Inconvenient Pets

Blah blah blah:

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…

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 4×4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

Now, Murdoc isn’t necessarily questioning the data. Murdoc is questioning the conclusion.

If family a pet has a larger carbon footprints than a gas-guzzling SUV, doesn’t it mean that gas-guzzling SUVs aren’t nearly as bad as they’re made out to be?

Next time you hear about all the bad things SUVs do, think about a medium-sized dog and remember that Fido is worse. Which means the SUV ain’t quite as bad as advertised.

Comments

  1. Next thing you know, these LibAsses will be calculating the carbon footprint of cats and goldfish. Bah! Humbug!

    And what was the carbon footprint for them to take the time, energy (electricity, gasoline, et al), food, housing, etc, to figure out these useless speculations?

    If these idiots REALLY want to reduce carbon footprints, then quit breathing

    Thank you.

  2. On a related note, we are told people in the first world, like the US and Canada, have a larger carbon footprint than those of the third world, presumably because of all those pets and SUVs.

    If this is the case then why aren’t these global warming alarmists advocating tougher immigration controls? After all, a newly minted American will have a substantially larger carbon footprint here than he would have back home. Given that immigration is expected to increase the USA’s population by at least 100 million people in the next 40 years, I am shocked this is not mentioned.

    Yet, they feel the need to go after our pets.

  3. 11 Bravo,

    Bravo!

    If you don’t mind (and even if you do), I’m going use that argument all over the internets.

    I think it also has merit when it comes to the health care debate. Providing free healthcare to the masses and insuring longer lives HAS to increase carbon emissions. I’ve got to do some research there.

    Then again, maybe I shouldn’t bother. True logic has never been a factor in these debates.

  4. I’m doing my part to stop cow fart induced global warming (CFIGW) by eating as much steak as possible and dying early of a heart attack. Where’s my fuggin Nobel prize?

  5. IMO,
    the article is comparing apples to oranges wrt: carbon footprint and land use footprint. A better comparison might be useful calories gained versus calories expended on via dog sled and a 4×4 over the same route.

    There are many environmental issues about pets, but there are many more pressing ones to worry about.

    Bang for buck IMO, would be to improve the mpg of truck fleets, and let sleeping dogs lie.

  6. I have a cunning plan!

    First, we make up this HUGE data base with the names and addresses of everyone who believes that humans are responsible in any way for climate change.

    Second, we gather them all up and send them to a processing center.

    Third, We execute them on a steady basis.

    Fourth, we cremate their bodies in industrial-sized crematoriums, which heat resulting is used to power a steam plant that drives electric generators.

    Fifth, we can use the cremains with concrete to rebuild our roads and bridges, foundations, etc.

    See? Everybody wins! :)

  7. “There’s a sucker born every minute”.

    Probably (hopefully) NOT a renewable resource. But it would probably give us time for to build a whole raft of Nuke Plants around the country. :)

Comments are closed