Save the planet: time to eat dog?
By TANYA KATTERNS - The Dominion Post
Relevant offers
The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.
Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.
The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.
"If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around," Brenda Vale said.
"A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable."
In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.
They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog's.
They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.
Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming.
"The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone's pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment."
Professor Vale took her message to Wellington City Council last year, but councillors said banning traditional pets or letting people keep food animals in their homes were not acceptable options.
Kelly Jeffery, a Paraparaumu german shepherd breederwho once owned a large SUV, said eliminating traditional pets was "over the top".
"I think we need animals because they are a positive in our society. We can all make little changes to reduce carbon footprints but without pointing the finger at pets, which are part of family networks."
Owning rabbits is legal anywhere. Local bodies allow chickens, with some restrictions.
YOUR PET'S MARK
The eco-footprints of the family pet each year as calculated by the Vales:
German shepherds: 1.1 hectares, compared with 0.41ha for a large SUV.
Cats: 0.15ha (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf). Hamsters: 0.014ha (two of them equate to a medium-sized plasma TV).
Goldfish: 0.00034ha (an eco-finprint equal to two cellphones).
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
"They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog's."
This is absurd, when's the last time you got an SUV out of .41 hectares of land, it requires mines, factories, landfills and the atmosphere for waste whereas dog food is produced on land, potentially sustainable and organic.
This looks to me like completely immoral pseudo-science in the employ of the auto-industry.
This is horrible! We're going to get two kittens this weekend! NO WAY am I gonna eat Maitai and Mohito! I might be posting a video on YouTube about this nonsense, if my big sis will let me. After all, this IS her account.
This is an example of junk science.
Americans have a very warped sense of what is and isn't suitable for easting. A DOG IS AN ANAIMAL!!! If eating a cow is okay then eating a dog is no difference.
For a long time in the United States you were able to buy horse meat for human consumption and still can in Canada and many other countries. Here is the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_meat
Dogs are eaten in other countries. Get real, if it comes down to starving or eating Rover you will see a lot of people eating Rover.
Very Good Idea ,you first . POOR people should eat dogs!
So all you libbies accept the science that says global warming exists and can be controlled, but dont accept science that says animals are a contributor to this crisis. The funniest thing is you probably know nothing about the science on either case. Fools. Thanks for reminding me why I dont read comments from the unwashed masses though.
What kind of carbon footprint did they leave by writing, printing, publishing, and marketing their book?
The people who wrote this are clearly people who just wanted to catch the eyes of readers by putting a ridiculous headline.
in my opinion, i think they're using too many "hectares" to exist and someone should just run them over with an SUV. REPEATEDLY. That way, we can all keep our dogs :o)
Considering that the bunny-humping eco-twits have been on the wrong side of every previous ecologic debate, I see no reason to even waste time to print this out for toilet paper.
Hundreds march over government inaction
NSW prepares for more extreme heat
Sleepwalker found not guilty of wife's death
World Cup party's over for Phoenix
Oprah says ending show 'feels right'
Police officer killed as floods devastate UK
Miley Cyrus tour bus overturns, one dead
Huge European football match-fixing ring exposed
Nice Kiwi blokes - shame about the women
'Brainless' stunt by NZ 'idiots' a global sensation
Praying for Ben after explosion
Kiwi Kevin Percy claims Harry Potter castle
Miley Cyrus tour bus overturns, one dead
Top South Korean model found dead
Women pay top dollar for evening with bachelor
Nice Kiwi blokes - shame about the women
Rokocoko to play against All Blacks
As Henry shows, footballers can't be trusted
$450,000 march is political manipulation
What I find questinable about this is how they measure eco-footprint. Apparently so dogs and cars can be compared their impact is measured simplistically in how much energy they consume, then the amount of land required to produce that energy is compared and the SUV comes out better.
The glaring contradiction is dog food is largely produced from land while a car is produced from mines, factories and requires significant waste disposal and infrastructure.
If this is how eco-footprint is usually measured I'm shocked!
(I do agree a pet is a luxury item that could possibly be dispensed with in an ecological crisis, but am very suspicoius of the methodology and possibly even motives behind this research)