Environmentally Responsible

A study has shown that owning a dog does more harm to the environment than owning an SUV.

Okay, if someone want to own a cat or dog or gorilla or whatever, I'm fine with that. Some excerpts though:

"Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"

Fair enough, but that makes it seem like people that don't drive and don't eat meat are more lonely than normal people that do those activities.

"Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, 'Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.'"

I take issue with this one. Environmentalists are always going on and on about how socially irresponsible it is to be driving something other than a Toyota Prius (despite the production process and the overall carbon footprint of the Prius being much dirtier than a Mercedes S-Class or a Range Rover). But by this logic, if I love my Ferrari and feel that revving it to 9,000rpm gives me utility (not necessarily in a practical sense, but in terms of enjoying the experience), then I should, by all means, be allowed to drive it around without being made to feel "like a polluter at all."

"Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

'Rabbits are good, provided you eat them,' said Robert Vale."

I would venture to say that it's a bit impractical to have a pet hen in the living room. The final line of the article is particularly epic; if aforementioned Sylvie Comont wants to be socially responsible and have pets, then she should at least be prepared to eat her seven cats and two dogs.