Ecomentalists have a new “villain” in their sights, and he could be sitting in your house right now.
They’ve come after your children, your cars, and your holidays, now they want to lecture you about how awful for the environment your pet dog is.
Yes, really. The animals that provide humans with the most unwavering love and loyalty there is. Can’t be having that now, can we.
Dogs have “extensive and multifarious” environmental impacts, disturbing wildlife, polluting waterways and contributing to carbon emissions, new research has found. https://t.co/J2JXsybuSN
— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) April 15, 2025
Turgid leftist outlet MotherJones writes “Dogs have “extensive and multifarious” environmental impacts, disturbing wildlife, polluting waterways and contributing to carbon emissions, new research has found.”
That’s already clutching at straws. Dogs only ‘disturb wildlife’ and ‘pollute waterways’ if their owners let them.
And dogs release carbon emissions. Wow, massive revelation. So does practically everything alive.
You want everything to die?
It continues, “An Australian review of existing studies has argued that ‘the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognised.”
Ugh, what? Still no actual details.
“The review, published in the journal Pacific Conservation Biology, highlighted the impacts of the world’s ‘commonest large carnivore’ in killing and disturbing native wildlife, particularly shore birds,” it further states.
Again, that only happens if irresponsible owners allow it.
It continues, “In Australia, attacks by unrestrained dogs on little penguins in Tasmania may contribute to colony collapse, modelling suggests, while a study of animals taken to the Australia Zoo wildlife hospital found that mortality was highest after dog attacks.”
It also suggests that bobcats and deer are “less active” when dogs are around.
Ok, done with this.
You’re not getting our dogs because some penguins in Tasmania got attacked once and bobcats don’t get on with them.
Go and sponge up all life’s joys on your own somewhere else.
Now do Democrats
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 15, 2025
Please run with “Dogs are bad” all the way to the next election.
— IT Guy (@ITGuy1959) April 15, 2025
The Mother Jones readership prefers the smell of cat piss and kitty litter.
— PunishedNixon??? (@NixonPunished) April 15, 2025
Plus they don’t want to offend their Hamas readers by praising dogs as pets.
Counterpoint: A single dog offers more worth to this world than everyone who works for Mother Jones, combined.
— One of several Jeff Goldmans (@TheJeffGoldman) April 15, 2025
Telling people that owning dogs is bad for the environment is a new low for authoritarian management of trying to be "holier than thou" and dictate what one should or should not do in their personal lives. Then liberals wonder why more people are turning conservative.
— 1SlyGhost?? (@1SlyGhost) April 15, 2025
Just don’t own a dog, and hold your breath when you see one.
— Ray-Ray Green (@Prolife_Texan__) April 15, 2025
Let me guess, your solution is more childless cat ladies?
— NotVoltaire (@not_voltaire) April 15, 2025
Never trust a person who doesn’t like dogs.
— Subtard Zee ?? (@bronze_age_zee) April 15, 2025
LMAOOOO broooo this is peak cat lady journalism energy.
— Talon (@Raz0r_Ramon) April 15, 2025
Mother Jones really published “Your golden retriever is basically an oil spill with paws” and hit publish like it was the Pentagon Papers.
— kentstrang (@kentstrang) April 15, 2025
Um – don’t care. pic.twitter.com/yYwg39SvQK
— Cookedgooseinflorida ? ? (@CookedGooseinFL) April 15, 2025
You all just hate life just admit finally.
— Baaron (@Killuminati2202) April 15, 2025
Yes, we can’t have them. They bring us endless joy and love, leftists hate that.
— Holly ??? (@CrossingUNStyle) April 15, 2025
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
“They’ve come after your children, your cars, and your holidays, now they want to lecture you about how awful for the environment your pet dog is.”
First, we haven’t come after anybody’s children. Greenies are quite fond of children, that’s the whole point of being green. We’d like their whole lives to be as nice as possible, as opposed to the usual “after me, the flood” (or WWIII, or whatever) that lots of other people have. All we ever say is that women should have on average two children.
Second, we haven’t come after your cars. You non-greens have come after your own cars. You keep assuming that oil will last forever. Well, it can’t. If you had believed on time that oil doesn’t last forever, you would have gone for small cars and scooters, by now they could have electrified, and the option to keep a car would be available for more people. But you didn’t believe. You destroyed your own opportunity to keep cars.
Third, we haven’t come after anybody’s holidays. There are people who have cycled around the world. The Earth is small enough for that. You can travel as far as you like. Maybe you won’t be able to get there as soon as you could before oil started running out, but that’s hardly our fault.
And fourth, yeah, pet dogs in a city are a bit of a luxury. And like all luxuries, they mostly indicate that you are trying to get more of Earth’s resources than your neighbour. Well, we don’t like people openly boasting about abusing their position in society. Nobody likes that, actually. Being rich goes out of fashion quick when everybody is hurting.
You blame greenies instead of blaming the rich because you lack the testicular fortitude to blame the rich. Or you are in the pay of some rich people. Same thing, really.
You get your support from rich people…and you know it, cat lady.
“contributing to carbon emissions”…..I had to laugh out loud when I read that.
The good news is our pups will never be in the hands of nutters.