jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (13 posts)

OK guys environmentalism is getting a little out of whack

  1. tony0724 profile image59
    tony0724posted 8 years ago

    I kid you not now they say Fido and Lassie are causing more pollution then an SUV a pawprint if you will. I want a clean planet as much as the next guy and try to do my part. But this is just a little to nuts ! Read this and I would like to know what you think

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc … nimalsfood

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image74
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      What's odd to me is that, while it makes sense for individuals to do things like winterize their own homes, drive cars that are fuel efficient, and so on (because you save money!), it is large organizations that do the most polluting. In other words, it is large organizations that do all of the large stuff, good and bad!

      So it is cities, governments, corporations, etc. that should be held most accountable: the more mess you make, the more you should clean it up.

      Pointing fingers at individuals and asking them to do things you know most won't do anyway is just a waste of time.

      The one exception to what I've just said is the cattle industry: the raising of livestock is enormously polluting, and results in forest-clearing also... but good luck trying to break the backbone of the worldwide love of beef by individuals!

  2. Jeffrey Neal profile image85
    Jeffrey Nealposted 8 years ago

    Breaking News: This just in. Former Vice President, environmental globe trotter, and high volume purchaser of carbon offsets, Al Gore has announced that he is pushing Senators to add an amendment to the Waxman bill whereby a tax of 25% is to be imposed on purchases of pet food. Get ready for hikes on the kibble!

    The proposed amendment will do nothing to help clean up the environment, but the government needs more money.
    "Pet food is a billion dollar industry in need of some regulation.  The industry's reckless use of meat scraps is killing our earth and something needs to be done however inconvenient the American people may find it," Gore said.

    1. profile image0
      Ghost32posted 8 years agoin reply to this


      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image74
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Al Gore's participation in any of this has done nothing but polarize people's views on a subject that needs some sober-headed debate and thought (and I don't mean global warming, I mean environmental degradation generally). I wish he'd just kept his big mouth shut. Now, normally, I guess you could call me "left" rather than "right" (though not in every way; I am pro-busines models for doing things, a lot of the time, for example), but after finally seeing his movie and noticing how much of it is about HIM and not about the issues.... well, dumb, dumb, dumb.

        It might be easier to say than to do, but it is an example of the useful advice that goes: "Get your freakin' ego out of the picture, buddy."

    2. sannyasinman profile image60
      sannyasinmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I read somewhere that Al Gore stands to make $$$$$ billions from the carbon credit trading as he owns or has a significant interest in the brokerage company(ies) that do(es) the trading.

      People buying the right to pollute the Earth is a lunatic idea.

      Next thing you know they'll be taxing our own gaseous emissions, with a "fart police" to catch those who fart more than their permitted quota.

      1. Jeffrey Neal profile image85
        Jeffrey Nealposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        And this is why there is raised skepticism.  I don't trust Al Gore.

  3. kerryg profile image87
    kerrygposted 8 years ago

    Agriculture is one of the leading causes of carbon emissions, especially modern animal agriculture, so we could reduce Fido's "pawprint" very easily without taxes if we started raising livestock in more sustainable ways.

    Do you really want to defend the massive Amazon deforestation currently taking place that converts virgin rainforest into temporary cow pasture or soybean fields for cheap animal field? Or keeping thousands of animals crammed together belly deep in their own s*** and then acting shocked when the meat they produce comes out contaminated with fatal strains of E.coli? Agricultural reform isn't just about reducing carbon emissions, it's about restoring the health (physical and economic) of the American people, especially rural America, preventing air and water pollution (have you ever tasted Iowa's tapwater? - in most of the state it's completely undrinkable), and treating animals with a modicum of respect and humanity. These are bad things how?

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image74
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      ...in fact, in my book, you can throw the global warming debate out the window, because all the other things you list are super important irrespective of climate change or the lack thereof

  4. tony0724 profile image59
    tony0724posted 8 years ago

    Kerry I like you do not want the Amazon torn up either. I rarely agree with you but on that one I do. We are talking about the household pets here

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, both of us are talking about household pets. The agricultural practices that produce the cheap meat we feed to our dogs and cats are destroying the Amazon and rural America, in addition to being one of the largest contributors to global warming.

      AdsenseStrategies is exactly right, even if you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, there are hundreds of reasons to reform the system we use to raise our livestock, from swine flu (which originated in Mexican factory farms) to the obesity crisis to the near-toxic drinking water in much of rural America. If we did so, the carbon "pawprints" of our pets would nearly disappear, and our own carbon footprints would be significantly reduced.

      Everything is connected, dude. It's not just hippie talk. When you're discussing the environment, the world economy, and the interplay between the two, it's as true as saying the sky is blue.

  5. Arthur Fontes profile image81
    Arthur Fontesposted 8 years ago

    What kind of a carbon paw print does a Polar Bear leave??

  6. Tom Cornett profile image63
    Tom Cornettposted 8 years ago

    "Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres)"

    Al Gore is about 6 times the size of a medium sized dog...so that makes his carbon footprint 5.04 or (16.2 acres)

    Al Gore = 6 dogs.

    The math is obvious.....I'm with the dogs!  smile