Men and Pets Are Destroying The Planet

It is really better for the planet to be a single, childless, petless woman on a climatarian diet living alone in a dirty apartment full of cheap disposable wine cartons in a dense big city.

The Independent:

“But is man’s best friend, the planet’s greatest enemy?

As lovable as they may be, cats and dogs come with a steep carbon pawprint. This is mainly because of their diet, which includes a lot of meat and animal products.

The meat consumption of cats and dogs in the US produces around 64 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the equivalent of a year’s worth of driving from 13 million cars, according to a 2017 study published in the journal PLOS One. …

The study found that cats and dogs are responsible for 25 to 30 per cent of the environmental impact of meat consumption in the US.

“Pets have many benefits, but also a huge environmental impact,” said Gregory Okin, author the study and a geography professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Those of us in favor of eating or serving meat need to be able to have an informed conversation about our choices, and that includes the choices we make for our pets.” …

Dry food production for cats and dogs uses around 49 million hectares of agricultural land, roughly twice the size of the UK, annually, the study found. …”

Getting your dogs on a bugman insect diet might not be good enough. It turns out that men have a higher carbon footprint than women because they drive more and eat more red meat.


“When it comes to climate change, male consumers may get a bit more of the blame than their female counterparts. Men spend their money on greenhouse gas-emitting goods and services, such as meat and fuel, at a much higher rate than women, a new Swedish study found.

Published this week in the Journal of Industrial Ecologythe study looked at consumer-level spending patterns rather than the climate impact of producers and manufacturers to see if households could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by buying different products and services.

“The way they spend is very stereotypical – women spend more money on home decoration, health and clothes and men spend more money on fuel for cars, eating out, alcohol and tobacco,” study author Annika Carlsson Kanyama, at the research company Ecoloop in Sweden, told The Guardian.

The authors analyzed Swedish government data through 2012 on the spending habits of households, single men and single women, as well as other more updated consumer pricing data. They said a “large proportion” of people in affluent countries, such as those in the European Union, live in single-person households.

Single Swedish men didn’t spend much more money than single Swedish women in total — only about 2% more — but what they bought tended to have a worse impact on the environment, according to the study.

In fact, men spent their money on things that emitted 16% more greenhouse gases than what women bought. For example, men spent 70% more money on “greenhouse gas intensive items” such as fuel for their vehicles.

There were also differences between men and women within categories, such as spending on food and drinks. Men bought meat at a higher rate than women, though women purchased dairy products at a greater clip than men. Both meat and dairy production result in high greenhouse gas emissions. …”

We’re reducing everything now to their carbon emissions.

VICE News:

“Men emit 16 percent more greenhouse gases than women because they tend to spend more money on fuel and eat more meat, among other things, a new study has found.  …”

This has been proven by “science.”

It would be an act of pure environmental vandalism to bring a male child into this world.

About Hunter Wallace 12387 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. I don’t know about the plant but pets sure destroy public spaces. Dog shit everywhere and dangerous breeds around children.

  2. All western environmentalism is just austerity propaganda, designed to ease westerners into a reduced quality of life future, the natural result of neoliberal capitalism. Western rulers are malthusian nutjobs who want to introduce a secular neo-feudalism, except without the Christian moral basis that kept some of the potential excesses of feudalism in check. Our only hope is for China to replace the western elites, and hopefully give them the Cambodian treatment while they’re at it.

  3. I’m going to bet that a musl… Jew…wrote that stuff. Or at least commissioned it as an editor.

  4. Anyone calculated the environmental impact of fried chicken and Bigmacs eaten by blacks?

  5. Their headlines are recycling, or proving, an old joke: “New York Times headline: EARTH DESTROYED: Minorities, Women Hurt Most”

    • Was that article an attempt at humor? It’s so outrageous that i can’t believe he could be serious.

      • I really can’t tell. either. Seems like a poor attempt if he’s going for humor or something else.

  6. Maybe that diet that’s so bad for the environment might have something to do with the fact that that those men are working at jobs that have great demands on stamina and endurance and strength. Like, say maintenance men, lineman, groundskeepers, driving trucks, unloading trucks, installers, framers, etc, etc, etc I hate this kind of stupid study, because it pretend everybody works in an office hitting computer keys. I’m sorry, shoveling mulch on trees all day, is going to require more than a salad. Stupid study.

  7. Dogs are very good at finding food. I am telling you (((they))) are trying to starve us. Why didn’t they go after concrete? Concrete manufacturing produces 8% of total worldwide CO2 emissions. You can’t eat concrete that is why.

  8. Of course nothing about the advanced races shitting all over the streets, littering, needles, etc. Blame everything on the White man.

  9. Vegan cosmopolitans showing off (conspicuous consumption) with multi-thousand-dollar purebred useless pet dogs that eat only the best meat….

    • It is also absurd that some dog-feeding vegans are also keeping pet chickens – generally the most expensive fancy breeds housed in fancy ornamental coops – and because they don’t eat the eggs (strict vegan) or because they mostly eat out instead of cooking and baking at home, the very expensively-produced eggs are given away for free or below the cost of production, or simply wasted. But chickens are potentially a very efficient protein source if biosecurity can be maintained

      • If you keep them warm I think you can harvest about 9 weeks. Better in every way than beef. You can even supplement the feed with Omegas etc.

  10. Part of the agenda of these defectives is simply to remove anything that is enjoyable, or that makes someone happy, from life.

  11. Like Herr Hitler, I intend to have a dog with me, and feeding it all kinds of protein from eggs to meat, until my last breath.

    • November,

      Our Shetland Sheep dogs love beef ribs. One of them buries many of them in the yard causing difficulties for our mowers. Other gnawed on bones he hides in his bed which he only goes to when he wants to eat part of his hoard.

      He strikes fast. One of my brothers was eating a bologna sandwich. The doorbell rang so he went to answer it. Quick as lightning our main dog grabbed the bologna from between the bread leaving only the cheese. The bread had barely been moved by his quick steal.

  12. I greatly prefer the tranquil and trusting company of our feline and canine friends to the noisome imposition of certain incomers and their ingrate descendants.

Comments are closed.