A recent article by Terry O’Neill said that, if people really wanted to reduce carbon emissions, they’d take the idea to its natural conclusion and get rid of their pets. Not that O’Neill endorses this – he’s just read about it in a book that claims:

simply feeding an average-sized dog has the eco-footprint of building and fueling a Toyota Land Cruiser. A cat’s eco-paw-print is somewhat less: about the same as a Volkswagen Golf.

(The book is Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, by Robert and Brenda Vale, who, as O’Neill says, “may well be under police protection by now, as far as I know”.)

He also mentioned a member of Moms Against Climate Change who owned three “carbon-spewing” pets (two Volkswagens and a Land Cruiser). This woman later wrote to inform him that she doesn’t eat meat, which offsets her pets’ carbon pawprints. Excellent point, but the most important point came from another letter that said we simply can’t judge any creature just by its carbon footprint.

Dogs and cats make a contribution that we’d miss if they were gone. It’s well documented that they’re good for their owners’ health. Dogs sniff out explosives and help the disabled. They and cats both eat meat products that we humans won’t.

(Speaking of meat, which does have a large environmental impact, why don’t we research how much of it goes to waste and thin the herds by that percentage? Sure, farmers will suffer, but they’re used to it!)

Another letter pointed out that horses, once so necessary, have become “redundant” in today’s world – so why not get rid of them, too?
We could go on and on, deciding which animals aren’t worth the damage they supposedly do. But let’s not. We don’t live or die by carbon alone.