|
Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend
Scolds of the world, unite!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. That could also be an indication that gas guzzling SUVs aren't as 'orrid as reported. "My SUV has less than half the environmental impact of the average schnauzer. So shuddup and go hawk yer carbon credits elsewhere!" 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. I'd say the authors have draped themselves in the bright colors characteristic of dishpits. 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. Eating! Oh, noze! 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. How many hectares does your average African herder take up? Maybe they should be killed... No. Wait. I guess they are. I just didn't realize it was eco-friendly to do so. 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. The Hmong in Laos, on the other hand, raise doggies for food. On the third hand, the Hmong on Laos were hunted out pretty well in the Plain of Jars, so I guess they've got a carbon surplus for their depleted numbers. Who keeps score for this nonsense? Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say. They eat guinea swine in Ecuador, so I guess their eco-pawprints even out in the end. 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. Which I'd say means that we've descended deep into the realm of the meaningless statistic. 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. I dunno. We've got a new Labrador retriever at home. Depending on what Fido's chewed it can be pretty stressful. "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?" Because if you can make your own decisions somebody else is deprived of the mean-spirited little pleasure of telling you what to do. Posted by: Fred 2009-12-23 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=286224 |