Armstrong Economics Blog/Climate
Re-Posted Nov 2, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
Well, it was only a matter of time that when you read between the lines concerning pet population of dogs and cats, the solution is to REDUCE their numbers – which is really what they argue for behind the curtain concerning humans. I have written previously how they really want to starve humans to reduce the population. I have previously told the story about attending a White House dinner in Washington back in 1996 and being seated with the entire Environmental group. It was a Washington elite political dinner and because I attended with my friend Dick Fox who was Chairman of Temple University and I was an adviser to the University, whoever it was that made the seating arrangements for these tables of 10 seated us with the environmental groups. This was in the mid-90s.
Dick was the one who kept trying to drag the truth out and there it came. These were the heads of the top three environmental organizations. They admitted that the real goal was to reduce the human population by making it difficult to expand and build houses. Labeling everything wetlands would reduce the ability to expand housing and thus shrink the population. When Dick got them to admit that he moved in for the bottom-line question and asked: “So who’s grandchild are you trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?”
They now are targeting your pets. They already are taxing farmers per cow because they fart and are causing Global Warming. Now they are honing in on your dog or cat. The argument is that pets constitute about 25–30% of the environmental impacts of animal production in terms of the use of land, water, fossil fuel, phosphate, and biocides. Their solution: 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.
What’s next? Quotas on having children? That did not work so well in China.