According to their figures, feeding a medium-sized dog for a year has twice the environmental impact of driving a luxury SUV for 10,000 kilometres.
The Vales based their calculations on the amount of acreage needed to sustain the dog's diet of 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals in a year - both figures measuring food weight before it is dried and processed into kibbles.
Pets are not something we usually think of in terms of having an environmental impact, but they must.
Not to mention those walking ecological disasters called children...
What a load of crap that article is!
People probably should carefully consider the environmental impact of choosing to have more than one child as well - especially in high-consumption countries. I don't see why it's so horrible to point out that people may want to choose a smaller or herbivorous pet if they intend to reduce their environmental impact.
According to their figures, feeding a medium-sized dog for a year has twice the environmental impact of driving a luxury SUV for 10,000 kilometres.
They could have also said it has the same environmental impact as driving a luxury SUV for 20,000 kilometres.
Anyway, who'll be first to give up their pet? Any early adopters on that one?
Not I. I'm an environmental nightmare - 2 dogs, 3 cats and 2 kids. And I can't see a hamster as much of a replacement for any of 'em.
not everything personal is equally translated into the political. there are degrees of intrusion into environment.
And I can't see a hamster as much of a replacement for any of 'em.
According to the book, two hamsters have an environmental footprint equivalent to that of a plasma TV.
Incidentally, [url=http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/bad-professors-bad-the-tru... blogger[/url] provides calculations to show that the authors are wrong by a factor of 20 in their comparison of dogs to SUV's.
not everything personal is equally translated into the political. there are degrees of intrusion into environment.
What does this mean, i dont understand?
I love it when people (I should say pet owners) equate pets with children. It's so bizarre. It's really a great example of the population control vs. consumption control argument and the weird relationship with the web of life that some humans have developed.
This article is a wonderful example of how gullible people really are. So, let's see, industrual agriculture, processing, and distribution for pets, as well as people, is wasteful, destructive, and responsible for tons of CO2 ... and the solution is to get rid of, or time share, the pets. Yeah, right. Because changing agricultural and food practices is just out of the question. So if fast food is killing the planet and making little Billy fat and sick, the best solutuon is to get rid of little Billy?
And I can't see a hamster as much of a replacement for any of 'em.
According to the book, two hamsters have an environmental footprint equivalent to that of a plasma TV.
Incidentally, [url=http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/bad-professors-bad-the-tru... blogger[/url] provides calculations to show that the authors are wrong by a factor of 20 in their comparison of dogs to SUV's.
Yabbut hamsters are gross. Vermin. Ew. *shudder*
not everything personal is equally translated into the political. there are degrees of intrusion into environment.What does this mean, i dont understand?
I love it when people (I should say pet owners) equate pets with children. It's so bizarre. It's really a great example of the population control vs. consumption control argument and the weird relationship with the web of life that some humans have developed.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I've had only brief periods where there hasn't been a dog or a cat in my life. It's likely that I will have companion animals living alongside me for some time yet, regardless. It that weird? In my view, it's completely normal, living without one seems weird to me. Given that I make attempts to keep my footprint low in other ways, I'm not going to lose any sleep over keeping my critters.
This article is a wonderful example of how gullible people really are. So, let's see, industrual agriculture, processing, and distribution for pets, as well as people, is wasteful, destructive, and responsible for tons of CO2 ... and the solution is to get rid of, or time share, the pets. Yeah, right. Because changing agricultural and food practices is just out of the question. So if fast food is killing the planet and making little Billy fat and sick, the best solutuon is to get rid of little Billy?
I hear this, I really do.
But there are so many facets, that can only be appreciated by lived experiences.
Losing a companion animal hurts, we have lost...welll, a companion, and yes a child, per se. The pain of lose is the same even decades later.
But yet, I know clearly that too many supposed "companion animals" are born and then abandoned, it is a huge issue and I have talked here about it elsewhere. Responsible companion animal lovers, like the people here, are not the norm.
Cat litter is becoming a significant environmental issue, too.
Cat litter....bloody hell it is a bad environmental hazrad. I've recently switched over to a pellet based brand, which you can use way longer, has far less smell, and is completely natural.
I have 4 cats (all fixed), a bearded dragon named Maxx, two fire belly froggies (Sid & Nancy), a turtle named Pepper, and fish. I love my animals.
FM - that post made me bust a gut! Thanks.
we been looking into the corn husk stuff...
anything that uses corn is horrible for the environment.
Not really Le T. The best kitty litter Ive seen and used is the one made from ground up corn cobs. They get them from processing plants that make canned corn or popcorn, etc. Its flushable and lasts much longer than the regular stuff. I would heartily recommend it Remind, it is really easy to use and I like the fact that it seems to last much longer.
Not really Le T. The best kitty litter Ive seen and used is the one made from ground up corn cobs.
You missed the part about the massive industrial agricultural apparatus required to grow that corn in the first place.
Not really. As long as its using something that is at present tossed out, I think its fine. And there will always be corn production though I suspect not for ethanol but for feed, and popcorn, etc
I agree with bacchus, why we would do 2, or 3, environmental no's, when we can do a half of one, jingles?
The corn is being produced for food, or plastics and oils.
The cobs are not always a part of that process, they either become waste that takes forever to breakdown, or it becomes a secondary use, saving the environment elsewhere, still to be composted even.
The litter, most use in bulk, is apparently a type of clay, and its removal from several US state's landscape, is apparently creating environmental damage on a larg scale.
then they are now finding the clay is not composting, it is just clumping bigger and bigger and blocking proper drainage of composting matierials.
Clay makes a great vessle, under wet pressure and then drying.
PET PEEVES:
Cute pet story - my neighbor has a new roommate who carries a bit of a negativity about her, and the neighbor's cats and dog don't seem to like the new occupant because the cat pees on her bed and the dog poops where she sits in the living room.
Pets are one of the top peeves for some people; I bet the author of that book is one of those people with a peeve for pets.
Cat Got Your Fish? NYT Op-Ed
Bunch of vegan nonsense.
Reuters: Cats a bigger danger to fish stocks than people
Reuters: Cats a bigger danger to fish stocks than people
This article speaks somewhat to FM's post upthread. Yes cats eat lots of fish, cats need protein cause they're carnivores. However it's not the cats thats are the main problem, it's that people want to feed their cats the good parts of fish, like what people eat, or expect the meat that cats eat to be close to what people eat. It's there right in the article. "Our pets seem to be eating better than their owners," Turchini told Australian newspapers. I think giving a nice chunk of fish to a pet is important to satisfy the personal hedonistic needs of the owner, not the nutritional need of the cat. Cats will be very happy to eat the offal from a trout," he said.
He's right. My cats are just as happy chowing down on the guts of a rodent but try selling that sort of thing to people as cat food. Canned trout offal. Yeah I'm sure that would be a great seller. So the solution I guess is to get rid of those durn consuming cats.
My cats are just as happy chowing down on the guts of a rodent but try selling that sort of thing to people as cat food. Canned trout offal. Yeah I'm sure that would be a great seller.
Most people feed their cats commercially-prepared cat food, which is made from things a hell of a lot scarier than trout offal or rat intestines. And yes, it is a great seller.
There is no evidence that massive numbers of cats are "eating better" than their owners and thereby causing an ecological crisis.
Bunch of vegan nonsense.
Incidentally, [url=http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/bad-professors-bad-the-tru... blogger[/url] provides calculations to show that the authors are wrong by a factor of 20 in their comparison of dogs to SUV's.
Let's say the calculations were overestimated by 20 times (i.e., the environmental cost of a dog per year is equivalent to only 500 km driven by an SUV in a year).
There are roughly 82 million pet dogs in North America. Multiply 82 million by 500 km and you have 41 billion km driven by an SUV in a year. Divide 41 billion km by 10,000 km per year. The result? The ownership of pet dogs is the equivalent of 4.1 million SUVs each being driven 10,000 kms per year.
This does not account for the environmental impact of the 97 million cats and the tens of millions of other pets in North America.
In the aggregate, even with the corrected calculations noted by M. Spector, the enviormental impact of having pets is not insignificant.
4.1 million sounds a lot better than 82 million.
You can try to dazzle people with big numbers, but the fact is that all the aggregate statistics for various aspects of the environmental footprints in North America are in the millions, billions, and trillions.
You can try to dazzle people with big numbers, but the fact is that all the aggregate statistics for various aspects of the environmental footprints in North America are in the millions, billions, and trillions.
All I'm saying is that dog owners in North America, using the stats you cited, are equivalent to 4.1 million SUVs driving 10,000 km per year. In other words, that is the collective responsiblity, environmentally, that dog owners have, viz., the environment.
Maybe you could apply your calculating talents to the ecological footprint of squirrels, raccoons, beavers, and skunks. We may discover that we can solve all our ecological problems simply by exterminating the lot of them.
Maybe you could apply your calculating talents to the ecological footprint of squirrels, raccoons, beavers, and skunks. We may discover that we can solve all our ecological problems simply by exterminating the lot of them.
Squirrels, raccoons, beavers, and skunks are naturally occurring. The possession, care, and feeding of tens of millions of pets is an optional human activity which has a negative impact on the environment (much like taking hot showers, engaging in any leisure travel, using electricity, etc.).
The argument in the OP is simply a different version of the standard neo-Malthusian trope about there being "too many people". Only instead of proposing a cull of human populations (which nowadays is considered non-U), the book's authors propose making four-legged creatures die for our sins.
The argument thus becomes restated as "too many animals". Much easier to sell to humans.
But what does it matter which animals we cull? Why kill the dogs when we could kill some of the animals with really big eco-footprints? How many hectares of land does it take to sustain a lion, or an elephant? How many cubic miles of ocean does it take to sustain a blue whale? Why not just rid our planet of these carbon-sucking parasites so we can leave more room and food for ourselves?
In fact we're already doing that - accelerating the pace of species extinction. I guess we're on the right track after all.
So maybe we should discuss.
Roadkill- the real cuddly one.
My dog puts me to shame. Not only does he eat better and get more exercise, he's also less cranky and more sociable. Always playful, he's a congenial clown. Moreover, the more people I encounter, the more I love him. Besides, riding in the car with the sun-roof open, he's a picture of pure joy. Ditch the hair-shirt; if I'm going to get all 'itchy, scratchy' over my pet's environmental pawprint-- I'd rather have fleas!
