This probably belongs on Animal Debates, but I agree with you that it's a ridiculous article.

All animals leave a "carbon footprint," including humans, don't we? Plants and animals are all rightful parts of the world.

We may be able to slow down global warming a bit in other ways, but pets to share our lives with are not expendable, in my opinion.

Those types of people would be happy if the whole human race just up and died and left the earth alone. Crackpots.

I say that if they lived in Afghanistan, they would be Taliban...that mind-set is not restricted to one place or people, there are always people who have an agenda and they feel they are right.
I don't get exited about it, it's just their skewed opinion.

What an idiotic article, the impact of pets is minimal compared to industrial and other pollution caused by humans. I guess washing toxic chemicals into waterways and the ocean is fine, as long as it's done by people, but perish the though of dogs peeing outdoors. Stupid!!

The researchers were simply stating facts. Very clinical but it doesn't cover the whole picture. The SUV owner probably has a couple of over indulged children, lives in too big a house, and buys every toy in sight. If we want to decrease carbon footprints, how about fewer children? I'd rather have a cat and a dog in every home than a child if you look at it from the carbon foot print standard.

The conceptions about SUV owners crack me up. I have one child who is not over-indulged (absolutely by his standards, pretty much by my standards and even by a crabby great-aunt's standards), do live in too big a house (but it's over 100 years old - recycling at its best), don't even own a DVD player and need the SUV to transport the dogs and navigate the driveway.