Dog vs. SUV: Which Has Larger Eco-Footprint?

Posted by Alex in Animal, Car & Vehicle on November 4, 2009 at 2:23 am



This guy is destroying Earth!

Which has a larger ecological footprint, a large dog or an SUV? According to Robert and Brenda Vale, Fido has a Hummer of an eco-footprint:

In "Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living," authors Robert and Brenda Vale argue that resources required to feed a dog — including the amount of land needed to feed the animals that go into its food — give it about twice the eco-footprint of, say, building and fueling a Toyota Land Cruiser. Noting that a cat’s pawprint was roughly equivalent to a Volkswagen Golf’s, "New Scientist" asked an environmentalist at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, U.K., to independently calculate animals’ environmental impact, and reported that "his figures tallied almost exactly." The study apparently didn’t take into account the emissions of either the SUV or the dogs.

Link


Previous post
this post? Please Email this               
Next post

Tags: , , , , ,


FUN PRODUCTS FROM THE NEATORAMA SHOP:


COMMENT

14 comments to "Dog vs. SUV: Which Has Larger Eco-Footprint?"

  1. Reechard
    November 4th, 2009 at 3:48 am

    Same applies to kids but I'm selfish and will have both in my life someday. I have to wonder how much the emissions of the car factor in. It seems crazy to leave something like that out

  2. BikerRay
    November 4th, 2009 at 6:59 am

    What nonsense. Dog food is made almost exclusively from scrap meat and grain products.

  3. Skipweasel
    November 4th, 2009 at 7:04 am

    BikerRay - damn - beat me to it! Pet food doesn't create its own exclusive carbon burden as it's often byproducts of other streams - byproducts which would otherwise have to be disposed of elsewhere.

  4. Edward
    November 4th, 2009 at 7:19 am

    You know, a cougar needs over 25 square miles to feed itself. How many tons of helpless krill die just to feed a great blue whale?

    The unstated assumption in this sort of analysis is that there is a better use of that land and its resources than feeding a dog or building a car.

  5. pwscott
    November 4th, 2009 at 7:31 am

    Well guys if you add the meat scraps used to make pet food to the scraps used in kitty litter (yes I've heard that from reliable sources). Then realize that these all have to be transported to another facility far away from the slaughter house or meat processing center and the carbon footprint just gets bigger.

  6. dutchboy
    November 4th, 2009 at 10:43 am

    Gee its almost like we are supposed to feel guilty about living.

  7. Babycakes
    November 4th, 2009 at 11:08 am

    LOL- that guys is in OHIO! Not surprised.

  8. VM
    November 4th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    The beauty of these kind of calculations is that there's such a myriad of variables involved that, depending what you choose to count and how you choose to count it, you can get any result you want. And if you're proven wrong, change the label or redefine the terms. But if anyone questions, call it "settled science"!

  9. Kathy
    November 4th, 2009 at 9:48 pm

    The eco-footprint of a dog pales immeasurably to that of a human. We need to focus on limiting the amount of humans on earth, not dogs.

  10. ocean
    November 5th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

    the world we live in were people think they need big cars that are huge and take a bunch of stuff to make and the big freaking fACTORYS USED TO MAKE THEM take up many resources and the space in the world to put these things! they cut down trees and pollute the air with its smog!!! dogs and pets are the least of the worlds problems!!!!

  11. ocean
    November 5th, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    DOGS ARE BETTER THEY PEOPLE MOST OF THE TIME ANY WAY

  12. Amber
    November 6th, 2009 at 9:41 am

    If you look at the bigger picture of housing thousands of livestock so that you could eat an average of 1 lb of meat that sounds a little worse than what my dog ate. There are many choices that we make that may not be the best ones. However, people have been housing pets for far more years than we have even had automobiles on the roads.
    I am a vegetarian with 2 dogs and 1 car (a honda civic hybrid).

  13. rhonda
    November 6th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    4 dogs -- all eating vegetarian dog food for 10+ years!

  14. Zaulankris
    November 11th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    The dog at least has the advantage of being a member of your family, a distraction from the stresses of life and a (sort-of) barking anti-theft home protector. There is at least some point to having a pet dog.

    An SUV is good at announcing to everyone in its line of sight that you are insecure and feel the need to validate yourself by buying stuff. Just buy a Tesla if you feel the need to purchase more inches, chicks dig green.


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. Comments aren't censored, but those that are abusive or off-topic may be edited or deleted.


Stay updated on the comments with Comment RSS