Lol, Rev. It IS BS'ery and a money grabbing scheme. As Marc pointed out, above, the people that try to sell us this nonsense clearly don't believe it, themselves. Their actions demonstrate that.
It's also a control scheme. Invent a problem, demand government regulations to solve the problem.
This "pets help cause global warming" thing is going to be a hard sell, I think; at least as far as convincing folks that they need to get rid of them. Most of the people, that I have personally met, who buy into the hoax, are also pet owners. They will have an emotional conflict, but will end up not getting rid of their pets. In a couple of generations, when the Pre-K through 12 Indoctrination Centers have had a chance to drill the concept firmly in place, people will just stop keeping pets.
In the meantime, however, I DO think that a new tax on pets is possible, in the nearer future. The new tax, of course, will partially help to fund schools, like UCLA, in their quest to "combat climate change".
Actually, that's likely where this is going. A pet tax. That makes more sense than pet confiscation. Yeah, there are some animal rights activists that view the practice of keeping pets as a form of slavery, but the issue is never the issue. The issue is money and power.
UCLA just figured out how to get free money out of people keeping pets.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ] 
