Film critic Sonny Bunch observed years ago that radical environmentalists make excellent movie villains. They are fanatically ideological, they prize notions of green "justice" over the wellbeing, comfort, happiness, and even lives of human beings. And they are gallingly and insufferably self-righteous in their extremism. What's not to loathe? Beyond the fictions of the silver screen, it really does seem as though this category of real world ghouls and grinches go out of their way to alienate normal people as aggressively and obnoxiously as possible. Think about their pointless and performative "protests" that hurl food products at priceless pieces of art, or interrupt theater performances, or block traffic. The latter tactic is particularly grating and dangerous because it can keep people away from their jobs, their children, and even from needed medical attention. But the true-life villains don't care. They have tunnel vision, and they cannot be budged. They actively undermine their own cause in the process, but they also don't seem to care about that. It's a nihilistic movement, much like the "pro-Palestine" cause (there is, of course, large overlap within that dirtbag coalition).
Of all the off-putting stunts they pull, and lectures they deliver, I'm not sure any could match the self-destructiveness of telling human beings that they shouldn't have dogs as pets -- "for the planet," of course. I cannot imagine a faster way to get a wider array of people to extend double middle fingers than to come after Man's Best Friend, but that's what they're doing. Never change, enviros. You're doing great, sweeties. Also, stay the hell away from our dogs, you monsters:
One of the top 3 individual acts one can make to help the planet is “choosing not to get a dog,” per the study. Pound sand, you miserable, radical joy thieves. https://t.co/5fRBGcpZNb
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) August 20, 2025
It turns out many Americans aren't great at identifying which personal decisions contribute most to climate change. A study recently published by the National Academy of Sciences found that when asked to rank actions, such as swapping a car that uses gasoline for an electric one, carpooling or reducing food waste, participants weren’t very accurate when assessing how much those actions contributed to climate change, which is caused mostly by the release of greenhouse gases that happen when fuels like gasoline, oil and coal are burned. The top three individual actions that help the climate, including avoiding plane flights, choosing not to get a dog and using renewable electricity, were also the three that participants underestimated the most. Meanwhile, the lowest-impact actions were changing to more efficient appliances and swapping out light bulbs, recycling, and using less energy on washing clothes.
Spoiler Alert: I will be implementing none of these piece of advice, regardless of "high" or "low" impact. I will not reduce my air travel one bit. I will only use renewable energy if it benefits me and is convenient for me. And I absolutely will not give up the wonderful joys of dogs. Their unconditional love and happiness quotient is infinitely more important to me than some finger-wagging leftist trying to make me feel bad (and inevitably wanting to confiscate my money for their political projects). It's not just the socialism and communism that bother me greatly and make me want to fight their agenda at every turn; it's this sort of targeted attack on human thriving and the pleasures of life. Back all the way off. Also, I wonder what the sanctimonious sermonizers would have to say about a major finding on sea ice, as reported in the left-wing Guardian and relayed here this week by Matt?
Breaking ... not Arctic sea ice
— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) August 20, 2025
"Dramatic slowdown in melting of Arctic sea ice surprises scientists"
"No statistically significant decline in its extent since 2005." pic.twitter.com/YhZdTgpzGP
The melting of sea ice in the Arctic has slowed dramatically in the past 20 years, scientists have reported, with no statistically significant decline in its extent since 2005. The finding is surprising, the researchers say, given that carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning have continued to rise and trap ever more heat over that time. They said natural variations in ocean currents that limit ice melting had probably balanced out the continuing rise in global temperatures.
"Natural variations," you say? Interesting. The same experts who say they're surprised by this multi-decade trend insist that it's just a "temporary reprieve" for Mother Earth, and that's going to get even worse sometime soon. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're once again wrong. Why should they be believed, especially as they bully and punish anyone in their ranks who dares to offer a dissenting scientific opinion or view, while engaging in unethical machinations to hide how wrong they've been on key points for years? They've earned broad dismissals from billions of people around the world. Whatever else they may say or do to try to regain relevance, they'd better keep their grubby, ideological hands off our our dogs.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member