'scuse me while I throw my hounds in the back of my four-wheel-drive.  We're gonna go bag us a coupla tree-huggers.

They exhale pollution, you know. 

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

The treehuggers are getting too full of themselves, and it's going to hurt them. When they were protesting stuff like dumping cynide into children's swimming pools and testing bullets on kittens, they could get some sympathy and support from the public. But now they're critisizing things like eating meat, toilets that use water, toilet paper, and now pet dogs.

Not the kind of stuff that's going to make them very popular.

Glory be, if you thought cow farts were dangerous for the environment wait till you get wind of this, Americans! I just knew that the sheer lunacy of the environmental movement would catch up with pet ownership one day. After all, dogs and cats are meat-eaters, and we now know that meat production is 'bad for the environment' so liberal doofus logic would seem to indicate that the pets that eat meat are equally bad for the environment. Soon we'll have leftists preaching to us that pets are killing the planet with whining protesters outside petshops screaming "murderers!" and Al Gore in front of the Senate Environmental committee demanding government regulation on how many pets per family Americans should own. I guarantee you this is all about pet regulation. If they can regulate how many pets we can have, I guess they think Holdren's birth restrictions wouldn't seem like such a bad idea after all. Remember, to liberals a flea is just as important on this planet as a human being. Is there no end to this freak show?

MSNBC - The Place For Lunatics

Also missing from the piece was the fact that these two "sustainable living researchers" actually bothered to calculate the "eco-footprint" of hamsters! They concluded that keeping two hamsters was equivalent to owning a plasma TV. For a long time, I've believed that the environmentalists and politically correct types are constantly trying to out-do each other. When someone suggests banning soft toilet paper, another thinks, oh, I can do better than that! Let's design shower heads that will shut off after two minutes! And here's another case in point, because these two wackos also calculated the "eco-footprint" of GOLDFISH!   

But are we heading for Cash-for-Canines? Save the planet! Trade your dog in for a free SUV! Somehow, this fetched idea doesn't seem so far these days. 

Hi. My name is John Q. Public, but some just call me racist.

He hardly farts and eats only a modest share of usable acreage--or whatever these idiots are alleging. Anyhow--he does not hold grudges and says woof.

"In contrast, less than half that amount of land would be required to
produce the energy to power an SUV driven a modest 10,000 miles a year,
according to the study."

So until we do away with dogs, I might as well drive my big SUV as much as I feel like, right? That's the way I read it.

I would like to see an honest accounting of the CO2 generated by the far-left's idiotic forest-management policies, acceptiing for a millisecond that CO2 is in some way bad for the planet. The far-lefties would rather see a tree fall of old age, and rot on the forest floor, eaten by termites, than be preserved as a home or a piece of furniture. And worse, how much CO2 is generated by massive forest fires that result from that poor management?

If anything, this illustrates a significant weakness in the Democrat (and the RINO) electoral strategy of a "collection of coalitions".  At some point, disparate coalitions within the same political party have objectives that come in direct conflict with each other (think African-Americans vs. Feminists during the OJ Trial).  The Democrats got elected in 2008 in large part due to the money they received from the eco-Marxists...this means that they are pressured not only to tolerate these disgusting parasites, they are required to indulge them, as well.  The objectives of the filthy eco-Marxists have already come into stark conflict with the interests of another left-wing mob, the UAW over what types of automobile can be produced.  Now, they will inevitably clash with animal rights advocates if they continue to push this ludicrous "study".  More importantly, this situation will engage animal lovers across the political spectrum, because it pits frivolous hippie scum against treasured members of the family.  People may tolerate certain inconveniences that eco-Marxism will inevitably saddle them with, but they will not stand for pinko garbage dictating whether or not (or how many) pets they can have.  Up until recently, the Marxist intrusion on our lives was largely subtle, to the extent that nobody noticed until it was too late (the light bulb ban, fuel economy "standards", etc.)...this was by design.  But the left has learned the wrong lessons from 2008 if they think that they can now advance their totalitarian agenda all at once without massive revolt.

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."  -George Best

"Missing from this CBS piece was the harsher point of this study: after you kill your dog, you should eat it."

Actually, if you read the New Scientist article they mention having a rabbit as a pet and then eating it.

The way they keep harping on the relative cost of meat production the study seems to imply that after you get rid of your pet you should become a vegan.

The only way for us to save the earth from evil, sludge-pumping humans, is by eating puppies! Of couse, I don't think I need some warmer geologist to tell me that my labrador pumps out a lot of toxic fumes...