Here We Go Again: Mother Jones And UK Guardian Complain About The Carbon Footprint Of Dogs

As I noted to Casey Mattox when I ran across his tweet deriding this article, the climate cult came up with this a few years ago, and will trot it out every few because the cult never gives up on an wacko idea. Even one that really doesn’t get the support they think it should, because, who doesn’t love dogs? But, weirdly, the UK Guardian and Mother Jones never complain about all the high ranking poobahs in the cult who have massive carbon footprints

Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs Are Environmental Villains

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Dogs have “extensive and multifarious” environmental impacts, disturbing wildlife, polluting waterways and contributing to carbon emissions, new research has found.

An Australian review of existing studies has argued that “the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognised”.

While the environmental impact of cats is well known, the comparative effect of pet dogs has been poorly acknowledged, the researchers said.

The review, published in the journal Pacific Conservation Biology, highlighted the impacts of the world’s “commonest large carnivore” in killing and disturbing native wildlife, particularly shore birds.

The carbon footprint of pets is also significant. A 2020 study found the dry pet food industry had an environmental footprint of around twice the land area of the UK, with greenhouse gas emissions—56 to 151 Mt CO₂— equivalent to the 60th highest-emitting country.

Oh, piss off. You are complaining about this?

look at the end ???? #pet #cat #dog #cute #animals #foryou #typ #funny #shorts pic.twitter.com/I1BqJolUoN

— Best Funny Moments (@FunnyBest81746) April 11, 2025

But, they, and the researchers, look like they realize they may be going a bit too crazy

“To a certain extent we give a free pass to dogs because they are so important to us… not just as working dogs but also as companions,” he said, pointing to the “huge benefits” dogs had on their owners’ mental and physical health. He also noted that dogs played vital roles in conservation work, such as in wildlife detection.

“Although we’ve pointed out these issues with dogs in natural environments…there is that other balancing side, which is that people will probably go out and really enjoy the environment around them—and perhaps feel more protective about it—because they’re out there walking their dog in it.”

They’re good dogs, Brent.

Bateman also raised sustainable dog food as an option to reduce a pet’s environmental paw print, noting however that “more sustainable dog food tends to cost more than the cheap dog food that we buy which has a higher carbon footprint.”

“If nothing else, pick up your own dog shit,” he said.

Well, there is that. But, the underlying cult belief is that people should stop having dogs, because of the carbon footprints.

The post Here We Go Again: Mother Jones And UK Guardian Complain About The Carbon Footprint Of Dogs appeared first on Pirate’s Cove.