REVIEW RSS FEED
PET DOGS LEAVE BIGGER PAW PRINT ON EARTH THAN DO SUVS
Vancouver Sun -- Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.
The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analyzed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.
Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.
To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.
Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.
Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.
But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.
"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP.
"Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"
But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.
The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analyzed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.
Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.
To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.
Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.
Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.
But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.
"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP.
"Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"
Labels: ECOLOGY
10 Comments:
I must call "shenanigans" on this: .41 hectares of natural resources to construct a nearly-2-ton SUV out of metal and plastics and rubber and subsequently extract and refine all the petroleum products it devours in a year (subdivided into 12 increments)? Simply refining all that metal and molding all those component parts must consume more fresh water -- and the energy to produce *that* -- than the largest domestic breed can drink over its entire lifespan. And what of all the high-environmental-impact mining required to extract all the assorted rare earths for the electronic systems -- GPS, OnStar, et cetera?
Bottom line: if the carbon footprint of my dog is twice that of an SUV, why does the SUV have such a dramatically higher *monetary* cost of ownership per month? I *wish* I could run an SUV for $100/month (including bank payments and annual maintenance)... I love NS (their formidable new paywall notwithstanding), but was the "science" of the study peer-reviewed ANYWHERE?
How much of the mystery meat fed to dogs would be in a landfill if dogs did not eat it?
"Meat" needs defined. If pets did not eat it it could go to farm animals, even cows, but at a lower price. At some point it would be so cheap as to be not worth selling and the toss up would be between the cost of storage and selling vs garbage removal costs.
Also dogs can thrive on a vegetarian diet (though mine, a former stray, eats a fish/veggie mix because he has skin issues)
Energy, resources and pollution audits are incredibly susceptible to bias. As vemene above notes, this one really seems to be more than just quite far out.
I would go further than calling it shenanigans -- I would call it "used dog food."
Like John says, the 'meat' that goes into dog food is the garbage that's left on the packing house floor.
Be that as it may, let's be absurd: Gays and lesbians have an even greater carbon footprint than do dogs. Shall we kill them?
I wish I had been able to access the original article in the Vancouver Sun. Not sure if it recommended getting rid of animals.
My 56 lb dog doesn't eat about a pound of Meat a day. I don't even eat about a pound of meat a day.
Maybe there are too many pets. And, arguably, there are too many People on earth.
Ho, Ho, Ho...
Personally, I don't have a grudge against dogs. Many families receive them as presents – Every Year about this time. Even working dogs, that merely do a modicum of work compared to my animals. My animals are ruminants, and believe me they really know how to pollute the air... man, when you're behind them flying throuth the air, you just wish you were going faster.
Personally, I don't know how many animals I have. And sometimes I can't even remember all their names... except one. Flatus, I think, and I put him Waaaayyyy up front, for obvious reasons.
Well, my daddy always said 'there's nothing like the smell of a freshly fertilized field', and I agree. So just leave nature alone, it did quite well without you.
A dog is much better than even a 'hybrid'.
Santa
Grrrrrrrr..........
-White Fang
First they came after the mutts. And I said nothing.
Then they came after the whiners. And I said nothing.
Then they came after the barkers. And I said nothing.
Then they came after after me. But there was no one left to bark.
Good point. I have long said we should criminalize people who refuse to get their dogs and cats spayed and neutered, back-yard breeding, and failure to keep their pets contained on their own property, so that their poor pets get lost, hit by cars, and put to sleep at the humane society because no one wants them. We should be euthanizing the irresponsible pet owners as a threat to the environment!
Post a Comment
<< Home