Hacker News Reader

Comment by makerofspoons | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure we should be encouraging people to own more dogs and cats- they have a substantial carbon footprint for being extravagances: https://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/the_surprisingly_large_carb...

View on HN

Something you classify as an 'extravagance' could be classified by others as 'best friend', 'most uplifting part of the day', revered by the egyptians' 'my only reason for getting out of bed when faced with crippling depression', etc.

Amusement parks, restaurants, and the manufacture of your latest high-tech gadget also generate carbon footprints. One could argue that none of those things are strictly necessary for society and could be classified as 'extravagances'. But we continue to use and purchase them - because they bring joy and value to us.

Beyond what you're saying (which is quite true), if you're rescuing dogs, as I mostly do, the only way you can say there is a net increase in carbon is because I'm providing a better quality of life for my dogs (which undoubtably increases carbon emissions) and causing my dog to live longer than it would if it was wild or killed in a shelter.

I don't particularly see "reduce carbon impact by killing dogs/animals" as being a winning slogan.

Looks like we have a bit of a modest proposal going here.

I wonder if the same feelings people have for pets could be instead replaced with volunteering in one's community, making human best friends and giving oneself purpose.

I'm not in disagreement with you on that last part- extravagances like amusement parks, gadgets, and restaurants should be appropriately taxed until the resources they consume come down to sustainable levels. Everything needs to be scaled back.

I wonder if the same feelings people have for pets could be instead replaced with volunteering in one's community, making human best friends and giving oneself purpose.

Keep on wondering, because I doubt anyone will bend over to fit your view of the world. Starting with the foundational point that you have no idea why people have pets at the individual level, or even macro based on what you've post so far on the subject.

EDIT: you also assume that pet owners don't already volunteer, have human best friends, and feel that they have purpose. The pretense is strong in this one.

I made no such assumption. There is nothing that can be done about the animals that are already here. But someone considering an animal for their mental well-being might be better served volunteering instead. The data shows adding an animal to your lifestyle increases your environmental impact considerably. Working in the community garden adds almost nothing and potentially would provide the same positive effect.

So would going to a gym. But it's easier to build a habit of taking care of something you love at home than doing a chore you have to drive/walk across town to do.

Well put. The pet is going to be a source of companionship and happiness even if you're too tired to go volunteer or hit the gym. It's also more than just an endorphin hit or not being alone; it's a complex and rewarding relationship.

To the original poster - humans have been keeping pets since prehistoric times [0]. Behavioral patterns which have been ingrained into our genetic makeup & the collective subconscious for 10,000-40,000 years probably aren't going to change much in the next 100 or even 1000 years.

I fundamentally agree that we need to reduce our carbon footprint as a species, but feel we fundamentally disagree on the emotional and spiritual benefits of owning a pet. Regardless, I hope we can at least agree that it may be easier and more effective to start by looking at more modern, less ingrained, and higher-output sources of carbon.

[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/ask-s...

> "Some people now spend more on feeding their pets than they do feeding their children,"

Yes, this is easy when you have zero children and more than zero pets; and I'll wager a good amount of money that its true only in that case

> In the U.S., American dogs bless us with 10 million tons of waste a year.

10 million tons of waste a year is really not that much for 350 million people, for the benefits of having pets its a great tradeoff

I highly doubt that the number of pets matters at all in accounting for the difference in carbon footprint between the US (15.7[1]) and Brazil (2.4[1]) or India (1.8[1]). Focusing on pets to reduce carbon footprint before fuel consumption or the short lifespan of industrialized goods is like improving your finances by foraging for coins in the street instead of cutting down on your all-inclusive U$300/month cable package

[1] metric tons of CO2 emission per capita, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

It is, however, a simple way for individuals to avoid growing their carbon footprint. Not doing something is easier than changing an entrenched lifestyle. It's the same as saying "don't buy a large home", "don't buy a large vehicle (or preferably any vehicle at all)", "don't travel" - you're not missing out on anything, you're simply avoiding a destructive behavior. If you have a dog or cat already there isn't much you can do about it at this point.

We shouldn't be encouraging people in developed nations to have people either. They have a much larger carbon footprint.

The article you cite explains that clearly.

why only developed? developing ones too! Really, we should just sterilize everyone. It's the best way to go carbon zero.

You know what else has a carbon footprint? The computer that your're using to post on hackernews. How about instead of wasting electricity you go volunteer in your community?

Can you please not take HN threads further into flamewar? Especially not by going personal.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com