Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iff46ra1X3B9m0rMediJS1AqSPug

Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

By Isabelle Toussaint and Jurgen Hecker (AFP)

PARIS — 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.

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.

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 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/11/time_to_eat_the_pets.html

[Jamastiene]

1. *whimper*

Say it ain't so. :(

[Quantess]

2. But, doesn't the pet food get made from the same meat animals that

humans eat? Humans get the tastiest parts of the meat animals, and the organs and by-products go into pet food. Elderly egg laying chickens that are too tough for human taste, are made into pet food.

Dogs end up eating the meat parts that humans don't want. I'd say that is the opposite of wasteful.

[TxRider]

9. Yes,

And as such all those meat animals are counted already in the humans carbon footprint, meaning the same animals are being counted twice in this so called "study" that has thoroughly debunked on that basis and others.

Dogs for the most part eat our waste as they have for thousands of years.

Of course there are likely some useful things we could do with that waste, but counting it under humans, then again for the pets, isn't very honest.

[hlthe2b]

3. These same "pragmatists" should talk about human impact

and HUMAN population control. Fuck em. Life is not living without our pets.

Oh, and this avowed pacifist, could readily kill (yes, really), if anyone tried to eat her precious pup! Maternal instinct at play!

[highplainsdem]

4. I'm more worried about having too many people on this planet than too many pets.

The pet lovers I know tend to love animals in general and show more concern for the environment than people who don't own pets. They also tend to care more for other people (with the exception of people who are inhumane to animals, whom they have good reason to be suspicious of, since mistreating animals is typical of sociopaths).

But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale.

Anyone who views a pet as "dual purpose" in the sense of looking forward to eating it after cuddling it has some very serious problems.

[endless october]

5. this kind of stuff does no good.

not going to win hearts and minds by informing the average schlub that he has to give up his car and surrender his dog.

the way through this problem is to end the war and use the money to build new non-carbon producing electrical infrastructure nationwide.

valuable American jobs, new infrastructure, and a big cut in how much CO2 we put up there. and the capacity for an electric vehicle fleet if that's the technology that catches on.

as for making people feel guilty about pets or eating meatloaf? not so much.

[hlthe2b]

6. Their only goal is to be so provocative that they will get attention

It is academic "whoredom" at its worst.

[Howler]

7. I am keeping my Dog!!!!!!

It's alot of people I could do without! Thank you very much.

[GliderGuider]

8. I've renamed our dog "MRE".

I have a good recipe for schnoodle with noodles that's stuck to the fridge...

[silverweb]

10. ...

:rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. I get the feeling there is more than a little Swiftian 'Modest Proposal'

at work here, intended to make people actually think about the impact of pets.

I came to a similar conclusion long ago, and once my middle-aged cat kicks off I will not replace him - he sucks up my resources and ties me down. During the years I was married to three cats and a wife, we paid an appalling amount of money for pet food, litter, medications, vet bills, and (whenever we wanted to go off for more than a weekend) pet-sitters or boarding. Adding two dogs made it worse. On a tight budget - keeping me working app. 75 hrs a week at one FT & 2 PT jobs, we were spending between one and three thousand dollars a year on pets.

It's insane.

People, in general, need to uncomplicate their lives - and pets are a terrific complication.

[chuck807]

12. Very Hitler-ish Article

This is a very Hitler-ish article. Only this time, rather than picking a certain group of people, its a certain group of animals - dogs, followed by cats, followed by other forms of pets. Along with the same conditions that existed when Hitler singled out his target groups (Jews, homosexuals, and other groups), the German economy was in a massive depression. Similarly, our world economy is in a massive depression. The authors of this article may be journalists, but to create such a controversial article just to get attention is both sick and cowardly. If a certain group of people had to be singled out and targeted, I say it should be those who are against animals/pets, for they have none of the characteristics or personality traits that demonstrate the good of mankind. I am very grateful that I don't personally know any such person.