We all know that the Green Movement’s ultimate enemy is mankind. There are just too many of us, that is where all this leads. But animals are all fine and dandy because they are part of nature. But it turns out that all animals are not created equal. Some animals are just as guilty of environmental terror as us humans because, as we all know, they are our best friends. Guilt by association.
PARIS (AFP) – Man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
But the revelation in the book “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living” by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.
The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.
Combine the land required to generate its food and a “medium” sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) — around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4×4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.
Just in case you were wondering, there is no end to this stupidity. Now you can cap this and trade that, you can make my car smaller and less safe, you can even inundate me with “green” propaganda during football games and I will shake my head and laugh it off. You go after a man’s dog, well then you have just gone too far.
If they take away my dog, I gonna have git me a new pet. I was thinking maybe a pet that is moody, needy, and never happy no matter how much I give it. No not a cat, I was thinking of a pet Marxist. I wonder how many hectares is the footprint of a pet Marxist?
Anyway, if one of these future pet Marxists tries to take away my dog one thing is for sure, they are gonna see a whole lot more of my footprint.
Thanks to Susan for the Heads up!
December 22, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I'm not a dog owner – but it seems to me that the way to handle this is to transport dog food via SUV…and to let your dog eat in an SUV in order to generate some carbon offsets.
December 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm
"…the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle."???? Where do they come up with these calculations? These people are insane.
December 22, 2009 at 3:53 pm
"The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington…."
Really, sustainable living specialists! Who knew? I mean besides Al Gore?
This joins those other concocted academic programs…all the Womyns, Gay (ad infinitum), multiculturally inclusive diverse folks who otherwise might have to work for a living. I'll bet the taxpayers of New Zealand are supporting these carnival barkers.
December 22, 2009 at 4:54 pm
My wife just bought a Jeep Liberty SUV. Now we'll have to buy three Great Danes to put in the back.
It's getting easier to have a carbon footprint like Godzilla (or Al Gore)
We'll need the dogs to help protect our cabin in the hills when society breaks down from these environmentalists bankrupting this country.
December 22, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I have a hard time believing my 15 pound pug is worse for the environment than an SUV. His gas emissions are pretty atrocious, though.
December 22, 2009 at 10:10 pm
The research of these so-called "sustainable living experts" is bogus on its face. In spite of the advertisements claiming "fresh and wholesome ingredients, real meat," and so on, commercial dog food is made of food not fit for human consumption ("downer cattle," etc.). It's all rendered (melted down in a nasty mess in huge vats) before being pressed into pellets or potted into cans. It's basically garbage that would end up in landfills if it didn't end up in pet food instead. No one eats lower on the food chain than a dog on commercial food. So, in reality, dogs are the ultimate recyclers. I think I'm owed some serious "carbon credits" for my dog's contributions to sustainable living.
December 22, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Personally, I think this research is the perfect response to idiots who claim human overpopulation is destroying the planet. Why are they ok with Fido but an African child is a drain on the world's resources? This exposes their bias.
December 23, 2009 at 6:17 am
The part of the article I found so amusing was the "green" pet lovers scrambling while the tables were turned.
Listen to them whine now:
"Pet's are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress… Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"
Then another quote:
"Sylvie Comont, proud owner of 7 cats and 2 dogs–the evironmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars–says defiantly, 'Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all. I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations. I don't want a life without animals.'"
Uh…so if you don't "feel" like a pulluter, well OK then. Ridiculous!
Susan
December 23, 2009 at 6:18 am
*polluter
Sounds like "Cafeteria Environmentalists" to me!
Susan
December 26, 2009 at 8:08 pm
If the punks try to take my dogs, I will reduce their carbon footprint (with extreme prejudice).