environmental impact of a dog will vary hugely depending on lifestyle.

Our DDog is raw fed on meat produced in UK, basically leftovers of the human food chain. We don't use chemical treatments for fleas or worms as her diet and supplements keep her parasite free. We only take her out in the car at weekends, the rest of the week she is walked from home. Plus we would have always been taking DC out somewhere at weekend anyway so it's not an extra trip for her benefit. We don't buy plastic toys for her to destroy. She has natural chews like cow horns and rope toys for tug and throwing.

All in all I think she has a very minimal impact compared to some. But I agree there are far too many dogs and cats and the cheap pet food industry is awful. There are too many dogs and cats being fed complete junk. And people wonder why their teeth rot! Far too easy for one household to own too many pets. It shouldn't be so cheap and easy. Unfortunately cost is probably the only way people will reduce. Look at energy bills, only now are a much larger majority of people finally looking at their energy consumption and cutting back. If it's cheap they will just keep consuming despite all the warnings about global warming. It all comes down to price.

I completely agree. But good luck getting the majority of people to get to this level of realisation.

Pets are a catastrophe for the environment, both wide and immediate.

I'd still argue, not nearly as bad as humans - especially the car-owning, flying, meat-eating variety.
Also, as mentioned up thread, it does hugely depend on a variety of factors.
As it happens, I don't currently have a companion animal (don't like the word pet) of my own. As I live in a flat without a garden, and currently have a very low income. So it wouldn't be fair or responsible to have one in these circumstances. But if I was in a position to, I'd rescue as many animals as I possibly could! They'd all be rescues though, and I'd feed them as ecologically responsible a diet as possible. I grew up with dogs, and have always had other animals in my life in other ways (looking after other people's/feeding wild animals etc). I struggle with my mental health, and personally feel that having non-human friends in my life is essential for my survival.