Polluting pets, population control and

forced vegetarianism
Posted by Robert Morley at 5:49 pm on December 23, 2009

H eading back to a pre-fossil fuel age may not be enough to save the planet from global

warming. We will have to get much more radical. To really reduce our carbon footprint we will need to
euthanize all dogs and cats in America. Next we will need to cull all livestock production. Following
that, population controls may have to be implemented.

Thus reads the playbook from certain anthropogenic global warming believers. But it is also a
playbook ascribed to by powerful Washington insiders.

“Man’s best friend” could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study.
Apparently dogs create more of an environmental impact than two gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles—
and that includes all the energy and pollution used and created in manufacturing the SUVs. Agence
France-Presse reports that New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale,

specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analyzed popular brands of pet
food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos
of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a “medium” sized dog has an annual footprint of
0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) ….

The findings by the Vales indicate that kitty cats are only marginally less detrimental to the
environment. Cat owners pollute the environment to the equivalent of manufacturing and driving a
Volkswagen Golf.

Own two hamsters? You are wasting the energy equivalent of a plasma television. A goldfish? You are
burning enough energy to create two cell phones.

New Scientist magazine confirmed the findings with John Barret at the Stockholm Environment
Institute in York, Britain. “Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon
footprint of meat,” he said.

But according to the Vales, the pet’s environmental impact is not just limited to its carbon footprint.
Dogs and cats devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, they say.
What a happy place America could be if we only got rid of all these dirty animals. Approximately 52
million dogs live with American families. That’s the equivalent to over 100 million SUVs on the roads! By
euthanizing America’s 88 million cats, plus countless fuzzy pet rabbits and ferrets, America could also
eliminate the pollution equivalent a couple of hundred million more cars.

But why stop there? Cattle operations are supposedly more polluting than “cars, planes and all other
forms of transport put together,” according to a United Nations report. Then there are all the sheep,
goats, pigs … lions, and tigers, and bears. This past year, Australia coughed up $26 million to
investigate and reduce the environmental impact of livestock burping.

And sadly, some people are giving credence to the idea that governments should implement allowable
carbon footprints for individuals. “Everyone should work out their own environmental impact,” says
Reha Huttin, president of France’s 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation. “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?”

Unfortunately, increased environmental regulation may be coming to a place near you. Some of the
current U.S. administration’s most powerful regulators are deeply committed to radical
environmentalism.

For example, Cass Sunstein is President Barack Obama’s regulatory czar who leads the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein advocates outlawing hunting, phasing out meat eating,
and giving animals the right to file lawsuits.

Carol Browner is Obama’s lead on global warming. She is known for her membership in Socialist
International—a group for “global governance.” The group wants America to subordinate itself to an
international world-governing body. It also calls for rich countries to shrink their economies to combat
global warming.

Then there is John Holdren, Obama’s science adviser. Holdren has advocated forced abortions as a
population control method. He opined that government has the prerogative and social duty to enforce
a two-baby limit. In that context, he said that “neither the Declaration of Independence nor the
Constitution mentions a right to reproduce.”

What has America come to? A very dangerous place if you are a pet dog or cat.

More seriously: Man-made global warming is a dangerous distraction for America. Whether or not you
believe that man is causing global warming, there are far more immediate threats to America’s well-
being than the supposedly dire years-into-the-future consequences of man-made climate change.

Anthropogenic global warming theory distracts from the fact that God is using the weather to correct
America and this world for breaking His laws. Throughout the Bible, God tells us that He uses
droughts, heat waves, storms, etc. to correct mankind and get people to turn to Him. That is the main
reason America has experienced weather-induced travesties like Hurricane Katrina.

It is also a distraction from the far greater moral, societal, economic and geopolitical threats facing
America.
Global warming has become an excuse for people to ignore the message God is sending. Only by
turning to the Being who designed and created this world can mankind solve its problems.

Read Brad Macdonald’s column: “Weather: God’s Bullhorn to Mankind.” •

This content was printed online at: http://www.theTrumpet.com/index.php?q=6828

Copyright © 2009 Philadelphia Church of God, All Rights Reserved.