Owning a dog is worse than owning an SUV

[IGBT]

keep the microphone in front of these guys. the more people hear who the eco-KOOKS are the more they will realize the are a bunch of alarmist doomsday KOOKS.

 

[fleabag]

carbon foot print or not, SUV's run over innocents and my dog eats them.

fixed

 

[Exterous]

First cows and now dogs? We should just eliminate all larger animals than ourselves. That is surely the best solution for our ecosystem!

 

[DrPizza]

Yet another reason to feed the dog table scraps that would otherwise have gone to the landfill. See, my dogs have a negative carbon footprint. They absolutely loved the deer carcasses a few weeks ago.

 

[Number1]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the meat used in dog food is not fit for human consumption and would end up in the garbage if not used for our pet.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Laughing my fucking ass off!

Rolling on the floor laughing!

 

[Capt Caveman]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the meat used in dog food is not fit for human consumption and would end up in the garbage if not used for our pet.

If you buy crappy dog food at the supermarket, premium dog foods will use the same meats, vegetables, etc... that we consume

 

[taisingera]

Methane is 10x more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2 and unlike CO2, plants don't take it in and use it. Only two good things about cows are leather and milk. Otherwise, eating cow is bad for you and because they have three stomachs they belch and fart a lot of methane. Cows also cause desertification of grasslands by eating the vegetation and using a lot of water for drinking. But dogs? Come on, these people are rediculous.

I'd say all the politicians cause more CO2 than all the dogs in the world by taking their guzzling jets and limos when not needed. Plus they use our (taxpayers) resources like cows and spend like crazy. I'd say we need to get rid of them, nevermind the dogs.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Methane is 10x more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2 and unlike CO2, plants don't take it in and use it. Only two good things about cows are leather and milk. Otherwise, eating cow is bad for you and because they have three stomachs they belch and fart a lot of methane. Cows also cause desertification of grasslands by eating the vegetation and using a lot of water for drinking. But dogs? Come on, these people are rediculous.

I'd say all the politicians cause more CO2 than all the dogs in the world by taking their guzzling jets and limos when not needed. Plus they use our (taxpayers) resources like cows and spend like crazy. I'd say we need to get rid of them, nevermind the dogs.

Please go away you stupid hippy.

 

[AlienCraft]

Well, they'll have to pry my 3 German Shepherds, 5 Cats and 2 Birds from my global-warming, dead hands.

word.

 

[IAteYourMother]

It's not that unreasonable... having kids also requires lots of energy and is also bad for the environment.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Their is nothing natural about a domesticated pet and everyone having one.

And it is what it is. I mean I totally see their point. Just because you love dogs doesn't make it less true. It's just an analysis of data. If you want to do something with it fine, if not then that is fine too. Noting wrong with having more knowledge.

Lots of animals in nature have a symbiotic relationship. We give dogs shelter and feed them, in return they give us companionship.

 

[El Guaraguao]

I expect nothing less from a fucking cat owner. yea. a fucking CAT.

 

[Sclamoz]

It's not that unreasonable... having kids also requires lots of energy and is also bad for the environment.

That's a good point. Someone should bring that up to these people so they don't reproduce.

 

[TheWart]

haha this is pretty funny. I wonder if the people that feed their animals scraps (to minimize the CO2 output during pet food production) are balanced out by those that take their pets to pet salons for manicures, confirming the general thrust of the study.

 

[alkemyst]

fixed

innocents are spared. Maybe after he is mature (another 4 months or so) he would eat SUV's.

He did a good job fucking up my Hangover rental from Blockbuster this week. He normally isn't like that, even when I put it on top of the A/V gear he still wants that DVD case.

 

[brblx]

Just another reason why this whole global warming issue is a crock of bullshit.

that's like saying all humans are stupid just because you are.

one dumbass article does not negate established and widely accepted scientific theories.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

So if you people can keep your dogs its only fair that I can keep my SUVs.

 

[RKS]

I really must not give a fuck. I have a Lab that loves to eat and fart and I also have a super-sized SUV with a gas guzzling V8.

 

[Ronstang]

that's like saying all humans are stupid just because you are.

one dumbass article does not negate established and widely accepted scientific theories.

There was a time when a peer reviewed scientific community would have said the earth was flat.

 

[Slew Foot]

Save the Earth, kill an enviroMENTAList

 

[brblx]

There was a time when a peer reviewed scientific community would have said the earth was flat.

...because there totally were peer-reviewed scientific communities at the time when people thought the world was flat.

i'd lay down twenty bucks on you not even knowing exactly what time period that was- mostly because no one really does. it's left to the vagaries of ancient history. when it certainly WASN'T is the 1490's, when, according to some (you), columbus spoke for every scientist in the world and said the earth was flat. in actuality, cosmographers from the middle ages even knew that the world was a sphere- and this is during one of the darkest times in the history of human learning (slightly behind today, i'd guess).

what's the point of this (other than pointing out the dopeyness of the analogy you tried to make)? that you should leave the science up to the scientists. even if joe schmo thought the earth was flat in 1000 AD, anyone who studied in the proper field knew the truth. you are not in the proper field.

if you want to know something, and there are scientists trained in the field you wish to know about, with observable data and the tools to examine it, you ask them. not rush limbaugh. take your science fail somewhere else.

 

[0roo0roo]

lol liberal san fran there are more pets than children

buncha smug hypocrites as usual.

 

[Capt Caveman]

lol liberal san fran there are more pets than children

buncha smug hypocrites as usual.

Makes sense, since pets have a smaller carbon footprint than children.

 

[Ruptga]

1. Saying the study is bad because animal owners feel singled out is total BS, that has nothing to do with how accurate it is or how accepted it should be.

2. As mentioned in the article, there's more to account for than just the ecological footprint. Spending more isn't necessarily a problem, it's when you're spending more but not getting proportionally more that things have to change. Many peoples' lives would be better if they had a dog and a modest car, as opposed to having a goldfish and a 4x4 complete with truck nuts.