Arnold Kling asks this thought-provoking question:
Which do you think takes a bigger toll on the environment, owning a dog, or owning an SUV? My bet would be on the dog. I’m thinking of all of the resources that go into dog food.
You could argue that children also consume a lot of resources, but that is different. A dog does not have the potential to discover a cure for cancer. A dog is not going to provide for you in your old age.
I personally have nothing against dogs. But it does seem to me that environmentalism inevitably points toward a policy of extermination of pet dogs. Unless environmentalism is simply hatred of industry.
Note: I am not arguing for or against this position. Just wanted to point out that this is something that most people wouldn’t have thought of this. Had you thought about the fact that somebody with no children (and does terrible, terrible things to the environment) is much more environment friendly that someone who is very “green” but has children?
(I found the article via the Cafe Hayek blog.)