We have big box stores for pets.
We have semi trucks burning diesel to bring pet food and pet supplies to all parts of the world.
We devote some amount of farm land and livestock to feeding those pets.
It’s interesting when people suggest to reduce global human population but I have never heard anyone suggest to reduce pet populations as a method for combating climate change or for simply reducing resource usage.
The worldwide dog population is estimated to be 900 million.
There are 600 million to 1 billion cats living in the world today.
Yeah there’s a lot of ways to reduce carbon emissions. The important thing is to choose the ways that fits your life the best. It’s all about making an effort and not about some kind of purity test.
I mean everything you have and everything you do is putting carbon into the air. Literally breathing puts carbon in the air.
But we probably should be prioritizing here. Could go crazy thinking of every activity that produces carbon. Take transit, have a plant burger. Most important thing is that everyone makes an effort rather than having a small number of people taking extreme steps to reduce only their own carbon emissions while looking like nutjobs to everyone else.
Sure if you don’t feel like you need a pet, then don’t have one. It helps. If you already have four cats, then you really don’t need to get a fifth cat. Like come on, Janet, you already have enough cats FFS.
But no, nobody should suggest reducing the pet population as part of a carbon reduction plan. That just makes it all sound oppressive and crazy and will be rejected by a majority of the people. That will result in people not doing anything to reduce carbon emissions, which has a net negative result.
It’s good to think in this kind of way though. But it’s better to go with “take public transit, maybe try a plant burger, and think of other ways to reduce carbon emissions!” And let people reach the conclusion themselves about whether or not they need another pet.