| | Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!Page 1 of 2 (1, 2) | I was watch a show last night, which had done extensive studies on the
environmental impact to Gaia. According to this Study the family dog has a
greater environmental impact then the a SUV. A link to this study, Wow I
found it!
The Link http://www.cnbc.com/id/33429555
Published: Thursday, 22 Oct 2009 | 11:33 AM ET Text Size By: Reuters
They're faithful, friendly and furry — but under their harmless, fluffy exteriors,
dogs and cats, the world's most popular house pets, use up more energy resources
in a year than driving a car, a new book says.
In their book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living",
New Zealand-based architects Robert and Brenda Vale say keeping a medium-sized
dog has the same ecological impact as driving 10,000 km (6,213 miles) a year in a
4.6 liter Land Cruiser.
These adorable eyes require a hectare of land for food, according to two authors.
Calculating that the modern Fido chows through about 164 kg of meat and 95 kg
of cereals a year, the Vales estimated the ecological footprint of cats and dogs, based
on the amount of land needed to grow common brands of pet food.
"There are no recipes in the book," Robert Vale told Reuters, laughingly, in a
telephone interview. "We're not actually saying it is time to eat the dog. We're just
saying that we need to think about and know the (ecological) impact of some of the
things we do and that we take for granted."
Constructing and driving the jeep for a year requires 0.41 hectares of land, while
growing and manufacturing a dog's food takes about 0.84 ha — or 1.1 ha in the case
of a large dog such as a German shepherd.
Meat-eating swells the eco-footprint of canines, and felines are not that much better,
the Vales found.
The average cat's eco-footprint, 0.15 ha, weighs in at slightly less than a Volkswagen
Golf, but still 10 times a hamster's 0.014 ha — which is itself half the eco cost of running
a plasma television.
By comparison, the ecological footprint of an average human in the developing world
is 1.8 ha, while people in the developed world take 6 ha.
With pets' diets under the control of owners, how can their unsustainable appetites
be trimmed? Convincing carnivorous cats and dogs to go vegetarian for the sake of
the planet is a non-starter, the Vales say.
Instead they recommend keeping "greener," smaller, and more sustainable pets, such
as goldfish, hamsters, chickens or rabbits.
The book's playful title, and serious suggestion that pet animals may be usefully "recycled",
by being eaten by their owners or turned into pet food when they die, may not appeal
to animal fans.
I guess It's time to get ride of the dogs and cats and keep the SUV since they're
cousing such a bigger impact to the detereantion of Mother earth AKA GAIA!
What do you think? | |
|
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:59:34 PM |
same ecological impact as driving 10,000 km (6,213 miles) a year in a
4.6 liter Land Cruiser.
Save the dogs and cats and drag the fools (author, publisher etc...)that decided we might give a sh1t about this study around with the land cruiser. | |
|
| |
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:18:55 PM | Depending on how old you are, there are a few words I never thought would start to be common as far as food or the world we live. Sustainable, shortage, carbon footprint, environmental impact.
Lets face some fact here, we are reaching a point where what we have left may actually be countable and like minutes on your cell phone we may have to figure out how to make it last longer or how to reuse what we have already of thrown away.
As much as I like puppies and am aware of their theraputic value to humans a large dog can consume as much or more than a small child.
Put into perspective we are talking about the eventuality of a worldwide vegetarian diet. We will have to make a choice or the choice may be made for us. The real green people of this world are already vegetarian because they understand the impact of land use and the sheer amounts of effects that our love of meat does to this planet.
Sure it sounds a bit offkey that we would get rid of the dog but the fact is they are correct in their claim, you can choose to see it and laugh but they are just trying to open a dialogue. | |
|
| |
wudger
| | Joined: 12/20/2007
Msg: 6 | |
| |
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:53:48 PM | it's a shame dogs don't crap out carbon turds,then....
I think the bigger env,impact is the thousands of tons of unnecessary dog crap that gets washed into creeks,rivers,oceans untreated every year..... and deposited all over the place on land... pewwww | |
|
| |
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:06:55 PM | Yes man has left one hell of of environmental impact thats a fact! I would rather remove SUV's and large industry! But thats not going to happen, like I told someone I drive a
big electricians truck with thousands of pounds of equipment, what I'm going back to horses and buggy? And In Hindsight I had a Horse and I spent more money to maintain the horse then my truck for a year of use.
And as the poster below me stated I would be more worried about China and India.
Do you know B.C. ++ gets all their pollution! | |
|
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:06:57 PM | No the point is my mutt from the pound causes as much carbon imprint as his pedegree with papers and they are both causing a problem.
It doesn't say how expensive the suv is, hyundai makes an affordable one that spews out as much crap as escalade.
So a person who chooses not own a vehicle or isn't rich is just a whiner for critisizing the guy who drives a hummer and pollutes the air your children breathe?
This really has nothing to do with digs, it is just meant to give the average dolt some idea of equity in our every day lives. If a person who claims to be green chooses not to own a car but owns five dogs and two cats really isn't green.
What we need to be concerned with is that china and india are emulating our society and increasing their demand for meat and cars and there are a damm site more of them than us and just look at what we have accomplished. (sarcasm) | |
|
wudger
| | Joined: 12/20/2007
Msg: 11 | |
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/29/2009 7:24:16 PM | any of you SUV rocket scientists read the article?
" the same ecological impact as driving 10,000 km (6,213 miles) a year in a
4.6 liter Land Cruiser."
A) 6,000 miles isn't diddly on the average SUV
B) BUILDING the unnecessary SUV puts the carbon footprint up there with all the dogs in new jersey.
C) for whoever it was back there, I could easily afford an SUV, nice big, new one as a matter of fact, but I drive the 93 Camry that I bought new used and intend to put a good 200,000 miles on it before it gives up the ghost.
I have no problem with SUVs for a decent reason. you need to drive a big Suburban because you are contractor, makes perfect sense. you want to be one of these Escalade driving accountants I see around town, who can't even parallel park the thing, stop running the planet into the ground for your ego and stop clogging up the highway with your lousy driving in a big machine.
show me a farmer in a beat up Ford Ranger, hey I salute him. show me some moron downtown at the bar in his immaculate Navigator with out a scratch on it, I don't give a damn how much its sales manager "wants" it, its an eco-crime. | |
|
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/29/2009 9:29:21 PM |
I have no problem with SUVs for a decent reason. you need to drive a big Suburban because you are contractor, makes perfect sense. you want to be one of these Escalade driving accountants I see around town, who can't even parallel park the thing, stop running the planet into the ground for your ego and stop clogging up the highway with your lousy driving in a big machine.
See, that used to be the beauty of the USA...you can have your opinion...hell, you can even express your opinion. But, if *I* wanted to buy what *I* wanted to buy...so fricking what?!
You might want to be careful for what you wish for...might come a day where *I* get to determine what *you* drive...and believe me, you won't like it. Laymen...hoof it. Workers...bicycles. Supervisors...tricycles. Managers...people-drawn carts. Owners...motorized people drawn carts (with gold inlay). Don't like it? Tough doo doo.
Man, I'm glad outside of California...the rest of the Country doesn't see the World through wudger's eyes.
~ds~ | |
|
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/29/2009 9:38:34 PM | OP, the book is balderdash. People who construct results by carefully honing information from unrelated sources into a mixed up conclusion are twits. Even if I wasn't a dog owner I'd have to say - this is just crap.
The problem with their premise is basically that dog to a large degree live within an environment that already creates things they need. We already have places to run them. The food they eat is primarily based on byproducts of regular food production. It would be tossed out if animals weren't eating it. One could make the arguement that the food could be reprocessed and sent to needy people, but that's kinda questionable.
Do wild dogs have a similar footprint to an SUV? No - - they have zero footprint as they're eating what's already there.
SUV's however are a primary use. The gas they consume, resources for manufacture, road allowances, damage to other vehicles, safety development, deaths to consumers and increased upkeep are all only for those things. Smaller vehicles would use less, injure less, get fixed cheaper and we'd produce less if the SUV's were gone. If dogs were missing we wouldn't be creating fewer meat byproducts or buying smaller homes.
Anyone can manufacture mixed up theories. | |
|
| |
wudger
| | Joined: 12/20/2007
Msg: 15 | |
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/29/2009 10:03:08 PM |
See, that used to be the beauty of the USA...you can have your opinion...hell, you can even express your opinion. But, if *I* wanted to buy what *I* wanted to buy...so fricking what?!
yep, its true. any idiot who wants to can crap up the planet here. | |
|
| |
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/30/2009 2:37:05 AM | Some of my tenants have canine friends who exceed the allowable weight, height, and blah blah blah requirements for this apartment complex...
I feel sorry for the dogs... They need a yard... A place to run and shit wherever they please... Chase rabbits... Lick their own balls with impunity and delight...
Diligently. their masters brave the elements... Walk them downstairs while bundled up in protective clothing in the fiercest projections of wind and snow...
The dogs don't give a fvck... They're happy... "Outside... Free at last!"...
The owner's thoughts are transparent: "Hurry up and shit, will ya?... Stop sniffing around for the perfect place... I'm freezing my ass off"...
That must be love...
I drive an SUV... I'm not going to slide off into a ravine in order to avoid turning your unleashed pooch into road-kill...
That's love, too... | |
|
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/30/2009 3:32:05 AM | Wait...big flaw in this premise...
Where do these "researchers" think a SUV comes from?
the question should have been...A SUV comes off the assembly line, and a Dog is born...both have Zero Miles...How old would that dog have to live to equal the Carbon Footprint it took to manufacture that Land Cruiser?... | |
|
| |
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/30/2009 6:42:17 AM | Man, I'm glad outside of California...the rest of the Country doesn't see the World through wudger's eyes.
Hmmmm, not sure where you're getting your facts from. I'm not in California and right now I'd have Wudger's babies. Oh wait, that's right. I'm not in the US and to guys like you, the rest of the world doesn't exist.
Scene from Over the Hedge....
RJ: That is an S.U.V; Humans ride in then because they are slowly losing their ability to walk.
Penny: Jeepers, its so big!
Lou: How many humans fit in there?
RJ: Usually, one. | |
|
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/30/2009 7:50:33 AM |
There are similar studies about the impact that MAN has had on our environment. Should we get rid of MAN, or turn them into foods?
Maybe we should! Don't forget soylent...Green was the best! "It's....PEOPLE!"
A hectare is just under 2.5 acres. A good corn harvest can yield 150-160 bushels per acre. A bushel of shelled corn is 56 pounds. 155 * 56 * 2.5 = 21, 700 pounds of corn. At 23 calories per ounce, that's 7,985,600 calories, or 21,878 calories per day - enough for 10 humans for a year. Want a varied diet? It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. Let's feed that dog TWO POUNDS of prime beef per day. That costs 11,680 pounds of corn. 730 pounds of meat is about what you get from a 1,400-pound bovine. That still leaves 10,020 pounds of corn, meaning your dog can have his two pounds of meat plus another 27.5 pounds of corn each and every day. That's one giant, fat dog! But, I think there are other serious flaws in their "figgerin":
Every time I look at a bag or can of pet food, I notice the vast majority of it contains beef, pork and/or chicken "by-products", or "fish meal". These are all technically "meat" but the kinds of meat humans usually eat around. Look for where it says "crude protein". If these weren't fed to pets, it'd end up as garbage which would be even more of a waste. Cereals, miscellaneous carbs and the like are still among the cheapest to produce foods out there. That's why the majority of your fast food meals are nothing but carbs (along with oils, fats and sugars). Pet food is still pretty cheap compared to human food because it's mostly cereals and reclaimed by-products of human food production rather than in addition to it. Taking what would be waste and turning it into marketable product is very profitable.
That means the 11,680 pounds of corn we penalized the dog for was overpriced. We eat the prime stuff, they eat the ears, guts, eyeballs, nostrils, cheeks, tongues and lips, gonads and other unwanted delicacies plus a good amount of the bones as bonemeal. In fact, their cost for these meat by-products is essentialy zero, because we wouldn't eat it ourselves. It still costs the same to raise it for the good meat along with the "crude protein". So now we're back to that monster german shepherd eating his 59.5 pounds of corn EVERY DAY as the author claims. I'd sure like to see this dog they describe! An overfed dog might consume about 1/6th acre worth of grains (1,500 lbs wet/750 lbs. dry) in addition to his "free" meat by-products in a year.
You could turn that corn into ethanol instead, which would have the energy equivalent of 554 gallons of gasoline, less the substantial additional energy it took to distill it and process it into final form. It takes the equivalent of about a gallon of gas or diesel to produce a little more than 1.5 gallons of ethanol. Unfortunately, it takes almost 1.5 gallons of ethanol to do the same work as a gallon of gasoline. This little inconvenient fact somewhat doomed the much ballyhooed ethanol speculation boom. Ignoring that additional energy cost, you might get 12-13000 miles for the year from it. It can be massaged whichever way people want it to read, but I highly doubt a pet eats more than it takes to power an SUV unless your pet is a 3,500-pound steer or something along those lines.
This author is taking his readers along for a fantasy (or chump) ride. | |
|
wudger
| | Joined: 12/20/2007
Msg: 22 | |
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/30/2009 7:53:21 AM |
Hmmmm, not sure where you're getting your facts from. I'm not in California and right now I'd have Wudger's babies. Oh wait, that's right. I'm not in the US and to guys like you, the rest of the world doesn't exist.
well, that certainly brightened my morning.
thanks. | |
|
| |
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/31/2009 3:06:14 AM |
I don't give a damn how much its sales manager "wants" it, its an eco-crime.
Uh oh, and liberals are supposed to be so understanding. Go ahead and buy an SUV but I'll throw you in jail. Typical liberal thinking.
Man, I'm glad outside of California...the rest of the Country doesn't see the World through wudger's eyes.
No shit! But there is no escape these days to another state; people like this are in power at the federal level and they have no problem imposing their will on the whole population. The Republic of Texas isn't looking too bad after all. | |
|
wudger
| | Joined: 12/20/2007
Msg: 25 | |
| Dogs Have a Bigger Environmental Impact Then SUV's CarbonWise!
Posted: 10/31/2009 7:26:15 AM |
oh give it up. who the hell said anything about throwing anybody in jail? the new conservative. take anything as far as the hyperbole will let you.
you boys are the party of throwing people in jail. take a look at the disaster that is the US prison system. you sure didn't have any problem filling it with drug offenders who did a lot less damage to the planet and country than a bunch of numbnuts riding around in resource devouring ego machines.
nothing like selling your ass to the arabs so you can have a car the size of a small house. | |
|
Home
login 
