Carbon Footprints: Ditch the dog, get a Hummer H2, save the planet?
by Dan Roth on Nov 11th 2009 at 11:30AM 
If you don't like dogs, there's now a new reason to continue avoiding canis domesticus. New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale have put forth the hypothesis that the care and feeding of a pooch is more environmentally harmful than rolling in a Toyota Land Cruiser. Those shifty, antisocial felines aren't much better, so don't get any more smug than you already are, cat people. One ten-pound feline's care is the same to the environment as a 3300-pound Volkswagen Golf, the theory goes.
The Vales present this work in their book "Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living." The animals that wind up in dog food burden the land while they're alive, and the amount of goodies that people lavish upon their dogs, from squeaky toy to special grooming sessions also do the equivalent work of burning the rainforest.
The claims have been disputed, of course – no doubt by more than a few dog lovers. The chief researcher for Seattle's Sightline Institute, Clark Williams-Derry, ran some numbers of his own and came up with results that don't square with the Vales. The think-tank scientist calculated that for the Vale's numbers to add up, the average dog would have to eat twice as much as the average person, an idea that is difficult to fathom since people are heavier than most dogs.
The takeaway from all this is simply that dog (and cat) ownership does have an ecological footprint. Like everything else in your life, keeping a pet is intertwined with our insatiable consumerism. The truly concerned will carefully consider where the products and items they purchase for their pets are made, what goes into them, and what that means for the planet. The rest of you will keep letting adorable little Beaufort leaves deposit on our lawns.
[Source: Seattle Times | Image: Andrew H. Walker/Getty]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Yaroukh 11:37AM (11/11/2009)
i would say this is getting over the top
if it wasn't there already
Reply
Bus Rand 12:18PM (11/11/2009)
Over the top!! You think Yaroukh?!? Couldn't agree more man! This socialist crap has been over the top and has been completely absent of scientific legitamacy from it's inception. The fact that it's lunacy has been allowed to get to this level shows the power of their propoganda (compliments of the media) and nothing more, certainly not truth. This same type of enviro-communsit calculation was used to show how the prius was no better than the Hummer. Buying a Land Rover has less impact. Gee, I wonder why it didn't get any attention but this excrement does? Hummmmm.............
We could all be living in tents, pissing and craping outdoors, living with the complete absence of the combustion engine and they still wouldn't be satisfied. This movement has nothing to do with the environment. How else do you explain this?
MikeofLA 12:29PM (11/11/2009)
This is to Bus Rand...
Socialism and Communism are mutually exclusive and I don't see ANY part of this post or the book, that mentions having any socio-political motivation. I would understand if you mentioned some wide swathed insult to the liberals(which, if you like your beer, your seatbelts, your civil rights - you should thank them) but bunching these together makes you seem like a right wing loony who is stretching for attention and has little or no understanding of government...
I'll make it simple... are you an idiot?
Yaroukh 12:34PM (11/11/2009)
@MikeofLA: Sorry to interfere...
I'm not saying they're equal (enviro-mentalists and commies) but you can't deny that this kind of crap comes usually from people who bash capitalism (usually calling it an ideology) and generally tend to be left-ish.
Guess what, Greenpiss made several happenings agitating against US radar base in my country. (Don't ask me how is that related to green/eco or whatever besides pure politics.)
MikeofLA 12:36PM (11/11/2009)
By the way, I don't agree with this book in the least and yes I think this is going too far. Before we start killing off our beloved pets we should look at what can easily be manipulated to better our world. Global warming is real and whether you think we're causing it or not, we can effect it. Humanity is just as much a force of nature as wind, earthquakes, fires and volcanoes but on a constant unceasing global level.
We should focus on coal mitigation, solar and wind implementation, algae fuel and plasma arc trash incineration (breaks trash down to it's elemental state and the elements can then be harvested... it also can power a community) before we start looking at our furry companions.
Yaroukh 12:38PM (11/11/2009)
"global warming is real", yeah, that's why they renamed it to "climate change" O_o
MikeofLA 1:18PM (11/11/2009)
Really??? They renamed it to climate change because it's not just warming that's going to F people. It's also the climatic changes that come along with it like hurricanes, arid climatic shifts, tropical climate shifts, dessertification etc. There is an overwelming amount of proof, that's been vetted by tens of thousands of scientists, but you think it's a hoax?
Do you think that 9/11 and the Lunar missions were government conspiracies too?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
Yaroukh 1:23PM (11/11/2009)
There's overwhelming amount of facts that collide with your so-called-prooves.
> Do you think that 9/11 and the Lunar missions were government conspiracies too?
No. But if you have any more stupid questions feel free to ask.
MikeofLA 2:23PM (11/11/2009)
"There's overwhelming amount of facts that collide with your so-called-prooves."
Please Do Share...
I have only read the "facts" that have been debunked by my simply looking at pictures from around the world of places that have contained glaciers for the whole of written human history that don't any more. Argue with those facts.
If you really think that climate change is not a real occurrence you are dense. You can disagree with the cause, but you can not disagree with the results... at least not while maintaining any semblance of a free thinking human that is literate and has the capacity for logical reasoning.
Climate change has been happening for 4.5 Billion years on this planet... why would it stop now?
Yaroukh 3:49PM (11/11/2009)
No one said climate change is not in occurence. What your alikes apparently fail to comprehend is that it happens all the time. And most of your "picutres" are simply laughable, Kilimanjaro snow-cap, recycled breaking ice rafts, polar bears, etc.
Bus Rand 8:35PM (11/11/2009)
Mike, you and others like you have done nothing but prove my point. Every word you've written (among others) supports the fact that this is propoganda to the nth degree. You're agruements and examples are straight from the leftist talking points on this issue. Learn your history pal, because I seriously doubt you could show me a legitimate difference between socialism and communism. Yes, I know you all like to think there is. Liberals are responsible for beer and the constitutional freedom of speech.......right.
I've been up on this subject for 20 yrs., long before YouTube existed. I used to be on the other side of this issue but since I've made a serious objective effort to educate myself, the volumes of evidence supporting the complete lack of science is undeniable. This is a political movement, nothing more.
A somewhat recent example:
Group 1 claims there has been a 3-3.5 deg. increase in temp. concerning the northern hemisphere in the last 100 yrs. based on data collected in the U.S.
Group 2 disagrees, claiming in the increase is more on the line of 0.7 deg.
Both groups are using the same source. The U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Which group is wrong?
The USHCN is the collection of weather stations (a lot of stations) scattered all across the country that have been collecting data for at least 100 yrs., some of them even longer (120 yrs.).
I took 3 seperate samples, 2 from each state (3 from the bigger ones) each time, making sure I didn't use the same station twice. The results were 0.6-1.1 deg. averaging out to be about .85 deg. increase in temp. Group 2 was a hell of a lot closer than Group1. Anyone having a basic elementary level of education on climate history also knows this is well within normal fluctuation of temp., humans or no humans.
Looking at individual station data, most were either showing a small decrease, or no change at all, or a small increase in temp. overall. There were a small percentage that recorded 1-2 deg. decrease in temp. and there were a small percentage that showed an increase of 3-3.5 deg. In order to come to Group 1's conclusions, one must completely ignore ALL data from ALL stations not showing a 3-3.5 deg. increase. This is called manipulating data to reach a desired result. That's called propoganda for most likely political gain and has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Group 1, a few months after I made my own study (instead of absorbing the crap you have) admitted they were wrong but proceeded to proclaim that eternal global damnation was inevitable anyway...just trust them, and who are these groups anyway?
Group 2 consisted of Climatologists who obviously knew what they were talking about.
Group 1 was your typical global alarmists/social activists consisting of Al Gore supporters, the IPCC and the original gurus who started this fecal foolishness. The ones who said in 1975 that man was causing global cooling on a catastrophic level. Then in 1985 the same folks said it was global warming and if nothing is done, in ten years there was going to be a 10 deg. increase in temp. Two more of the same predictions were made, 10 yrs. apart and now they can't even back up a claim to 3-3.5 deg. Now the last of their 10 yr., 10 deg. predictions will expire in 2015. Care to make a bet on how that will turn out Mike (and akboss302, etc., etc.)?
This is just one of many examples I could give from 20 yrs. of watching this fiasco unfold. For the sake of real environmental issues that deserve the attention, it's way overdue for all this completely unproven nonsense to go away. Chicken little the sky is falling, enough already!
BoxerFanatic 11:39AM (11/11/2009)
How about owning a pet if you want to, and being responsible for it.
How about owning a car that you want to, and being responsible for it.
And realizing that the planet doesn't need saving, and you couldn't save, nor condemn the planet either way. This planet has survived much worse than human activity.
How about having liberty, taking responsibility, and some realism to counter such raging ego to think that a slight change can somehow affect a much larger system that has managed itself for longer than human history.
Reply
Bob-omb 11:56AM (11/11/2009)
That sounded nice, but it made absolutely no sense.
Bob 12:12PM (11/11/2009)
Can't decide if it's weak attempt at a modest proposal or just another couple of elitist wackos screaming for attention. Either way, they've obviously never had a pet. Which probably explains quite a bit.
If I wasn't convinced they would taste like tofu and patchouli I'd say let's BBQ the Yales and be done with it.
BoxerFanatic 12:12PM (11/11/2009)
How much more clearly can I put it?
Get a dog or don't. Your choice, your responsibility.
Get a car, SUV, or whatever vehicle you like. Your choice, your responsibility.
Get a clue that neither choice has impact on the planet, which has survived volcanos, continental drift, ice ages, meteor impacts, and everything else... A car or a dog isn't going to make a whit's difference. Not even a car or a dog for everyone.
It is pure egotism that these people are playing with, to make people think their choices of pets or vehicles, have cosmic ramifications, when they couldn't possibly have that much impact, even in aggregate.
LesPaul1 12:13PM (11/11/2009)
bro,
Don't you realize most people think global warming is a FACT.
Whatever smart, rich politicians tell us is true.
Bus Rand 12:25PM (11/11/2009)
Bob omb, anyone who has spent 2 hours making a legitimate attempt to educate themselves on climate history know that BoxerFanatic makes perfect sense. Try taking your copy of "inconvenient truth (or lie)" out of your DVD player and read or watch some real science, it'll open your eyes.
akboss302 12:54PM (11/11/2009)
Bus Rand, and anybody who has spend more than two hours outside of YouTube realizes climate change is a real issue that is being affected on many levels by our insatiable consumption. Greenhouse gases are getting picked on immensely, and this is perhaps unfair in the grand scheme of all the factors that are in fact changing our atmospheric conditions, but everything has to be considered. I think this pet thing is stupid, but even more dense is your denial of rational thought.
Polly Prissy Pants 2:55PM (11/11/2009)
"How about owning a car that you want to, and being responsible for it."
How exactly would one do that? I can feed my dog table scraps and compost his poop, but how do you address the additional smog my kids have to breathe because you want to drive a Hummer? That's not meant to be inflammatory, I jujt don't see how anyone can "be responsible" for their car (assuming that means compensate for the damage it causes) when most of the damage is way beyond your control.
RWD 5:25PM (11/11/2009)
First of all yes, owning a slobbering sh!t machine does have an impact on the environment. The food it eats, the sh!t that you pick up (and leave traces of) on the sidewalk everyday. When it rains here in Venice Beach, one of the top reasons I can't go swimming is because of massive amount of animal waste that is dumped into the ocean. "Responsible"? Do you you pick up your animal's droppings and then get down with a scrub brush and Lysol to get every last particle? I didn't think so. So thousands, no... hundreds of thousands of people doing this multiple times a day has no impact on the environment? Really?
And let's say that it doesn't, fine. What about the millions of tons of meat and grain that instead of feeding MILLIONS of hungry people around the world, instead goes to make your poodle's coat shinny? And all of the billions of dollars spent worldwide for food, vet bills, toys, and stupid dog sweaters? Because? You need companionship? Make some human friends. Need protection? Get an alarm and some pepper spray.
I won't even get into the issue of barking f*cking mutts and their irresponsible owners.
If you live on a ranch and need to heard sheep, if you are blind and need a guide... Get a dog, naturally. Otherwise... Just owning a dog in an urban environment is financially and environmentally irresponsible. I think people should have to pay an extra tax based on the size of your pet to offset this.
The difference is, cars actually serve a purpose in modern society.