Full disclosure before we dive headfirst into another episode of leftist lunacy: I love dogs. I have three. I throw tennis balls, dole out treats, and scoop poop like it’s my patriotic duty. I fully buy into the “man’s best friend” thing.
(But just so we’re clear, I didn’t celebrate Father’s Day until I had human kids. Pets are not children, and if you’re calling your Labradoodle your “fur baby” in a stroller, please take a long look in the mirror.)
Now, also for the record, I am not anti-environment. I believe God gave us this one earth and that we should be responsible stewards of it. Take care of the land, don’t litter, don’t dump motor oil in rivers, and maybe plant a tree now and then.
But there is a line. And that line was pole-vaulted over like a Marxist Olympic event when the left started labeling dogs as environmental terrorists.
I wish I were joking. Mother Jones—yes, the magazine that makes The New York Times look like a John Wayne film—recently ran a piece titled, “Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs Are Environmental Villains.” I know. I had to double-check that I wasn’t reading The Onion.
The author, one Donna Lu, actually typed out—with what I assume was a straight face—that dogs have “extensive and multifarious environmental impacts.” What sort of puppy crimes are they committing, you ask? Oh, just disturbing wildlife, polluting waterways, and contributing to carbon emissions.
Watch out, Rover. You’re one bark away from being hauled in front of The Hague.
The research cited came out of Australia—because of course it did—where apparently someone decided to spend time and taxpayer money calculating the global warming output of a beagle. They concluded that domestic dogs are more insidious than we think and might even be more dangerous to the environment than some countries.
Let me repeat that: the pet food industry was compared to the 60th worst-polluting country on the planet. Because apparently, making kibble is akin to running a coal-fired power plant in your backyard.
The reaction online? Utter mockery, as it should’ve been.
“Dogs, at least, are too intelligent to read Mother Jones.”
“If the Mother Jones building were burning and I had to choose between saving a trapped dog and the MJ staff… I’d probably go for the dog.”
“Walter is unimpressed.” (Posted with a pic of a very judgy golden retriever.)
Look, I’m not praising people who use dogs as a human replacement. That’s unhealthy and, frankly, a little creepy. But for the millions of us with the common sense to love animals without turning them into spiritual surrogates, we know there’s no relationship quite like the one between a person and their dog.
Loyalty, trust, protection—things that are in short supply these days—flow effortlessly from a good dog. And if you think for one second I’m going to give that up because of some Australian study about bobcats and Tasmanian penguins, you’ve lost your mind.
I’ll say this plainly: I don’t care if my dog farts greenhouse gases or eats kibble made in a diesel-powered factory. He’s worth it.
Between a Rottweiler and a Remington, my home security is rock solid—and better for my family than whatever utopia the climate cult thinks we’re ruining with our carbon paw prints.
So, thanks, Mother Jones, but I’ll pass on the guilt trip. When you’ve got nothing better to do than shame people for owning dogs, you’re not saving the planet—you’re just making it more annoying to live on.
And trust me, the dogs aren’t the problem.
Leave a Comment