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

@BerriesOnTop
Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
Just try living in one of these countries without air conditioning—it is essential for perhaps three quarters of the year.
You couldn’t do it, I’d wager, given how people in Britain handled the ‘heat wave’ last summer

isn’t it just astonishing how we know about ancient civilisations that lived in these places, before electricity, and aircon. I’m pretty certain that most of the migrants they use in construction today don’t live in air conditioned apartments. Aircon is a modern day luxury for those who can afford it, just like heating……if you can’t afford it you manage. Water is essential, food is essential. Aircon and heating are not.

They’ll have even more polluted soil and water than we currently do

Doesn’t really follow in that developed countries generally have cleaner air and water than lesser developed countries.

Extended extremely hot temps, coupled with extended severe droughts. Even higher population numbers competing for decreasing resources

And these can be dealt with—but only with cheap access to fossil fuels to secure the global supply chain.

Fact is, we don’t know how the modelled droughts will work in a higher CO2 environment. Plants generally need less water in a higher CO2 environment after all. Climate models really,
really can’t predict it, and they admit it if you care to read the IPCC reports.

and what decreasing resources? We have plenty of fossil fuels, no peak oil at play, the current scarcity is purely political.

isn’t it just astonishing how we know about ancient civilisations that lived in these places, before electricity, and aircon

Yeah, the average person lived miserably and their children routinely died before adulthood. Such harmony with nature!

In truth, it was a difficult life in the Arabian peninsula before they harnessed fossil fuels.

I’m pretty certain that most of the migrants they use in construction today don’t live in air conditioned apartments

The main issue isn’t air conditioning (these countries have cheap access to fossil fuels after all). It’s overcrowding and overwork in the full heat.

Aircon is a modern day luxury for those who can afford it, just like heating……if you can’t afford it you manage

You don’t manage unless you are in good health. The young and old and vulnerable always died in bad winters and summers. We just accepted this, because there was no alternative. Maybe it’s possible to survive in UK without heating and cooling, but you used to die in droves when colonising foreign climes 🤷‍♀️

Water is essential, food is essential. Aircon and heating are not

Have you lived anywhere but the UK? People die if the power goes out and it’s below freezing — and heat waves always kill elderly people in Europe because of lack of air conditioning.

@BerriesOnTop are you actually arguing for the continued burning of fossil fuels?

Absolutely. Additionally, we should encourage developing countries to make use of cheap fossil fuels.

Although there’s some nuance to my position as I do not enjoy air pollution, so would prefer we avoid burning coal and wood near residential areas. This is easily accomplished through natural gas or nuclear. Also, I do think EVs are a good idea for cities as ICE car exhaust again causes air pollution.

I don’t consider carbon to be a pollutant.

I also just can’t stand how modern people in developed countries take their standards of living (pretty much the result of fossil fuels) for granted and think we can just … not use them. Like WTF?

The environmental cost of pet ownership is a hugely emotive subject. I have a cat. I've been letting the garden go wild to encourage insects but this year, sadly, my cat has brought in dozens of hawk moths and butterflies.
We need to think carefully about reducing the impact of pet ownership in the same way as everything else.. Everything is hanging in the balance right now. No area of our lives must go unscrutinised.
This is a hugely important topic. It's a shame it's not on AIBU with voting as it would really benefit me to know how many people would be interested in reducing the climate impact of their pets. It's my line of work.

@BerriesOnTop I don’t consider carbon to be a pollutant.

Seriously?

Emmisions from burning fossil fuels are in danger of making our planet uninhabitable, the poorest will, as ever, suffer most. And your solution is for the poorest to burn more fossil fuels. Will you write the suicide note for them?

@sagalooshoe I'm not sure pets have a big impact on climate change, the impact of cats on wildlife is different.

Roughly 75% of emissions come from burning fossil fuels, this is where to focus.

Cats and dogs account for between 3% and 5% of UK emissions.

ANyone who's so concerned about the impact of pets on the environment should have one less kid. That would make a lot more difference than people not having pets.

@DreamingOfSoftWhiteSand the have no kids argument relies on maintaining CO2 emissions at the current levels, and nobody is planning to do that. Undoubtedly more people require more resources, but the way those resources are used matters much more.

As a PP mentioned pets are being feed waste products so surely that's a good thing.
Also, children cause stress whereas pets relieve stress. Might not be true of black labs called Fenton.

@Freedomfromguilt unfortunately I do not know Fenton, but I'm sure it was your fault, not Fenton's!

Pets provide massive benefits to their owners in many, many ways and their impact on climate change appears to be pretty minimal compared to the big culprits like fossil fuels. We need to be targeting the things that will actually make a difference. If people choose not to have pets then that's their prerogative but it wouldn't be first on my list of things to change.

The 3-5% emissions from cat and dogs alone in UK that you quote is actually pretty significant when you know that livestock and agriculture contributes 5.6% to greenhouse emissions.

I'd loooooove to know how many children the PP who are advocating for the removal of pets, have.

I don't think it needs to be about choosing not to have pets. Just being more mindful of how we have pets.

Driving shorter distances to walk dogs, keeping cats indoors for a few hours at dusk and dawn when birds are most active, thinking about the materials our pet beds and toys are made from and how far they have been transported, not throwing poo bags into trees and bushes.

We need to be thinking about lowering our impact in every area of our lives. Not stopping looking after animals if that makes us happy, but doing it in a sustainable way that does not impact the environment or create more emissions than necessary.

Even the direst prediction of the IPCC reports are not apocalyptic, not one word about ‘uninhabitable’ planets in there—you should try and read it.

Denying the poorest countries fossil fuels will ensure they stay poor and also helpless during natural or manmade disasters. But I guess that doesn’t bother you at all, does it?

Oops cross post

@BerriesOnTop Cut and paste from the IPCC AR6 WG2 report:

Migration and displacement
TS.C.7 Migration patterns due to climate change are difficult to project as they depend on patterns of population growth, adaptive capacity of exposed populations and socioeconomic development and migration policies (high confidence). In many regions, the frequency and/or severity of floods, extreme storms and droughts is projected to increase in coming decades, especially under high emissions scenarios, raising future risk of displacement in the most exposed areas (high confidence). Under all global warming levels, some regions that are presently densely populated will become unsafe or uninhabitable, with movement from these regions occurring autonomously or through planned relocation (high confidence).
{4.5.7, 7.3.2, Box 9.8, 15.3.4, CCB MIGRATE}

I'm not surprised you missed this as AR6 WG2 and WG3 reports are 3000 pages each.

I had not heard of Fenton - I thought @Freedomfromguilt was complaining about her dog! That video is hilarious!!!

@BerriesOnTop so to save you reading the reports, I'll add more cut and paste:

USD 6–9 billion monetary losses with 114 deaths, 414 injuries and 1.08 million inhabitants affected. In addition, 6614 km of improved roads were damaged, 326 bridges destroyed, 41,632 homes destroyed or uninhabitable, and 242,433 homes, 2150 schools and 726 health centres damaged.

Clear anthropogenic climate change fingerprint detected. For example, while the anomalously warm ocean favoured extreme rainfall of March 2017 in Peru, the human influence was estimated to make such events at least 1.5 times more likely (Christidis et al., 2019).

Of course it bothers me, why do you want to make climate change worse???

Totally agree OP.

Yes, it follows that developed countries will have more pollution if the leadership is so inclined. Conservatives tend to be anti regulation and don’t give a fig about pollution. Companies that cause pollution get a slap on the wrist and carry on. Companies that cause natural disasters declare bankruptcy to avoid accountability, or they stall court proceedings for decades, and financially being held accountable won’t fix the damage they caused anyway. Exxon Valdez and others being case in point.

Oil producers have been aware of the detrimental impact of fossil fuels on our climate for decades, as evidenced by their own research. But they covered it up, lied about it and denied it.

Decreasing natural resources like water are a fact. Severe droughts leading to extremely dry conditions, wildfires, streams, rivers, lakes drying up. Principal acquifers not being recharged by rainfall which further decreases groundwater. Dying crops, desertification, all real and happening at this time. Climate refugees from areas that are becoming uninhabitable. It will only get worse if we don’t do something to at least mitigate it, and we can’t drink oil.

When they ban flying for anything other than business I will stop getting pets .