Humans vs Animals -- To Reduce Global Warming, Which One Needs To Go?

Steadfast greenies who regularly scan the news headlines are treated to all sorts of interesting CO2-reducing lifestyle recommendations and obscure scientific theories that offer the very best way(s) to turn the global warming tides in our favor. Certain ideas can be easily perceived as having somewhat of an ick-factor (like urinating in the shower) while others generate a best not to mess with God vibe (such as erecting sunshades in space or employing stratospheric aerosol injections). What's the most effective path of least resistance that delivers the best bang for our carbon-torching buck? Eliminating our global reliance on fossil fuels by using 100% green energy such as solar and wind seems like a sensible response, but the top minds in environmental science are quick to offer up the idea of slowing the growth of our global population through the widespread availability of birth control.

Just how effective would it be? Since the onset of the 19th century, the amount of people on planet earth has burgeoned by 650% -- which can be partially attributable to medical and scientific advances, better nutrition and food availability, reduced threat of war (also contributing to longevity), etc. -- but our greater numbers and overall prosperity have resulted in an accelerated pattern of ongoing consumption and chronic depletion of our resources. The Western world and other highly industrialized countries are largely to blame -- we've eclipsed the consumption rate of third world nations 23% faster than Mother Nature is able to compensate for. Lacking an "off switch", we've eaten, produced, purchased and disposed of so much more than what should be the norm and the consequence is that our chemical and waste fallout has radically altered the actual chemistry of the life-sustaining-rock that we call home. 

With fewer people hogging up space on our planet, it makes sense that the cloud of CO2 would begin to dissipate, right? It helps to understand that in the next 15 years, our world population is expected to climb to 8 billion...and by the year 2050 if we continue trudging along at our current pace, there will be 9.1 billion human beings walking the earth. With those figures in mind, London School of Economics researcher Thomas Wire asserts that using birth control as a global warming strategy would be nearly five times more cost effective compared to employing other practical yet costly tactics. Spreading the access, availability and affordability of birth control education and supplies to sub-Saharan African countries with the highest rates of birth could be one positive step in the right direction, but there are others who point the finger at an all-together different global warming culprit -- your friendly whiskered, wet-nosed best friend.

The writers of Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living claim that Fido may be a warm-and-fuzzy fixture in our households, but he should be the first one to be given the boot in order to save the planet. According to research conducted by authors Robert and Brenda Vale, the average medium sized pooch plows through 360 pounds of meat and about 209 pounds of grain on a yearly basis. Contrast that information to the New York Times' claim that overall, Americans dine on eight ounces of meat daily (which is double what the rest of the world eats) -- Good Magazine goes even further to say that the average U.S. citizen's consumption of beef alone is 275.1 pounds each year.  Hmmm, seems like we're running neck and neck with our hyper-paw printed compadres after all. The legitimacy of canines' seemingly sizable eco-paw print at 0.84 hectares annually -- which incidentally, has been corroborated by the Stockholm Environment Institute -- somewhat eclipses their feline counterparts contribution at 0.15 annually, but it's hard to imagine that our society would ever give up their predilection for pets. Which are you in favor of -- human or pet population control and why?