AP: You Can Totally Reduce Your Pet’s Carbon Footprint Or Something

Even most Warmists will probably agree to leave the pets out of cult business

Let’s look at the AP article

The whole “pets are family members” idea isn’t just a sweet sentiment. Data shows that pet owners are increasingly buying food that resembles their own diets.

The trend toward refrigerated, “fresh” or even “human-grade” pet food can come with a price beyond the pet food budget.

One of the most climate intensive decisions we make is whether to own a pet. It’s for the same reason that humans have a big impact: They eat every day. And most of them eat meat. The environmental impact of meat includes the land the animal lived on, the food it ate, the waste it generated and other factors.

“What else do pets do? We have to feed them. I think that that’s why it’s number one,” said Allison Reser, director of sustainability and innovation at the Pet Sustainability Coalition.

Cultists

The marketing of higher-quality pet food suggests that it’s healthier.

But there isn’t much evidence to suggest refrigerated, fresh or human-grade food leads to better pet health outcomes, according to Alison Manchester, assistant clinical sciences professor at Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine.

“I think a lot of it is playing on marketing and treating pets as members of the family,” said Manchester.

Billy Nicholles, pet food researcher with Bryant Research, said the trend of using human-grade meat in pet food increases its climate impact because pets aren’t just eating animal parts that would have otherwise gone unused.

“We definitely can’t dismiss these impacts altogether by just saying these are the offcuts, these are environmentally negligible,” he said.

Piss off. And that article keeps going and going. It’s not news, it’s simply doomsday cult doctrine.