Climate Change: War is the Problem, Not Dogs and Cats
Updated
In the not-too-distant future, owning a pet might land you in the doghouse. Of course, the World Economic Forum (WEF) swears it does not want to slaughter millions of dogs and cats to fight climate change, but are they to be trusted? After all, Net Zero Living is the deep state’s next move, and they’ve cleverly got their bases covered to exploit society into compliance. Like the fear created around COVID, it’s all about the narrative. And when it comes to our beloved pets, the foundation has been laid to suggest that the environmental impact of pets is contributing to climate change.
Studies like the often-cited 2017 paper titled “Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats” by UCLA’s Geography Professor Gregory S. Okin have helped shape the story that our four-legged friends are a burden to the earth’s future. Why? In addition to “rising infectious diseases from pathogens caused by climate change,” the globalist cabal has declared that the pet and pet food industries contribute to “increasing heatwaves and pathogens.” An article last May in Earth.org claimed:
“An average-sized cat can produce 310 kilograms (CO2e) annually. An average-sized dog generates 770 kg of CO2e, and an even bigger dog can emit upwards of 2,500 kilograms of CO2e, which is twice as much as the emissions deriving from an average family car per year.”
What?! A large dog can emit twice as much C02e as a family car! When you connect the dots of the deep state’s plot—fully revealed during the COVID-19 pandemic and mass gene-damaging jab experiment—one can’t help but wonder if Earth.org’s article is intentionally crafted to help set the “pets are bad for the environment” narrative. Of course, Earth.org is funded by NGOs, and their article relied on data from Mr. Okin of UCLA’s 2017 study.
Moreover, despite the WEF insisting it does not want to eliminate dogs and cats from bringing joy and love to families around the world, UCLA—along with Google, Visa, and others—is a member of the WEF’s Global Future Council on the Future of Net Zero Living. As with the fear-based COVID story, these intertwined connections are how the tangled web works to sow their agenda. Indeed, Google’s Chief Sustainability Officer Kate Brandt (before joining Google, Kate was Obama’s first Federal Chief Sustainability Officer, creating an Executive Order to cut greenhouse-gas emissions) and UCLA’s Professor and Vice Chair in Sociology Edward Walker are Co-Chairs of the council, which poses the question:
“How can public and private sector organizations drive a transformation in social norms to engage and empower people as agents of change?”
Walker and Okin serve as Department Chairs at UCLA’s Division of Social Sciences and are faculty members involved in the university’s ESG-focused sustainability research. Since at least 2016, UC’s Office of the Chief Investment Officer of the Regents (OCIO) has participated in numerous collaborative climate change and sustainability initiatives with the WEF. Under the leadership of former UC President Janet Napolitano, the university declared it planned to achieve carbon neutrality by 2025—next year!
Proving that profit-driven motives are behind all things climate change, UC has a robust dialogue with the WEF and other oligarchs around “integrating environmental sustainability, social responsibility, and prudent governance evaluation into its investment decision making.” Indeed, the climate change scheme between the University of California and WEF has been going strong for years. In an OCIO report focused on “Guiding our investment decisions,” Amy Myers Jaffe, Senior Advisor, Energy and Sustainability at OCIO and former Chair of The Future of Oil and Gas for the WEF, remarked:
“Collaboration within the University of California informs our understanding of sustainability and its importance in the world around us. Harnessing the collective wisdom and cutting-edge research of our UC community will deepen our understanding of evolving long-term risks and opportunities such as climate change, water scarcity, energy transitions, and food security.”
Thus, while the WEF insists it isn’t coming after our dogs and cats, that doesn’t mean its partners in crime aren’t behind the scenes working on the plot and seeing dollar signs as they do so. In November 2023, the WEF highlighted Moflin, an AI pet that “responds like a real animal.” A winner of the WEF’s Smart Toy Awards, the WEF shared that “Just like a real pet, Moflin’s AI has an ’emotional model’ that allows it to react to the way it’s treated.” To make a fake robot pet sound even more appealing, the WEF added, “This interactive play experience fosters a connection between the child and the toy, creating a sense of companionship and responsibility.” Oh, and Vanguard, who, along with Blackrock, own everything, sees the same dollar signs as the WEF and thinks Moflin is excellent, too, releasing a video in 2020 stating, “To put it in simple terms, it’s like you’re interacting with a living pet.” Sure seems like a fairly accurate glimpse into their dystopian future.
Yet, at the end of the day, there is no irrefutable evidence that greenhouse gas emissions harm the planet. Nonetheless, it’s clear that organizations like the WEF, the World Health Organization, the UN, and others—with Bill Gates’ billions—want us to believe that narrative, and if they have their way, they will indeed come after our pets. They’ve already tried (and thus far failed, thanks to public outcry) to get the ball rolling in Colorado. Likewise, keen to please the UK100 scheme, local councils in the UK have proposed banning dogs from public spaces. As noted by Niall McCrae, “pet eugenics is an emerging theme of the climate crisis agenda.” A 2022 CNN article referencing, of course, Okin’s 2017 study stated the same thing. Summarizing Okin’s study, CNN reported:
“According to a 2017 study, feeding dogs and cats creates the equivalent of around 64 million tons of carbon dioxide in the US each year. That’s roughly the same impact as 13.6 million cars on the road. And, if our furry friends formed a separate country, it would rank 5th in global meat consumption behind China, the US, Brazil and Russia, according to UCLA professor and author of that study Gregory Okin.”
The most troubling aspect of the entire dialogue suggesting pets are destructive for the earth’s future is the disregard for activity that is indeed sabotaging our future, humanity, and the planet simultaneously. Why is no one mentioning war? Hello, WEF. A report in November 2022 by Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEO) shared that the global military-industrial complex is responsible for more emissions than Russia. Shouldn’t this conversation be front and center if greenhouse gas emissions are such an incredible threat to humanity that life as we know it must radically change? As the WEF has relentlessly communicated, “You will own nothing and you will be happy.”
The CEO article referenced the “blind spot in our response to the climate crisis,” remarking that—thanks to pressure from the United States—military greenhouse gas emission reporting is excluded from being tracked. Really? The article noted the omission is “a decision that continues to cast a shadow over climate action due to its role in creating the Military Emissions Gap.” According to the report, the world’s militaries are responsible for 5.5% of global emissions. In other words, if the world’s militaries combined were a country, they would have the world’s fourth largest national carbon footprint—greater than that of Russia.
Instead of threatening to take away our beloved pets, forcing us into eating synthetic, fake meat and bugs, and painting an altogether bleak future for the world’s children if society doesn’t fall in line with the evil deep state agenda, let’s stop fighting wars. Oh, wait, the United States is in such a state of utter chaos that it needs forever wars to pay the bills. Pay attention, people. Your cars, gardens and farms, and meat-eating diets aren’t the problem. And, indeed, your well-loved pets aren’t the problem either. The problem is the world’s militaries fighting wars, which are undoubtedly primarily led by the US. Noting that the “military emissions gap shows no sign of closing,” lead author of the report, Dr. Stuart Parkinson, stated:
“The world’s militaries and wars are a very significant but neglected source of carbon pollution–and these emissions are almost certainly rising with the Ukraine war and the resulting international increase in military spending. We urgently need governments and militaries to more accurately measure their emissions and more openly report them–and, just as urgently, these need to be reduced. And the most effective way of doing this is to reduce war.”
Let’s start there.