- The Washington Times - Tuesday, May 4, 2021

Talk about a pet peeve. The climate alarmists have come for your pets. No, really. A new report from Vox.com is now urging the public to consider offering a home to other pets besides dogs and cats. Why?

The report says their respective diets and lifestyles contribute to global warming for various reasons. In addition, the toilet needs of contemporary dogs include the use of pastel-colored poop bags while cats visit litter boxes where the filler is not necessarily made of natural, eco-friendly materials like wood shavings.

“Are our pets gobbling up the planet? From the meat-based meals to kitty litter to plastic poop bags, pet care is unarguably bad for the environment,” Vox said, offering ways to reduce pets’ carbon pawprint and citing the perils of pet waste — equivalent to “the annual trash of 6.6 million humans.”

Welcome to the age of the pandemic puppyhood.

“Climate activists are now trying to cancel pets. Pet Police have arrived,” writes Marc Morano, founder of ClimateDepot.com, an admirable news site which chronicles climate activism.

“Reducing the rate of dog and cat ownership, perhaps in favor of other pets that offer similar health and emotional benefits, would considerably reduce these impacts,” Gregory Okin, a geography professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told Vox.

The ever-watchful Mr. Morano points out that the ecological mindset toward dogs and cats has evolved, and not in the pet’s favor. In 2016, EcoWatch.com — an environmental news source — was more concerned about the climate’s negative impact on pet populations, publishing an investigative study titled “How climate change affects our pets.”

By the way, Mr. Morano’s new book “Green Fraud: Why the Green New Deal Is Even Worse than You Think” has gotten glowing reviews from talk radio host Mark Levin, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Sen. James Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican.


Uh-oh. There are “liberals who can’t quit lockdown,” according to The Atlantic.

“In surveys, Democrats express more worry about the pandemic than Republicans do. People who describe themselves as ‘very liberal’ are distinctly anxious,” noted staff writer Emma Green.

“This spring, after the vaccine rollout had started, a third of very liberal people were ‘very concerned’ about becoming seriously ill from COVID-19, compared with a quarter of both liberals and moderates, according to a study conducted by the University of North Carolina political scientist Marc Hetherington. And 43% of very liberal respondents believed that getting the coronavirus would have a ‘very bad’ effect on their life, compared with a third of liberals and moderates,” Ms. Green observes.


A YouGov survey finds that a mere 12% of U.S. adults think the 2020 U.S. Census is “accurate.” See the complete numbers in the Poll du Jour at column’s end. Should you care? Some observers are concerned about the count, and its political implications — specifically the number of electoral votes each state receives.

“Why did the Biden Census Bureau add 2.5 million more residents to blue-state population count?” asks Stephen Moore, who writes and comments extensively on economic issues.

“There is something very fishy about the new 2020 Census Bureau data determining which states picked up seats and which states lost seats. Most all of the revisions to the original estimates have moved in one direction: Population gains were added to blue states, and population losses were subtracted from red states,” Mr. Moore wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Examiner.

“The December revisions in population estimates under the Biden Census Bureau added some 2.5 million blue-state residents and subtracted more than 500,000 red-state residents. These population estimates determine how many electoral votes each state receives for presidential elections and the number of congressional seats in each state. Is this a mere coincidence?” he asked.

“These population estimates determine how many electoral votes each state receives for presidential elections and the number of congressional seats in each state,” Mr. Moore continued.

“Remember, the House of Representatives is razor-thin today, with the Democrats sporting just a six-seat majority with five seats currently vacant. So, a switch in a handful of seats in 2022 elections could flip the House and take the gavel away from current Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. A shift of 3 million in population is the equivalent of four seats moving from Republican to Democrat,” he wrote.


Fox News continues to dominate the cable realm, drawing an average of 2.3 million prime-time viewers last week, according to Nielsen. ESPN was in second place with 2 million viewers, followed by MSNBC (1.6 million), HGTV (1.3 million) and CNN (1.2 million).

The big rating winner was Sen. Tim Scott‘s response to President Biden‘s address to Congress. The South Carolina Republican drew 3.3 million Fox News viewers, a number which bested all other cable news rivals as well as ABC, CBS and NBC. Other standout audiences last week also include nightly prime-time hosts Tucker Carlson with 2.9 million and Sean Hannity with 2.5 million.


• 69% of U.S. adults have heard “nothing at all” about the 2020 U.S. Census final results; 72% of Republicans, 72% of independents and 64% of Democrats agree.

• 52% overall think there are more people living in the U.S. than the Census will report in the final results; 57% of Republicans, 51% of independents and 56% of Democrats agree.

• 14% overall think there are fewer people living in the U.S. than the Census will report; 14% of Republicans, 16% of independents and 14% of Democrats agree.

• 12% overall think the Census will be accurate; 10% of Republicans, 12% of independents and 14% of Democrats agree.

• 23% overall are unsure about the accuracy of the Census count; 19% of Republicans, 22% of independents and 16% of Democrats agree.

Source: An Economist/YouGov poll of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted April 25-27.

Helpful information to jharper@washingtontimes.com.

• Jennifer Harper can be reached at jharper@washingtontimes.com.

Copyright © 2022 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide