You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Save the planet: eat a dog?
2009-10-22
The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found. Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.
Lassie, the other white meat
The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created bypopular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.

"If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around," Brenda Vale said. "A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable."

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido. They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha -- less than half of the dog's.

They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha -- slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha -- keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.

Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming. "The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone's pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment."

Professor Vale took her message to Wellington City Council last year, but councillors said banning traditional pets or letting people keep food animals in their homes were not acceptable options.
For now ...
Kelly Jeffery, a Paraparaumu german shepherd breederwho once owned a large SUV, said eliminating traditional pets was "over the top". "I think we need animals because they are a positive in our society. We can all make little changes to reduce carbon footprints but without pointing the finger at pets, which are part of family networks."
Posted by:Steve

#17  FARK.com CATZ > "MEH-H-H"!

Time to cue the SAD DOGGY SIDE PIC, Lou!
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-10-22 23:18  

#16  SO...... if land can really generate that much energy, and it takes that much land to feed a dog or cat...

I can feed two cats for eight dollars a _week_.

Why the big cost disparity?
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2009-10-22 22:33  

#15  (thought problem)
If you had a dog that could appropriately use a dozen words, what would those words be?

My guesses: yes, no, come, go, pain, hungry, thirsty, fear, alert, love, happy, help.

It would be super cool if they could say family names.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-10-22 20:19  

#14  Seriously, right now, there are lots of dog owners who would kill someone who tried to kill their dog, in a bloody eyed rage.

Well, I like most people much less than I like my dogs, so you can put me down for that.
Posted by: Secret Master   2009-10-22 19:34  

#13  If carbon dioxide emissions are the problem, why do these people continue to breathe?
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-10-22 17:45  

#12  Soylent Old Blue is puppies!
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-10-22 17:28  

#11  And I promise not to miss you a bit a bit of you. How's that for following the rules?

Miss Manners used to say, eat everything on your plate. Fixed it for you, JohnQC.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-10-22 16:49  

#10  It's already done, Moose.
Posted by: ed   2009-10-22 16:02  

#9  Light flaming bags of dog poop on the Vale's front porch. It renewable!
Posted by: ed   2009-10-22 15:59  

#8  Soylent Green is people!
Posted by: JohnQC   2009-10-22 15:28  

#7  "If dogs could speak, even a little bit, lots of The majority of dog owners would go to war against eco-nuts if they threatened their dogs"

Fixed that for ya', 'moose.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-10-22 13:36  

#6  That makes Korea a Green leader!
Posted by: Glenmore   2009-10-22 12:00  

#5  Sounds like JohnQC is saying the canabilism is green. I believe he's right, given the insane, make-them-up-as-you-go-along rules those folks go by. Eat your mama. Eat your papa. Eat all your other littlr nestlings. Then submit to the knife and fork of some other Greenie. Sure would take care of the population problem. And I promise not to miss you a bit. How's that for following the rules?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon   2009-10-22 10:57  

#4  I'm surprised these idiots didn't advocate eating their fellow humans since the carbon footprint is large. We got a bunch of eco-morons running around on this planet.
Posted by: JohnQC   2009-10-22 10:26  

#3  Most mammals share a gene called FOX2P, but only humans have a mutation of the gene that greatly enhances the ability to talk. When this gene was transplanted into mice, they became very "chatty" and their vocal range increased considerably.

This gene needs to be put into dogs. It is believed that smarter dogs can understand as many as 300 human words, and if dogs could express even a dozen words, not only would those dogs be worth a fortune, but anti-dog eco-nuts might as well propose killing autistic children.

Seriously, right now, there are lots of dog owners who would kill someone who tried to kill their dog, in a bloody eyed rage. If dogs could speak, even a little bit, lots of dog owners would go to war against eco-nuts if they threatened their dogs.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-10-22 10:17  

#2  Pit bulls and Rottweilers don't go down so easily.
Posted by: JohnQC   2009-10-22 10:10  

#1  Just getting people used to the idea of doing insane things for the cause of global warming. I'd say it's coming along nicely if they're suggesting treating man's best friend as livestock.
Posted by: gromky   2009-10-22 08:49  

00:00