Carbon Footprints: Ditch the dog, get a Hummer H2, save the planet?
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]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
jeremyz 12:26PM (11/12/2009)
Kids are even worse than puppies. We could just feed the kids to the puppies and then everything would be fine.
Reply
Ghen 8:21AM (11/13/2009)
Better yet, if you have a neighbor that feeds all the feral cats in the area just get rid of the neighbor.
I wonder if I can apply this logic to people with birdfeeders near my driveway. My car is never clean.
paulwesterberg 12:31PM (11/12/2009)
Most people who own dogs also own large/oversized vehicles to haul them around.
Reply
Chris M 4:38PM (11/12/2009)
Like most generalizations, its wrong. Nobody buys a large SUV or truck just to haul around a dog, they buy large SUVs and trucks for other reasons, and the dogs just come along for the ride.
I "haul my dog" around in a Prius. Admittedly, it is easy with a Chihuahua, but there is room enough for a Great Dane on the back seat.
paulwesterberg 5:44PM (11/12/2009)
Your ownership of a chihuahua and a prius does not prove my generalization wrong, I did not say all dog owners. Everybody knows that prius drivers have girly dogs.
btw I own a prius and a collie.
Serge 10:05AM (11/13/2009)
is collie a girlie or manly dog?
From Sweden with love 12:52PM (11/12/2009)
You mean: Ditch the dog, SELL the car, save the planet? Can't be done you say, In Sweden you can! So why don't you move here instead? It's not the only upside you now – wink, wink!
Reply
KK 12:54PM (11/12/2009)
OK. I guess we should also eliminate all recreation and entertainment from our lives, because those things just waste resources.
Reply
Ra Conteur 1:02PM (11/12/2009)
These guys are trying to piss off Peta and the Humane Societies around the world. Word is they are CCP disinformation officers working out of a NZ basement.
Reply
Chris M 4:33PM (11/12/2009)
Actually, the anti-domestication attitude fits right in with PETA, as their leaders feel all animals should be roaming loose in the wilds, and none kept as pets or livestock.
Hiding behind their "Holier than Thou" piety is a distinctly anti-social attitude, that damages the environmental movement in the eyes of the general populace.
skierpage 11:27PM (11/13/2009)
@Chris M
"[PETA] leaders feel all animals should be roaming loose in the wilds, and none kept as pets or livestock."
Not true regarding pets: "... millions of unwanted animals suffer at the hands of abusers, languish in shelters, and are euthanized... Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this suffering." http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp
I'm not a member, but I'm very much for people thinking hard about the ethical treatment of animals.
"Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering."
Nixon 1:39PM (11/12/2009)
This is just an indirect argument against over-population. The problem isn't the pets, it's that when a single species over-populates any ecosystem, the impact of supporting that species is destructive to the ecosystem as a whole.
That is true whether we're talking rabbits in Australia, or Humans across the earth.
So the real problem is HUMAN overpopulation, not the doggies we keep as pets as just one small part of our entire impact on the world.
But nobody wants to even talk about solving Human overpopulation, because people might think you are psycho killer or nazi or communist or "death panel" proponent.
Reply
Ghen 8:25AM (11/13/2009)
I like the psycho killer idea. I've always been a proponent of killing off prisoners if the prison gets too full.
Rain 1:38PM (11/12/2009)
Dogs and Cats and Cows,so now it's the blame game,huh?
Why not use Slick 50,its PTFE formula cuts fuel consumption by up to 50%
and reduces harmful emissions?
The Worlds problems solved in a convenient and easy to use recyclable bottle.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/07/slick.shtm
Reply
a1197612 2:12PM (11/12/2009)
Like the whole "Hummer vs Prius" claim, this one about Dogs turns out to be bull too:
http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2009/11/02/dogs-vs-cars
Reply
roflwaffle 3:13PM (11/12/2009)
The problem w/ the whole overpopulation angle is that it's a relatively small portion of the population (rich people, mostly in OECD countries) causing most of the impact on the planet. I suppose if the rich (both people and countries, namely OECD) were all ecofriendly, and we were still in the same boat, population would be the issue, but as it stands it's excessive consumption that's causing most of our impact.
http://www.iied.org/human-settlements/media/study-shatters-myth-population-growth-major-driver-climate-change
Reply
Bus Rand 6:59PM (11/12/2009)
So it's rich people who are responsible for the slash and burn of the rainforest so they can grow crops? Rich people are the ones who bathe in their own feces in open rivers for lack of knowledge of proper sanitation in the third world slums? Communism has been responsible for the largest environmental disasters in human history and I don't see a lot of rich folks living in these countries. I don't recall the world's two biggest mass murderers (Stalin #1, Hitler#2) along with their massive environmental destruction being capitalist billionaires.
Are there examples of the rich doing bad things? Of course, they are people just like everyone else. But the vast majority of them are decent folks just like the rest of us. But unlike the rest of us, the vast majority of the rich invented or supplied something to society that was extremely beneficial in some way, otherwise they wouldn't be rich.
I wonder how many lives have been saved by the automobile, the airplane, the helicopter, etc.? What about the advancements in agriculture? I wonder how much food over the last 60+ yrs. was saved from spoilage by the advent of the refrigerator? What about the computer? How much time has been saved, a lot of which translates to time at home, how much paper has been saved, how much productivity has increased? I'm pretty sure it wasn't invented by a communist or a homeless person. The infinite number of products that the oil industry has been responsible for has made infinite improvements on every aspect of life and the environment. Yes, even when calculating in the problems it has caused as well. Plastics alone have saved untold amounts of natural resources due to it's lack of weight, it's flexability, etc.
The fact is that the vast overwhelming amount of environmental problems, sickness and disease, destruction of natural habitat, extinction of species that are human related are the result of poverty, not wealth. Any amount of consumption by rich people is miniscule in comparison.
Less than 10% of the wealthy in this country (USA) inherited their money and most of them are liberal Democrats who have convinced people like you to hate the upper class in order to get elected to some office somewhere. Class warfare has served them well, compliments of people like you who want to throw a temper tantrum over some one having more than you.
Life isn't perfect and it probably never will be, but in general, life's pretty good and we're much better at caring for ourselves and our world than we have ever been in history.
Chris M 4:48PM (11/12/2009)
Technically speaking, every living creature has an "environmental footprint" and consumes resources (air, water, food, etc.) By that wacky logic, we should exterminate bears as they consume much more than any dog, and of course a single Blue whale consumes more than an entire pack of bears!
No, the real potential problem with any species on this planet is overpopulation. We know how to control population growth, we just need the wisdom and willpower to do it.
Reply
Joeviocoe 6:38PM (11/12/2009)
Damn AnythingBlogGreen....
What does this really have to do with automobiles? Yes the article mentions a comparison of the carbon footprint of pet owners to that of SUV drivers, but come on ABG. Did they say anything about a Hummer H2 or are you just trying to get everyone emotional?
Carbon footprints don't necessarily have to involve automobiles but I suppose that is the only comparison people understand. But this is not a car argument, it is a population control argument.
I'm sorry, but I strive to minimize my hypocrisy whenever I can. And if I won't tolerate B.S sensationalist journalism from Fox News, I cannot tolerated it here.
I said "Good day, sir"
Reply
Bus Rand 7:16PM (11/12/2009)
This is very much like the socialist arguement that wealth is never created, only redistributed at the folly of some poor soul somewhere, which is equally as bogus as this one. Basic economics should be required in highschool.
This whole ideal assumes that whatever the carbon foot print by a living creature is the final word, as if it leaves nothing positive behind for the planet. 90% of the plants on this earth wouldn't even exist let alone survive if it wasn't for the other living things that interact with them whether it be fertilizer, or pollination, or even the evil dreaded CO2.
When I ponder the complete lack of science behind this kind of crap (including man-made global warming on any significant level) it's bewildering why so many people swallow it whole, hook, line and sinker.
Reply