The article published by the NY Times on Tuesday is titled "We Love Our Dogs and Cats. But Are They Bad for the Environment?" You don't need to wait long for an answer to that question. The subhead settles it immediately: "Some pets have wide-ranging effects on the planet. Here’s how to lessen them." In short, the answer is yes. Pets are bad for the environment and this article will now advice you how to limit the size of their carbon pawprint.
Yet for all the good, pets come with environmental costs. Cats and dogs eat a lot of meat, for example. They also kill wildlife...
Gregory Okin, a geographer at the University of California, Los Angeles, calculated in a 2017 study that the estimated 163 million cats and dogs in the United States consume a whopping quarter of the country’s animal-derived calories.
The solution is to feed your pets less meat, except there's a limit to what you can do, especially with cats. Cats aren't built to be vegans.
Vegan pet foods should be approached with caution, because of potential nutritional inadequacies. That’s especially true for cats.
The story goes on to note that pet poop is bad for the environment because it can contaminate the soil and water. This problem is minimized if people clean up after their pets, but of course some dog owners don't do that. The article ends with a recommendation to consider a small, possibly vegetarian pet.
...if you’re specifically looking for a pet that takes a lower environmental toll, then go for something small, Dr. Harvey said.
Cats and dogs also aren’t the only pets available, Dr. Okin said. For example, rabbits and guinea pigs wind up at shelters and rescues in high numbers, too. And unlike cats and dogs, they’re vegetarians.
As is sometimes the case with NY Times articles, there are some real gems are in the comments. Here's the top comment which sort of gives you a sense of who is reading this article.
If everyone would just do their part and spay or neuter their president before their president destroys the EPA. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
And the #2 most upvoted comment. Do you see a trend?
Have you noticed that trump is one of the very few presidents who does not have any kind of pet?
I would sooner get rid of those folks than the cats and dogs.
Absurd
But the real winner is comment #3 with 332 upvotes. You just knew this was coming.
Have dogs or cats instead of human children. There, you just lowered your carbon footprint about 10,000%.
The author of that one was anonymous and I'm not even sure it wasn't meant satirically, but I think the people voting for it are in earnest. In case you doubt it, just look below it at comment #4.
If you think pets are the environmental problem, human offspring are worse.
That sentiment is more widespread on the left then you'd like to imagine. Many of the people who believe humans are destroying the planet aren't fans of children or humans in general.
Finally, one reader pointed out that a study cited in the article for the headlining claim about how much meat pets eat was misleading and discredited.
Gregory Okin's study was discredited when it came out. For one thing, he didn't account for the fact that many pet foods (especially dry kibble) use by-products from the human food supply chain, including organ meats and rendered meat meals from other parts of animals that we Westerners don't tend to eat. So, his using carbon footprint data from the meat in pet food as if it were derived from the animals directly into pet food processing was inaccurate and misleading.
For another side to the story and set of data, consult the North American Renderers Association (nara.org). And no, I don't work for them, though, full disclosure, I am the editor-in-chief of Petfood Industry magazine (petfoodindustry.com), a B2B media brand covering the industry.
I'm also an animal lover who feels compelled to defend pet ownership and the many, many benefits our furry (scaled, feathered) companions offer.
If they can't get a story about pet food right, what else aren't they getting right?
