by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
James Lileks muses at National Review about climate scolds’ latest dubious pronouncement.
PERHAPS you saw the story ping-ponging around the Internet in August: Climate-change activists want to ban dogs and cats.
You weren’t surprised. If something gives ease and joy to human life, someone yearns to ban it. If climate activists could wave a magic wand and make everyone in the industrialized world suddenly wear a hemp smock and live in a yurt slurping a slurry of tofu and pulverized insect thoraxes — a great source of protein! — many would say, “Heck, yeah.” The planet might not heat up by a full degree, and magic is probably carbon-free.
They would reserve the right to live in a house themselves, of course. The person who signs the ban outlawing dogs will pause, sigh with satisfaction and noble emotions, then scratch his own dog between the ears.
He’s not the problem. The problem, as ever, is you people. …
… To be fair, the author of the study doesn’t want to take away your pets. To quote from Phys.org, which ran the original story on the study: ?“I like dogs and cats, and I’m definitely not recommending that people get rid of their pets or put them on a vegetarian diet, which would be unhealthy,” UCLA geography professor Gregory Okin said.
Whew. The professor is not recommending that you gas your dog for the sake of the planet.
But, but, but, but:
“But I do think we should consider all the impacts that pets have so we can have an honest conversation about them. Pets have many benefits, but also a huge environmental impact.”
Ah, yes. The conversation. The honest conversation. That’s all! Just a chat! Like when your spouse says, “We should have a conversation about monogamy.” That always goes well for you.