In my opinion, this over the top idea isn’t sustainable at any level. On a personal note, my cat eats with a footprint more like a Volkswagen microbus. I think I’ll give “Minners” a can of doplhin safe tuna tonight, just for spite.
By TANYA KATTERNS – The Dominion Post
Save the planet: time to eat dog?
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.
The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular 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.
[Gee, ya think?]
Kelly Jeffery, a Paraparaumu german shepherd breeder who 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.”
Owning rabbits is legal anywhere. Local bodies allow chickens, with some restrictions.
Full story here: Save the planet: time to eat dog?
###
h/t to WUWT reader GA
Its isn’t original but…..
If my dog wanders can I call it free range.
So now we’ll see the low percentage of Americans believing in the AGW scare stories go even lower.
[sarcasm]Let’s ban families to, no one can have any kids, the CO2 reduction as a result will be phenomenal by getting rid of the carbon footprint taken up by daycares and school districts that would be seen in 20 years time, colleges in 30 years time.[/sarcasm]
This is yet another example of the AGW’s going over the top, though I wonder if this will still be enforced in countries under siege from the alarmists like the UK.
Think of the “carbon footprint” of all the arts; both the production of it as well as the travel associated with it. It is not necessary, contributes to the destruction of the planet, therefor should be eliminated. Same for all sports. Fashion – gone. Not necessary. We can all just wear clothing made from burlap. There is no need for anyone to look “better” than another, as we are all the same. Food choices should be limited and very basic, as the only function of food is, or should be, sustenance. Houses should be of a minimal size and built all the same, since their only function is to protect from the elements. Pets of course are gone, as there is no real need for them. Is this what the Greenie Meanies really want? It sure seems so.
Given the esthetic and structural quality of buildings these days, maybe we should eat architects…
“I smell a foreign influence at work here pushing thier values upon us.” rbateman
Since they wish to reduce us back to serfs, could it be old wealth as in royalty?
It must really smart to share the planet with us peons.
Has Al Gore been promised a peerage?
“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.”
I always thought one of the main reasons for keeping a pet was to have a companion. Clearly these professors are deranged after all who would eat their friend.
Well, this just looks like another article that gains attention by going over the top. What’s with all these ideas to help stop global warming? This article is getting awful close to the joke of suggesting people stop breathing in order to help stop global warming. At some point folks are going to to exclaim “Wait a second….!”. Folks will soon learn that Earth does not have a thermostat man can manipulate with concrete results, and they will see where this is all trying to go.
BTW- “In the photo of “Minners” the shower curtain looked like it may be displaying the water cycle. After a quick online search, bingo! I want one.
REPLY: Right you are, my kids get a clean education at bath time. – A
I still want to see a study on the Carbon Footprint of fine wines.
Ooops, nevermind.
Oh, don’t waste fuel like that. Just point your cat toward Europe and let it find a way.
What is the eco-footprint of a Greenie? Or, put another way, “How many dogs can we have for each Greenie eliminated?”
Sorry to bring up Godwin, but – –
In 1942 the Nazis forbade Jews from having pets.
Just sayin’, ya know?
As an aside, instead of eating my 110 pound Shepherd, how about if I take out 2 or 3
of the ‘yotes I have chasing deer by my hunting place? Is that carbon neutral then?
Think of the “carbon footprint” of all the arts; both the production of it as well as the travel associated with it. It is not necessary, contributes to the destruction of the planet, therefor should be eliminated. Same for all sports. Fashion – gone. Not necessary. We can all just wear clothing made from burlap. There is no need for anyone to look “better” than another, as we are all the same. Food choices should be limited and very basic, as the only function of food is, or should be, sustenance. Houses should be of a minimal size and built all the same, since their only function is to protect from the elements. Pets of course are gone, as there is no real need for them. Is this what the Greenie Meanies really want? It sure seems so.
Sounds like North Korea, except the part about having sustenance.
I don’t know many people who take any of this seriously, but I’m sure they are out there somewhere.
As someone who grew up on a dryland wheat farm where we always had lots of cats as pets (and to keep the mice in check):
This is yet another looney example from the AGW crowd; confirming (as if we needed more proof) that for the ”true believers” AGW has become an all-cosuming religion. And not just religion, but fanatic, dogmatic (pun semi-intended), and intolerent religion: Jihad will be waged; and all things, living creatures, and human welfare must if necessary be sacrificed on their AGW alters.
I’m totally with some of the other comments:
Keep your pets; fight back with facts and real science against the jihadi socialist eco-extremists and their AGW religious dogma.
I think this is a totally doable idea. I just finished a sweet couple out here on vacation in the Tetons. They were delicious. My favorite pets are strident alarmists with fancy backpacks and a 16 pole tent slung over their shoulder. I usually start on their arms and legs and when they inevitably whine, I whisper to them: “Without you greens – I’d have to go vegan!!
Mmmm.
Another loopy idea thought of in my country.
Last century we were known for world firsts such as splitting the atom (Rutherford) and climbing Mt Everest (Ed Hillary). Now we are laughing stock coming up with these dim witted ideas based on fictional AGW. And these loonies are paid by my taxes. I dispair.
This is no fun anymore.
The EU loons have reached agreement on the Copenhagen proposals:
CO2 emission reductions based on 1990 levels between 80 and 95%.
And a guilt payment to the Third World.
All depends now on the US Senate.
Copenhagen is quiqly becoming a reality now and so is the establishment of
a totalitarian World Government.
Bye bye Free World, I am packing my bags.
James Allison (17:02:27) :
I read up to the space after UN & sort of misread the rest as were on the menu. 😉
DaveE.
Since when were pets not edible?
Ron de Haan (16:30:52) :
>By the way, eating dogs is a perfectly normal habit all over Asia.
Oh no! ……. NOT at least in my country.
What is the impact of allowing far out eco-nuts to control our future?
I’m ashamed to be a Kiwi right now.
Lets hope they take the next *logical* step and realize that having kids will increase their carbon footprint.
Darwin for the win!
David Walton (17:49:59) :
Since when were pets not edible?
Since the time when pets had as much status and love as many of the children in that family!
All of my pets obeyed me more often than any of my kids. Plus I never had to bail any of them out of jail!
Victoria ‘University’ must have more parasites than the average woofer would ever collect.
Jim Bob (17:39:34) :
We can all just wear clothing made from burlap. There is no need for anyone to look “better” than another, as we are all the same.
RIGHT ON comrade Jim Bob! I knew I shouldn’t throw away my Mao jacket!
Now, if I can just find my little red book…
Taking the point to its obvious conclusion, the ultimate solution to the Global Warming crisis is of course mass extermination of all undesireables. Once they put the idea out there that no one can own a pet, or that a couple can only have one child IF they have a masters degree in a worthwhile specialty, or that there’s really no need at all for all those people in Africa or China or.. well, you get the idea I’m sure. Then, of course the problem is solved (in fact many many problems are solved). Well, not quite, see there’s this one little catch – if you don’t have the right party or union card then it really doesn’t matter how many PhD’s you have; your carbon footprint is much to big. Sorry Charlie!