Comments on: The Latest Advice From the Eco-Zealots: Eat Your Pets

By: Shopping Mall

Shopping Mall — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:53:59 +0000

BOSTON -- This procured glass wholesale two hrs to experience the very first four innings from Fenway Meadow about Wednesday, plus while in the Yankees’ bullpen, Dave Robertson could possibly feel the overall game dragging. He / she sensed the possibility.

By: Buzzkill

Buzzkill — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:51:52 +0000

So, my dog is bad?
I bike commute, use my rain barrel, drive little, eat locally, and conserve water and power. Can’t win, can I?
Tell you what. I will take your arguments much more seriously when you come down on people who have ludicrous amounts of children. Also, people who use fertilization methods that yield multiple high risk babies. Usually, these births require the use of power, personnel, and supplies of an entire small hospital.
I propose that families with more than 2 children, donate the extra ones to research.
Sensationalism sells.
Perhaps instead of all-or-nothing ultimatums, all of us just do whatever we can to conserve. A little more realistic than putting down fido or jr.

By: kjohns

kjohns — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:33:12 +0000

It never fails to amaze me, the stupidity of liberal eco freaks. They will twist the facts, or just out and out lie, to support their pet ’cause’ of the day. It does not matter if they are against almost everything at one time or another, as long as they can feel morally superior to the vast majority of us that don’t buy into their kooky outlook on life and the planet we live on.
I am fully in agreement with the proposal voiced by others here. Every eco freak should be offered the chance to do their part in saving the planet by voluntarily agreeing to die, helped along by force if necessary. They are willing to ‘force’ the rest of us to live by their silly rules after all. Their remains could be made into animal food or fertilizer, thus helping the world’s plants and animals to survive. I am much more willing to feed eco freak to my cats, than to feed my cats to an eco freak.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:36:46 +0000

Yeah, this thing’s a bit of a beat-up. Pets have their cost – economic and environmental – but they’re insignificant compared with, say, a child. If this is the analysis I’ve seen elsewhere (I don’t care enough to check any more) then it’s a bit narrow – measuring everything in terms of agricultural hectares. It’s also misguided in thinking that everything that mittens or spot eats has been specially grown – whereas in truth it’s at least partly stuff that wouldn’t have found a western market for people-food (I wonder how china deals with this? They eat EVERYTHING themselves – I guess their pets just eat rice).

But if you want to eat your dog, go ahead – or your cat, for that matter (aka ‘roof rabbit’). Fact is, they’re already food in some places. Just don’t come after any of mine

They’re also not particularly efficient sorts of food because they grow slowly and they’re mostly carnivores – pigs, sheep and cattle are much more efficient sources of meat. Probably tastier, too (I’ve never eaten moggy – and I’ve never knowingly eaten any puppydog).

By: peach

peach — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:27:35 +0000

If these freaks ever start coming after pets, I swear I’ll drop them where they stand if come anywhere near my babies!

By: Litte Ray

Litte Ray — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:54:14 +0000

I’m sure that most individual members of Western Civilization, including the individuals trying to bring it down, generate a bigger “carbon footprint” than a house pet.
Therefore, to reduce the overall carbon footprint of the West, I propose that we feed all these loons to staving polar bears. I am certain that they will agree to this and even volunteer in order to preserve the polar bears and reduce the output of CO2.
Of course, if these people fail to volunteer, sterner measures will be called for.

By: Ilpalazzo

Ilpalazzo — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:47:03 +0000

Anyone who says “The science is settled” is a complete buffoon. Science is nothing but theories, models and hypothesis. A lot of what we see and know today is based on those forms, but it is a far cry from ‘settled’. CO2 is a pollutant? I don’t think so. It’s a chemical bond/element/whatever.. only our human politics are naming is a ‘pollutant’. I seemed to recall plant life relying on CO2 and in return they create oxygen. Doesn’t sound like a pollutant if it’s essential to plant life.

This whole carbon footprint religion is nonsense. Everything on this planet is carbon-based! Do people not already know that? How come reduced breeding isn’t in the forefront of fighting carbon footprints, eh? And Obama wants the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be reduced by 80%. 80%! That’s great in the fight against man-made global warming.. oh wait.. let’s see.. if 100% would mean that ALL life on this planet is gone, where does 80% leave us? Docile, immobile, in the Matrix?

By: Ann

Ann — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:29:48 +0000

Please, Julia, keep those common sense comments coming. I’m not sure what planets these people are located. I sincerely hope it’s a mistake and it’s not ours!

By: Sebastian Shaw

Sebastian Shaw — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:36:58 +0000

Environmentalism is all about central government control–Communism; they hide behind being eco-friendly as a guise so Communism becomes more palpable to digest. Global Warming has blown up in their faces & they are desperate. No one takes them seriously except perhaps young malleable brains from the school age children & disgusting politicians looking to pander to another niche group.

By: franklin

franklin — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:48:59 +0000

This article really should have been titled “Eco-idiot worries other eco-idiots have gone too far”