AlterNet: Pets 'Public Enemy Number Two' Due to 'Negative Impact' on Climate

November 20th, 2014 12:33 PM

Left-wing website AlterNet declared pets “Public Enemy Number Two,” just days after one of its writers shamed moms as “environmental villains” for having children.

AlterNet, which is known for its kooky posts, has stirred liberal guilt and promoted climate alarmism many times. But many animals lovers would be outraged by the article that went after pets because of their “surprising negative impact” on temperatures and for pushing the world toward “climate catastrophe.”

Larry Schwartz, a freelance writer, wrote on AlterNet November 17 that pets are “Public Enemy Number Two” after humans because of their massive “carbon paw prints.”

Before dumping their SUVs or biking to work, Schwartz said that true environmentalists should remember their cats and dogs are major carbon polluters. Worst among pet’s climate offenses were their “meat-based diets” and “bacteria-laden fecal material.”

Although Schwartz complained that pets are bad the environment, he said humans were the “real problem.” He quoted environmentalist Robert Vale, who claimed that owners could keep their pets if they minimized their other offensive behavior. Americans are allowed to have a dog, but it’s when they “have a big car, big house, big family and a big dog that the problems start.”

In Schwartz’ view, Americans consider their pets “beloved family members,” and spend too much money feeding them.

Not surprisingly for AlterNet, it wasn’t not just materialistic Americans who Schwartz blamed for pampering their pets, but selfish capitalists of course. He said that “corporate greed is fueling the ‘need’ to create this lifestyle of the rich and furry.”

Cats and dogs were just the latest climate criminals targeted by AlterNet. On November 13, AlterNet posted Maria Luisa Tucker’s story, “Does Having a Child Make Me an Environmental Villain?” Tucker described her inner conflict between her desire to have a child and wanting to “minimize” her “carbon footprint.”

Tucker said that it wasn’t a given that she and her husband would have children, since they were concerned about the “environmental impact of procreation.” When she and her husband created a list of pros and cons about having kids, she said, “I wrote ‘environmental impact’ in all caps on the cons side of the page.”