My spaniel, Natasha, has outworn her welcome at our house. According to apex climate scientists doing their peer-reviewed work at universities, dogs and cats are harming the planet with their substantial carbon footprints (make that pawprints). I should replace Natasha, they say, with more climate-friendly pets like galahs, edible hens and rabbits, hamsters, and tortoises. If anyone’s got cause for climate grief, it’s Natasha.

They calculate that Natasha’s emissions stem largely from growing the meat in her pet food. There’s  also  the plastic poop bags that I sneak into other people’s red bins during her walks. Her CO2 emissions are about 30kg a year. That’s not counting her direct emissions while we’re trying to watch Kate Winslet slumming it in Mare of Easttown.

The tipping point to ditch the bitch and cull the kitten could be as early as 2023, a mere two years hence. That’s according to Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes, a doyenne of the catastrophist community. No-one can doubt her credentials. Wiki lists her latest award as the Medal of the British Academy (2019) amid 27 climate honors, such as “Ambassador and Fellow, American Geophysical Union” and “Francis Bacon Award in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, Caltech”.

In 2010 she wrote the solemn book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. She’s followed up with an even scarier tract, The Collapse of Western Civilisation. In this book she says global warming will “wipe out” every Australian man, woman and child. Only a few scattered communities — some mountain people in South America, for instance — will survive the killer heating.

More importantly, she prophesises the agonising climate deaths of those puppies and kittens. One reader, she says,

started crying when the pets die, so I didn’t mean to upset people too much … I was just trying to come up with something that I thought people wouldn’t forget about, and I thought, well, Americans spend billions of dollars every year taking care of their pets, and I thought if people’s dogs started dying, maybe then they would sit up and take notice.

I looked up that bit in her book, and found the Kitten and Puppy Mass Extinction occurs in 2023, along with the climate deaths of 500,000 people and $US500 billion financial damage. Oreskes writes, in bold type no less:

The loss of pet cats and dogs garnered particular attention among wealthy Westerners, but what was anomalous in 2023 soon became the new normal. A shadow of ignorance and denial had fallen over people who considered themselves children of the Enlightenment. 

She was interviewed by the ABC’s science guru Robyn Williams AO AM, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and also showered with awards and three honorary doctorates.[1] He enthused with her:

Yes, not only because it’s an animal but it’s local. You see, one criticism of the scientists is they’re always talking about global things … And so if you are looking at your village, your animals, your fields, your park, your kids, and the scientists are talking about a small world that you know, then it makes a greater impact, doesn’t it.

 Oreskes responded:

Well, exactly. It was about bringing it literally home, literally into your home, your family, your pet, the dog or cat that you love who is your faithful and trusted companion.

But surely Oreskes’ pet doom forecast isn’t (trademarked) Peer-Reviewed Science? Yes, her book is kosher, she verifies.

Well, it’s all based on solid science. Everything in this book is based on the scientific projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. All we did was to add to the social and human aspects to it.

Back in the real world, the ABC introduced the Oreskes episode on its Science Show with a typical lie: “The Earth’s climate is changing at the highest of predicted rates.” Fact: The past 40 years’ warming to date is barely half of what the orthodox modelling predicted.[2]

This ABC wallow was all a while back, but there’s now a veritable industry of scholarship damning our pets’ CO2 emissions. Tax-funded full-time climate scientists have assessed the climate impact of St Bernards vs labradors vs Jack Russells. But two studies on dogs’ climate footprints are at loggerheads – one from Australian researchers, the other from Arizona. As a patriot, I support the Australian results showing the CO2 emissions as St Bernard, 90kg; Labrador, 60kg and Jack Russell 20kg. The Arizonans plumped for 20-30 times higher emissions: this is not yet settled science.

The assault on our four-legged friends hit Code Red last month, with Vox magazine USA headlining, “Are our pets gobbling up the planet?” It’s sub-headed, ominously: “Pet care is unarguably bad for the environment. What can we do about it?”

The piece, copiously illustrated, noted that during COVID lockdowns lots of households acquired new pets, aggravating the global heating emergency. It quoted Gregory Okin, a geography professor at the University of California, Los Angeles: “Reducing the rate of dog and cat ownership, perhaps in favor of other pets that offer similar health and emotional benefits, would considerably reduce these impacts.”

One learned estimate is that a medium dog needs 0.84 hectares of arable land for its pet food. That’s more than the ecological footprint of a Fourth World citizen, and twice the ecological footprint of a 4.6 litre LandCruiser doing 10,000km a year.[3] Even a cat’s ecological pawprint equals that of a VW Golf, or so said a pair of British academic pet specialists, lately educating New Zealanders from Victoria University, Wellington.[4]

Professors Robert and Brenda Vale wrote a book, Time to Eat the Dog? Responding to a public outcry, Robert said, “We need to know what we’re doing when it comes to the environment. We can’t go blind into this debate. Nothing should be off limits no matter how uncomfortable it is to discuss it.” Their book title was deliberately provocative: don’t expect breast of kelpie from Coles. They didn’t want pups and kittens culled, let alone eaten, but they’d have no problem with tinned rats for cats, or dog-owners switching to pet rabbits and boiling the bunnies’ offspring for lunch. The smaller the pet, they say, the better for the planet. I think it was Woody Allen who claimed his parents gave him ants for pets. If bikie gangs had any climate conscience, they’d use chihuahaus and Pomeranians to guard their clubhouses instead of mastiffs and Rhodesian Ridgebacks.

To continue reading this fearsome tale, click HERE for the climax

12 Comments

  1. These are worrying times for pet owners. Most of my adult life I have been privileged to own dogs, sometimes with cats, but mostly not. For the pleasure and delight they transfer, the devotion they give and their companionship, I know of nothing better. I am an atheist, but if there is anything in the world that could convince me that God exists, it is a dog, seemingly beautifully designed to be our faithful companion and with very special skills that can be taught to aid the blind, find the lost and restore worthwhile life to those losing it. My granddaughter, who works in a care home, tells us the huge transformation that affects residents on those few days when a visitor brings with them a dog, any dog, even a scraggy runt.

    And now climate alarmists are threatening our pets. If they win, I will become a vegan and transfer my meat quota to my adorable four-legged friends.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. There are people with just too much time on their hands.
    Maybe we should get them proper jobs.
    Pity we closed down all the coal mines.

    Like

  3. Of course I agree with everyone but have to go through several hoops to do it !
    Maybe we should eliminate any so called scientists who believes in AGW ? no worry
    the next deep freeze will take care of them !

    Like

  4. Tigerzntl please think a little more carefully before you post. I’m almost certain that you did not mean your 11.33am post to be an incitement to murder (climate scientists), nor as a test of our new moderation policy. But that is how it appears.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Tigerzntl,

    Irony can be a difficult form of rhetoric to get right. I’ll take your comment as a humorous quip of the Joe Brand acid throwing type. But just remember how many people that remark managed to offend. There are plenty of people out there desperate to think the worst of us.

    Just for the record, incitement to violence is definitely not something that any member of the Climate Scepticism Group would approve of. That’s just too heavy dude. We’ll leave that to XR.

    Like

  6. There is a report today at WUWT criticising Oreskes for not acknowledging a conflict of interest in her latest paper about Exxon.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/13/bombshell-naomi-oreskes-on-retainer-with-plaintiffs-law-firm/

    Now we may bridle at the idea that someone might be on retainer with a law firm suing Exxon while at the same time writing papers criticising Exxon while casually not mentioning any potential conflict of interest. But it would surely be more surprising that anyone reading the paper would not already know that Oreskes has a bee in her bonnet about Exxon. There is a natural problem at the boundary of science and activism: people go into certain branches of science as they would join an irregular army, where the goal is to win rather than find things out. This does not usually become significant until certain people or entities are identified as “the enemy,” but once they are, it does. The unfairly polarised moral dimension of some “research” gives it a power unwarranted by the content. By which I mean that because it is a case of right vs wrong the quality of the actual research ceases to be important. It becomes a stick to beat the other side and therefore gets the seal of approval automatically.

    The problem then becomes that rather than considering the latest attack an authoritative, neutral investigation into the topic at hand, the reader already knows what its conclusion will be. It is then pointless in terms of information: the sceptic will dismiss it and the alarmist will embrace it and no-one will have gained anything from it.

    I am not going to read Oreskes’ fantasy about the mass death of puppies and kittens out of disgust, but it would be interesting to know what they die of. (She’s a historian? A historian of the future is, by definition, a writer of science fiction.)

    Liked by 1 person

  7. The Oreskes and Conway fantasy about dead dogs etc is freely available here:

    https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/142/1/40/26955/The-Collapse-of-Western-Civilization-A-View-from

    That’s the version that appeared in 2013 in a journal called Daedalus. The 2014 book had the same text plus some very dodgy maps and a lot of padding.

    The central text is a pile of nonsense. How are such people still taken seriously? It’s utter, utter twaddle. And dishonest twaddle, too. The science didn’t and doesn’t say what Oreskes and Conway said it said.

    For a more restrained and educated review of The Collapse of Western Civilization, here’s Mike Hulme in 2014:

    https://networks.h-net.org/node/5280/reviews/51812/hulme-oreskes-and-conway-collapse-western-civilization-view-future

    Short version: it’s utter twaddle.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.