> "Some people now spend more on feeding their pets than they do feeding their children," Yes, this is easy when you have zero children and more than zero pets

> "Some people now spend more on feeding their pets than they do feeding their children," Yes, this is easy when you have zero children and more than zero pets; and I'll wager a good amount of money that its true only in that case > In the U.S., American dogs bless us with 10 million tons of waste a year. 10 million tons of waste a year is really not that much for 350 million people, for the benefits of having pets its a great tradeoff I highly doubt that the number of pets matters at all in accounting for the difference in carbon footprint between the US (15.7[1]) and Brazil (2.4[1]) or India (1.8[1]). Focusing on pets to reduce carbon footprint before fuel consumption or the short lifespan of industrialized goods is like improving your finances by foraging for coins in the street instead of cutting down on your all-inclusive U$300/month cable package [1] metric tons of CO2 emission per capita, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...