This is exactly the type of debate that makes conservatives question climate change alarmism and shuts down the economic debate. The question should always be:

This is exactly the type of debate that makes conservatives question climate change alarmism and shuts down the economic debate. The question should always be: to what extent is it cheaper and easier for humanity to reduce carbon emissions? The motivation behind this research could be construed as: increasing your carbon footprint by owning a pet is immoral. This is crazy. It is not morally wrong to use the materials of the earth to improve human happiness. If you can afford pet food you should be able to have a pet. If your city can want a nature preserve, it should be able to have one. Is anyone surprised that having another mammal in your home increases your carbon footprint? Should we restrict babies to one per family? Should we not use more of the earth's resources than we used as of 2017 years after the death of Christ? Is this all a political satire?