Editorial: More important things to research
Relevant offers
Opinion
OPINION: One has to wonder if there is enough real work to keep scientists and other academics busy. Some of the "discoveries" we hear about far too regularly nowadays don't really make a significant contribution to humanity.
One of the most amazing revelations recently was the news that many men looked at a woman's breasts before looking at her face. Wow! Who would have guessed?
Having just recovered from such an insight into the male psyche we hear that the eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000km a year.
Yes, some researchers have spent a lot of time (and money, no doubt) assessing the carbon emissions from our pets. And it's not only dogs they studied. Cats, hamsters and goldfish have been put under the microscope, as it were, in an attempt to find out what their carbon footprint (or finprint) is.
The professors who made this remarkable contribution to science suggest that we should swap our dogs and cats for creatures we can eat, such as chickens and rabbits.
Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale are architects who specialise in sustainable living. They say a lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having alsatians. The Vales say that maybe they should be because the environmental impact is comparable.
In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164kg 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.
We are living in a world where the environment is receiving a lot of attention. People are more aware now of the need to be sustainable and look after our planet before it's too late. Clean and green are the buzzwords we use almost on a daily basis.
But suggesting we eat our pets is possibly just a little bit too radical a call. It could give a whole new meaning to the classic "man bites dog" headline.
The Vales obviously care about the environment but surely they could come up with something better than studying our pets. Every journey starts with one small step but the journey to sustainable living certainly shouldn't start with Fido on a plate.
- The Marlborough Express
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Professors Brenda and Robert Vale are free to make controversial claims about the "eco-footprints" of pets. It will probably help them sell books and make a lot of money. But their calculations smell bad. When <a href="http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/bad-professors-bad-the-truth-about-eat-the-dog/"><b>real numbers from reliable sources</b></a> are used, it turns out that they got things wrong by a factor of twenty.
Best Regards, Cocoa
Ed These academics are not scientists but architects. They are into making money and selling their book. The green carbon footprint thing is, as it is for many like them, a middle class guilt alleviation feel good thing where by you can look all caring and trendy but not have to get your hands dirty.
How about they donate all the proceeds from their book sale to getting fresh water, for anti viral drugs to impoverished communities in the third world. Even better go there and dig the wells, and distribute the medicine.
I imagine however that coming out of their ivory towers to rub shoulders with the salt of the earth and get a little dirt on their hands is beneath them!