6 ms·
> “This analysis does not mean that dog and cat ownership should be curtailed for environmental reasons, but neither should we view it as an unalloyed good” Mo
by phnofive 7y ago
> “This analysis does not mean that dog and cat ownership should be curtailed for environmental reasons, but neither should we view it as an unalloyed good”
Money well spent.
- kasey_junk 7y agoBut it’s fairly easy to see how you might tax pets more to cover the externalities better right?
- aeternum 7y agoWhy only look at carbon though? We could tax non-pet owners as they have statistically higher cortisol levels and high-blood pressure vs. pet owners. Non-dog owners are also more likely to get insufficient exercise. Children of non-pet households are more likely to have asthma and allergies. On the flip side, pet owners are more likely to get parasites, cat-scratch disease, or toxo. Taxes for everyone!
- the8472 7y agoThat's a false equivalence. If bad health is a concern you handle that through a direct "tax" (e.g. increased health insurance premiums based on general lifestyle/health assessments), not through such indirect measures as a non-pet tax. On the other hand the cost of pets (carbon footprint, other environmental damage) is directly related to the pets or their food, thus taxes would be directly levied on those aspects.
- ip26 7y agoIf there's a meaningful link, I expect one day health insurance companies will give you a break on your premiums if you won a dog.
- phnofive 7y agoNot at all.