Save the planet: time to eat dog?

KENT BLECHYNDEN/The Dominion Post

EAT TUI? YEAH, RIGHT: 12-year-old Eli Mulheron with his dog Tui.

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).

Newest First

Oldest First

Stinky Bighorn   #266   09:29 am Jan 14 2010

Recipe please.

AL Turner   #265   05:14 pm Jan 13 2010

I'm all for eating all kinds of animals. Dogs, cats, pets.

Id eat horse all the time if it didn't taste so disgusting.

John   #264   02:02 pm Dec 23 2009

Yes and don't forget cow farts, moose farts are even bigger source of methane they claim. So we must eliminate all human and animal life on the planet to save the planet. That is their goal really. Eliminating the excess population. Which means everyone but them because only "they" care enough about the planet to live in harmony with it. Like their jet vacations, big cars, their computers, TV's and all the other modern conveniences they won't live without while lecturing us. I don't agree with Ed Beagly(sp), Living with Ed, but at least he actually lives like he preaches.

bill   #263   04:28 am Dec 23 2009

Time to eat Brenda and Robert Jr. If these people have children, they are the biggest loser hypocrites. What a sick pair suggesting people eat their pets. They perpetuate the cliche of the heartless scientist.

JD Jones   #262   03:39 am Dec 23 2009

If a goldfish is the equivalent of 2 cell phones, imagine what a whale's footprint must be! It's time to kill all the whales!

Dogs Best Friend   #261   06:18 am Dec 20 2009

I value the environment as much as the next guy, but eat a dog?

<a href="http://www.DogsMN.com&quot; title="Dog Behaviorist Minneapolis">Dog Behaviorist Minneapolis</a>

bertlit   #260   01:00 am Nov 17 2009

talking with pet owning friend they pointed to me the health benefit induced by owning a dog. All the exercise they require from their owner by walking them out everyday, must have a significant effect, reducing stroke etc... Has this been taken into account in the study? However this effect may not counter balance the number of accident caused by being out in the streets walking a dog while SUV's are just around the corner waiting to roll over you. hum definitly the worst is to own both a dog and a SUV (you murderer!) (ha I'm just kidding a little)

yvonne   #259   11:43 pm Nov 13 2009

Hmm.. and what about babies? Or, why not, human life in general?

dorf   #258   10:56 am Nov 10 2009

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)

david   #257   01:07 pm Nov 08 2009

"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.

Ad Feedback