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


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


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
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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"!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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!!!!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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).
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
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.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
This is the most sick observation about climate change and stuff from so called environmentalists. We dont eat our babies in order to reduce carbon footprint and save planet. Does robert eat brenda to reduce footprint? People have to think of more sensible things and face facts
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I just completed an in-depth study on the carbon foot print of Fundamentalist Enviros and the natural resources they consume in contemplating, publishing and promoting their peculiar life styles and alternate realities.

My data indicates that Fundamentalist Enviros, like Robert and Brenda Vale, produce a carbon foot print the size of a General Electric Locomotive.

Given the gravity of their carbon foot print and the destabilizing effect created on a global scale, it would be environmentally responsible if they would step off into an active volcano as soon as humanly possible.

I am quite sure Al Gore would be honored to attach a memorial plague to his Gulf Stream 400 in their remembrance.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
THis is typical of these mentally ill green moonbats. GOD (or is it ALLAH, or Satan?) forbid anyone have UNCONDITIONAL LOVE in any form. DOWN WITH LOVE! Absolutely shameless idiots - typical Godless Eugenic types. They need to be sterilized POST HASTE. Fuckers.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 18 comments




Email This Post to a Friend
"Dog vs. SUV: Which Has Larger Eco-Footprint?"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More