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.


Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

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.)
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 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.)
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.)
Login to comment.

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

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