data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/283a9/283a943560dba3df7895eeaef413c52b84244f94" alt=""
Okay, I think these environMENTALists have crossed the line. They are now saying that me and my canine amigos have a larger carbon footprint than a SUV. Are they kidding? I don't even have feet, I have paws, thank you very much. Besides, I don't even drive! How much damage can I really cause?
My mom is incensed about this whole matter. Besides the glaringly obvious error of using the term
footprint, these "
New Zealand researchers" claim that because I eat meat that goes into my dog food, that I should feel guilty for living because it takes too much farmland to feed me.
In my household we all try to be responsible about waste, but this is taking an issue way too far and then some. This must be that slippery slope mom always talks about. Before you know it we'll have to bottle our personal emissions (if you get my drift) in a jar and pay a tax on it. Sound ridiculous? At this point, nothing the government tries to tax would surprise us.
Look at this quote: "Any claims on the Earth's resources, whether it's having pets or having children, we need to think about. It doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of your pet now,” Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, tells ABC.com.
What does he mean, NOW?! I hope Mr. Brown comes to our house because I will feel no remorse as I'm biting his ankles. If I could jump higher, I'd gladly bite something else. And those researchers...I'd really like to pass along my sentiments to them also. Hmph.