Companion Animals Taking Blame For Environmental Problems
Some people have ventured, if cautiously, into the topic of the environmental impact of companion animals. This is a good subject of discussion, as everyone should be aware of the impact they and their families have on the environment. There are a number of valid concerns regarding companion animals and the environment, including the issue of cats eating birds, cat feces that are flushed down toilets being potentially harmful to sea mammals, and meat in animal food adding to the environmental degradation caused by factory farming.
The problem with many of these conversations is the speciesism that is often implicit within them. The conversations go astray and “cat people” square off against “bird people” or people argue about which type of “pet” is the least detrimental to “own.” These conversations totally neglect any useful discussion of ameliorating the human-caused factors that generate these problems or mention any practical solutions to the problems.
There are a number of real problems that companion animals can cause for the environment. For example, one study found that the 9 million cats in Britain are killing around 92 million prey animals in an average year. It is estimated that the average medium-sized dog on a meat-based diet will eat up to 360 pounds of meat a year—a carbon footprint of about two acres. Cat may also have an infection called toxoplasma gondii, which rarely has negative clinical impacts but can cause brain disease in sea mammals, which is a problem if cat feces is flushed down the toilet as much reclaimed sewage ends up in the sea.
Some suggested solutions to these problems are centered on animals, but I would argue that humans are the root of the problem. Rather than asking “What pet is the worst for the environment?” we should be asking “What can we do to help animals and the environment?” Some solutions to the “carbon paw print” in some blogs and articles on the topic are just insulting, and reveal a speciesist disregard for companion animals—such as only having companions that you can eat, or whose byproducts you can consume. One article warns, “People are encouraged to think about the environmental impact when getting a companion, just like you would when buying a car.”
But animals are not just like cars. They are individuals, not objects, and people need to look at this issue in a more realistic manner. The fact is that there are millions of homeless companion animals and these animals don’t simply disappear if people choose not to “own pets.”
Humans have created a devastating problem that leads to millions of animals being put in shelters and put to death each year, so humans should do the work to ameliorate the problems that this has generated. If people adopt companions and care for them responsibly, the carbon paw print can be reduced. For example, communities can legally ban the breeding of companion animals and actively promote adoptions, dogs can safely be put on plant-based vegan diets, cat feces can be thrown in dumpsters and not flushed down toilets, and cats can live indoors and/or have bells on their collars.
Of course, people should really be focusing on the environmental damage caused by our own species, which is a much greater issue. As Faunlytic’s Executive Director Che Green highlighted in an earlier post, humans are the major cause for the eradication of other species. For example, the environmental degradation caused by having children is more damaging to the environment than any type of a companion animal, especially if that child eats meat and/or is a major consumer. People should be adopting—humans as children and animals as companions, given the many children and animals in need of good homes. And discussions should center on controlling our own population growth rather than choosing the most environmentally friendly pet.
Many of the anti-pet-but-for-the-environment conversations function in this same way. Animals are villainized for an environmental issue for which humans are to blame. Wendy Anderson and Amy Vaniotis highlight this in regard to the “cat versus bird” debate. True, cats may kill wild species of bird if they are allowed outside without bells on their collars, but this is not the main reason birds are dying—it is irresponsible human actions such as overpopulation and overdevelopment.
Rather than developing anti-cat policies and killing cats, communities should better care for cat populations, such as engaging in trap-neuter-release programs and feeding feral populations so they are not as motivated to catch birds. In general, humans need to acknowledge that we are the reason animals and the environment are in danger. To protect the environment we should protect animals, not vilify them. We should reduce our own use of cars and other materials, create a safer environment for nonhuman animals (i.e. build passageways under roadways and develop ways to protect birds near power lines, etc.), and care for the animals currently in the world.