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

By: Lisa Lisa

Lisa Lisa — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:29:37 +0000

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.

By: Rod Spencer

Rod Spencer — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:41:07 +0000

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.

By: sherin

sherin — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:15:26 +0000

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

By: boxer

boxer — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:16:59 +0000

When they all stop using electricity, heating, gas, etc. pet-loving people will consider stop having pets. Not any sooner.

By: Zaulankris

Zaulankris — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:12:50 +0000

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.

By: rhonda

rhonda — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:07:43 +0000

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

By: Amber

Amber — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:41:06 +0000

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).

By: ocean

ocean — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:55:29 +0000

DOGS ARE BETTER THEY PEOPLE MOST OF THE TIME ANY WAY

By: ocean

ocean — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:53:34 +0000

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!!!!

By: Kathy

Kathy — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:48:51 +0000

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.

By: VM

VM — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:37:04 +0000

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”!

By: Babycakes

Babycakes — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:08:03 +0000

LOL- that guys is in OHIO! Not surprised.

By: dutchboy

dutchboy — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:43:24 +0000

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

By: pwscott

pwscott — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:31:02 +0000

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.

By: Edward

Edward — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:19:05 +0000

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.

By: Skipweasel

Skipweasel — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:04:49 +0000

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.

By: BikerRay

BikerRay — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:59:41 +0000

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

By: Reechard

Reechard — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:48:20 +0000

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