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
Well, rather than having to feed your pets and racking up a [fake] carbon credit (it’s a CO2 credit not a carbon credit, sheesh) you could use your pets instead as biofuels to provide heat as this town in Sweden is doing. That provides heat while eliminating a drain on resources that causes continual output of greenhouse gases to feed them and not to mention the CO2 they breath out nor not to mention the H2O greenhouse gas that they breath out that is 10 to 20 times worse than CO2! Ok, admittedly they are capturing wild rabbits that are running wild but heck who’s going to nitpick?
Swedes divided over bunny biofuel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8309156.stm
Reminiscent of the Matrix where humans were batteries providing energy to a robot society.
CO2 madness gone crazier.
What’s next? Soylent Green is People?
The only thing remotely sustainable about this warmist BS is the endless assault on common sense.
Cheers Anthony from a Kiwi that can’t believe how we managed to produce such idiots. Thanks for the fun post and providing an opportunity for all the banter and ridicule.
Soylent Green… Is that a product of GangGreen?
Johnny Honda, That was a great story.
I think they should have been more agressive with their leader. Can you say
– MAO-POW-CHOW ?
Considering the large carbon footprint of humans, it seems to me that we are edging up on Swift’s Modest Proposal:
http://www.online-literature.com/swift/947/
“DHMO (23:49:28) :
Isn’t New Zealand the country that has a tax on cattle and sheep farting? It is small but 10000 km?”
Well it was propsed, but I understand there is research into animal feed to reduce emissions fro their guts. Still a silly idea IMO.
“I am an Australian, I just have been to Queensland 4000 km in 15 days. Weekend next I am off to Victoria for 4 days 1500 km at least. Contrived figures for an already determined result I reckon. ”
Yeah Aus is big. I recently did the Sydney – Melbourne trip, 9-10hrs each way. It was quite smooth and not tiring at all. I also drove through a dust storm. The Wellington – Auckland SH1 road on the other had is only 700k long, and it takes at least 8hrs and you feel it.
“I have to agree with David Walton about Dihydrogen Monoxide it should be banned and every vestige of it eradicated. It is the most potent greenhouse gas by far. If you don’t believe us visit http://www.dhmo.org/ and support them if they aren’t successful we are all doomed!”
A NZ green MP got caught out with an e-mail about this a few years ago, AND she released a press announcement about it. LMAO…it was rather funny. Janet Fitzsimmons I think her name was, but don’t quote me.
It seems I’m looking at this article differently from everyone else here. These Kiwi architects are saying that a dog has a bigger carbon footprint than a car. Now, I don’t have a dog – can’t stand the bloody things – but I do have a car, so if any greenie wants to criticise me for driving it I can just point to this study and say, “But I’m entitled to have a car – I haven’t got a dog. Just ask Brenda and Robert Vale.”
I remember Robert and Brenda Vale from when I was a student. They were two of the loveliest academics you could meet, both very sincere, talented and dedicated. They had at that time already spent many years putting into practice their ideas, and with little recognition for it. You can read “The Autonomous House” for a practical guide to the technical problems of living off the grid.
To be fair, their perspective isn’t to be alarmist. As I recall, some key issues they were thinking about, long before climate change, are about how when architects design buildings, the buildings end up remaining in use for a hundred years. So you need to take a long view and examine your assumptions, life today might not be the same in 100 years. What does that mean for building design?
But see, this is why WUWT is so important. Is CO2 really a problem? Is energy really running out? (I suspect that for the Vales, the issue of CO2 is more about energy use than it is about climate change).
They are talented designers, but which problems they choose to tackle depends very much on having the best science available to identify the real problems.
For example, take the notion of living off grid in small communities. What is the data that proves that this is the most efficient way to live, even in a world of energy shortages? Is low density more efficient, or is high density more efficient? And—my own personal interest—what effect does the size of the community have on the culture and psychology of the people? Personally this is the one issue that always leads me back to believing that cities might be better, simply because cities are bigger communities and they force people to adapt and become much more open minded and tolerant. Becoming more open minded and sensitive we also become more interested in the global space, and start to care about other cultures, and care about the environment. (So living in cities might be the thing which permitted us the freedom to think about the environment and the globe).
But again, this is a matter of data, and depending on what data is available, architects (who are neither psychologists nor nuclear physicists nor climatologists) can then go forward and design buildings to suit; they need good data.
I am surprised !!!
With such intelligence and logic why have one, or better still, both of these marvelous people, been elected to public office ? With a little bit more experience we could have a new world leader ! (sarc off)
I recommend the carbon-neutral Norwegian Blue Parrot. Very restful.
The problem with food chains is that there are so many of them. I mean, there is Safeway, and Albertson’s and Kroger … and so if food is scarce at one, you simply demand that they stock more. It’s just that simple.
/sarc
I suppose one could modify a crow recipe …
The Dark Ages resulted from an eruption of Krakatoa at about the same time as a period of natural cooling. The Great Famine came about at the same time as a dual eruption of Pinatubo, Philippines and Kaharoa, New Zealand. Kuwae erupted in the early 1450’s causing global misery. These people have no clue as to the power of natural forces.
Maybe they should do there research on the additional CO2 expired by sportspeople. Let’s ban the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, World Cup, etc as any one of those hyper-active people are (probably) putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than my wife’s toy poodle.
There is also the issue of the wasted energy and resources put into the Olympic organisation and the cities that strive to hold the Games and other sporting activities.
BUY YOUR ECO-FRIENDLY DOGS HERE!! CLIMATE ALERT!!!
These dogs will give you more dog beef for the bucks than any other breed. Feed them the normal amount of organic dogfood and they will grow real big real fast. The prius among dogs. ALL HAIL AL, HALLELUJA!! What am I talking about? Well, Hansens bulldogs of course, such as those seen below…
http://www.headstrongkennels.com/males.html
This study is further excellent news; the greater the number of such manifestly absurd papers and the more ridiculous their conclusions then the increased likelihood of the general public saying “sod-that” grows ever larger.
Am now waiting for the latest UK Gov scare tactic advertising campaign….”Act on CO2 kids, or Fluffy gets flambéed .”
Cheers
Mark.
Sorry, must have fallen asleep ! Didn’t realise it was April 1st already !!
Yeah, but to meet the insane levels of carbon reduction in the insane carbon reduction targets, after getting rid of the car and the electricity to our homes, and the gas to our homes, we would have to eat RAW dog or cat, for to cook them would release too much carbon.
Try living your normal life in your home without gas and electricity for a week. Heck, try it for only 24 hours. No gas or electricity at all!
Then you will see what the Copenhagen treaty in action will feel like.
I reackon if you rendred down the gorecal you’d have enough oil to run an suv for a year.
I don’t think there’s any danger of PETA ending up on ‘our’ side, thank God. Just google ‘peta kills animals’ to get an idea of their philosophy on pets.
Well any owners of a large dog should look on the bright side. Still greener to own your pet than own a Prius.
I wonder if New Scientist has any readers left?
jeez (17:36:58) :
I still want to see a study on the Carbon Footprint of fine wines.
Ooops, nevermind.
After considerable philosophic contemplation, I’ve decided to eat the authors of that study Jeez, what wine would you recommend?
Perhaps 0bama should set the right example for all of us and barbeque the family dog at his next press conference.
The entire White House Press Corps could share in the feast and write wonderful stories about canine cuisine. I’m sure that would seal the deal for many people and the world would soon be on a path to complete wonderfulness.
It’s the right thing to do. Maybe he’ll get yet another Nobel as a result.
“Stefan (01:45:29) :
You can read “The Autonomous House” for a practical guide to the technical problems of living off the grid. ”
Do they address cost issues for living off-grid? When I did mine in NZ, it was going to cost at least NZ$60k, for the generating system and matched appliances (You have to match the systems, 6V, 12V and 24V generation with 6V, 12V and 24V applainces otherwise you lose too much in adjusting where needed). Added to that, a comprable sized fridge, runing at 12V, would have cost NZ$12,000 at the time, circa 2001. I don’t see many “ordinary” people being able to afford a NZ$12,000 frudge.
“To be fair, their perspective isn’t to be alarmist. As I recall, some key issues they were thinking about, long before climate change, are about how when architects design buildings, the buildings end up remaining in use for a hundred years. So you need to take a long view and examine your assumptions, life today might not be the same in 100 years. What does that mean for building design?”
Have you been to England? There are, including pubs, several hundred year old buildings still in useful service today. In fact some buildings are older than European influence in teh US, NZ and Aus.
They maybe good people, but it seems they are looking at a govn’t CO2 gravy train grant.