Dogs pollute more than SUVs

[Voltano]

New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale stirred up some controversy by stating pets--specifically dogs--cause more pollution to the environment than a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres. A new study with from the Vales found that popular brands of dog food generate a footprint that is twice as large as an SUV. Some more information is below.

The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed 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 kilometres (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.

I don't own a pet here though I find the information startling. Some pet owners make a rebuttal that pets help alleviate stress of the owner, and I could see a dog being helpful in encouraging owners to exercise more.

The Vales recommended to feed any cats leftovers, like fish heads at a fishmonger store. Though their recommendation of what to do with rabbits is...questionable.

If anyone wants to read the full article, they can find it by clicking here [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood].

 

[Legion]

The Vales recommended to feed any cats leftovers, like fish heads at a fishmonger store. Though their recommendation of what to do with rabbits is...questionable.

These things really piss me off. They always try and tell the consumer to cut down rather than the producer. Unless every owner does it (and almost simultaneously) then it won't make the slightest bit of difference because the factories will keep producing the food and the footprint will be the same.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You know what I say we do? Zombie apocalypse! Solves all our problems. It's like declaring bankrupcy only much more fun.

 

[rossatdi]

So fill SUVs with dogs, then push them off cliffs?

 

[DazZ.]

Though their recommendation of what to do with rabbits is...questionable.

Eating rabbits isn't questionable.

"I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations.

"I don't want a life without animals," she told AFP.

I don't think that's fair, if she's allowed loads of animals and her love for them outweighs environmental considerations, SUV owners shouldn't get the rabble they do.

 

[Voltano]

These things really piss me off. They always try and tell the consumer to cut down rather than the producer. Unless every owner does it (and almost simultaneously) then it won't make the slightest bit of difference because the factories will keep producing the food and the footprint will be the same.

That's a good point in targeting the producer to reduce resources instead of the consumer, though I think producers may not change their methods. Producers develop this way in order to make money, and if the formula sells then why change it? They would know it would be popular with consumers since they buy it, though if they start loosing money on their products they will eventually change or figure out how to make a buck off those fish-heads from fishmongers. Kind of reminds me of companies now going after grease tossed aside by fast-food restaurants as a means for profit.

 

[DangerFish]

So fill SUVs with dogs, then push them off cliffs?

This

 

[Terramax]

You know what I say we do? Zombie dog apocalypse! Solves all our problems.

Fixed for you

Can you imagine zombie dogs raging war against domesticated ones? "Dog, what are you doing with that chainsaw?"

 

[Dogstile]

Though their recommendation of what to do with rabbits is...questionable.

Eating rabbits isn't questionable.

It is if i want to keep my rabbit alive.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You know what I say we do? Zombie dog apocalypse! Solves all our problems.

Fixed for you

Can you imagine zombie dogs raging war against domesticated ones? "Dog, what are you doing with that chainsaw?"

No, just plain ol' Zombie Apocalypse. The dogs will be zombies too.

 

[Dorian]

This is a lode of bull, methinks.

They're ANIMALS. They EAT THINGS.
Apparently we need to go hunt the whales, because they eat a BUNCH, and therefor pollute a BUNCH. That's just extending from their thinking.
Wrongity-wrong wrong wrong.

 

[Jory]

This is a lode of bull, methinks.

They're ANIMALS. They EAT THINGS.
Apparently we need to go hunt the whales, because they eat a BUNCH, and therefor pollute a BUNCH. That's just extending from their thinking.
Wrongity-wrong wrong wrong.

Yeah I don't really see it as a fair comparison at all. Although it does have some rather large implications. It shows the real problem of global warming is not caused by owning big cars, but by living and eating food.

 

[EnzoHonda]

This is a lode of bull, methinks.

They're ANIMALS. They EAT THINGS.
Apparently we need to go hunt the whales, because they eat a BUNCH, and therefor pollute a BUNCH. That's just extending from their thinking.
Wrongity-wrong wrong wrong.

You don't get it. The issue is that we grow crops and raise cattle (using fossil fuels) specifically to feed a dog. It is seperate from the rest of nature. Whales eat what they can find. They are not part of the problem.

 

[Dorian]

You don't get it. The issue is that we grow crops and raise cattle (using fossil fuels) specifically to feed a dog. It is seperate from the rest of nature. Whales eat what they can find. They are not part of the problem.

How exactly does letting [cow-specific food here, I'm ignorant as to what they eat] grow in the sun, feeding that to cows, and chopping them up and making them into dog-food make pollution, aside from the methane that every creature makes?

 

[EnzoHonda]

You don't get it. The issue is that we grow crops and raise cattle (using fossil fuels) specifically to feed a dog. It is seperate from the rest of nature. Whales eat what they can find. They are not part of the problem.

How exactly does letting [cow-specific food here, I'm ignorant as to what they eat] grow in the sun, feeding that to cows, and chopping them up and making them into dog-food make pollution, aside from the methane that every creature makes?

It's called intensive agriculture. Chemical fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, transportation. There is a ridiculous amount of pollution associated with any meat production in a developed country. And please don't be one of those people who thinks cattle only eat naturally-grown grass. We're all a little too old to be that naive.

 

[hotdogoctopus]

Jesus, I wonder what kind of footprint my dragon is leaving.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

This is a lode of bull, methinks.

I see what you did there.

A simple test to determine "carbon footprint" (which in itself is a misnomer) is to work out Input/Output/Waste.

If the former is higher, you're overconsuming.
If the latter is higher, you're polluting.
If both are high, you're a bloody menace and you should be removed.

Dogs don't even figure on the same scale as SUV's. Dog food companies may do, but if you add in the entire SUV gestalt industry (Petrol, Manufacture, Engineering, Advertising, Salesmanship, Repairs, Testing, Storage) then no residential item will even compete.

 

[Lullabye]

You know what I say we do? Zombie apocalypse! Solves all our problems. It's like declaring bankrupcy only much more fun.

I've been saing this for years, but do they listen?

Umm, i bet you humans leave a bigger eco foot print than anthing so far..

 

[cleverlymadeup]

ummmm there's one small issue with that logic, most people in places such as North America drive their cars on average 20,000 km a year

so his 10k estimate is shattered and the wrong base number to go off of

 

[cuddly_tomato]

This is a lode of bull, methinks.

I see what you did there.

A simple test to determine "carbon footprint" (which in itself is a misnomer) is to work out Input/Output/Waste.

If the former is higher, you're overconsuming.
If the latter is higher, you're polluting.
If both are high, you're a bloody menace and you should be removed.

Dogs don't even figure on the same scale as SUV's. Dog food companies may do, but if you add in the entire SUV gestalt industry (Petrol, Manufacture, Engineering, Advertising, Salesmanship, Repairs, Testing, Storage) then no residential item will even compete.

Agreed. Even just producing the damn things... Oil refineries, oil transport (what is the carbon footprint to get an oil tanker across two oceans?), steel mills, car fabrication, wielding materials (oxygen and other chemicals), glass, tyre rubber, electricity used in production, plastics, copper wiring (has to be mined), cloth/leather interior (more cows?) etc, all before you have even taken the SUV for a test drive.

All you need to make a dog is two other horny dogs.