Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

[Harmonica Bear]

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 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.

"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.

Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.

Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.

But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.

"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP.

"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?"

Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental 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," she told AFP.

And pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.

With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.

Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life.

And cat [PoorWordUsage] can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease.

But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals' environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets' protein-rich meat intake.

"If [e-mail:[email protected]] is scoffing 'Fancy Feast' -- or some other food made from choice cuts of meat -- then the relative impact is likely to be high," said Robert Vale.

"If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower."

Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals' blood.

As with buying a car, humans are also encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account.

But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale.

Gimme a break. Some people realy need to busy their lives with more important things....

[lawdog]

There is no end to the whackiness of the extreme fringes of our society. NOTHING will satisfy these "green" whack jobs until we make ourselves extinct to protect the earth...

[CJH]

Surprise - more junk science!!!

You can't believe anything these nutters say anymore.

[Ralph Wiggum]

What if I bought the gas-guzzling SUV to haul the anti-green dog in?

[bottomdweller]

Im speechless. More radical, liberal [PoorWordUsage]

[APCfishing]

Communists.

[Harmonica Bear]

I love the editorial use of the word "Devastating". It's crazy, it really is.

[Neighbor_guy]

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 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.

"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.

Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.

Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.

But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.

"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP.

"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?"

Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental 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," she told AFP.

And pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.

With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.

Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life.

And cat [PoorWordUsage] can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease.

But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals' environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets' protein-rich meat intake.

"If [e-mail:[email protected]] is scoffing 'Fancy Feast' -- or some other food made from choice cuts of meat -- then the relative impact is likely to be high," said Robert Vale.

"If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower."

Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals' blood.

As with buying a car, humans are also encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account.

But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale.

My favorite part of the hole article is the "Rabbits are good, provided you eat them" part. I ask everyone I know who raises rabbits if they eat 'em. Man I love to eat a good rabbit stew.....

Just a bunch of 'my [PoorWordUsage] dont stick' neoduffus's.

[DTro]

queue it up

"It's the end of the world as we know it....it's the end of the world as we know it.....it's the end of the world as we know it and IIII feel fine.....IIII feel fine.

[erik-the-great]

i think it is time for minnesota to suceed from the union

[96trigger]

Lets just say for a second this story is really true, think about hypocritical these people are.

Quote:

"I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations.

I think the love I have for my full size chevy and what it contributes when pulling my 18 foot lund outweighs the environmental considerations.

I gaurantee that some of the people interviewed would have serious trouble with my statement.

[LABS4ME]

I wonder if they calculated how many hectares a child takes to raise.

These are people who feel we as a society, are a virus or parasite on the 'Good Mother Earth'. Anything that we do, own or enjoy has no other consenquence other than to damage the 'Good Mother'. They would want us all to go back to living in caves and relinquish all things of a formed, civilized society.

The only thing redeeming in the whole article is they would allow us to eat the rabbit!

God help us all!

Good Luck!

Ken

p.s. as owners of hunting dogs, do they offset their carbon footprint by helping to provide us with food?

[Harmonica Bear]

"

I think the love I have for my full size chevy and what it contributes when pulling my 18 foot lund outweighs the environmental considerations.

[MuleShack]

In most other parts of the world they would call pets economic stimulus .

Not a burden to our environment.

[waterbound]

I believe this article was written for a European audience, mostly due to the location (Paris), the use of kilometers and the references to Britain. Really, all I took away from this is that the authors assume 6,200 miles is normal for a year of driving...which is barely half what I do...

[setterguy]

I stick solar panels on my dog to power her own electric collar thus becoming carbon neutral.

[caseymcq]

I wonder if they calculated how many hectares a child takes to raise. ...

If they see this there next book will be titled "Time to Eat the Kid:..."

[lenny7]

Funny stuff! If these folks truly cared for our environment they would stop procreating.

[Dave S]

What if I bought the gas-guzzling SUV to haul the anti-green dog in?

Just like a bad case of gas.........BLAME THE DOG.

[ironrangegemneye]

First global warming and now some goofball came up with this garbage. I guess if I get my second lab, I will really be doing irreversible damage to the planet!

[deerminator]

I get a kick out of the carbon neutral and footprint terminology - and calculating them. It's all fuzzy science meant to support politicians' and extreme environmental groups'agendas. On this work trip once, some guy was going on about how this wine he was drinking was produced at a winery with a neutral carbon footprint. I just started tuning him out. Bottom line is we need to take care of our environment and develop cleaner, more efficient ways to produce energy and goods and services as our society grows. This bean counting non-sense is a big joke that will do no good for the environment in the long run. It's also no way to live your life. Oh, I better not drink that coffee because a grasshopper in Columbia perished as a result. Oh, no, oh my gosh. Drink your coffee and recyle the paper cup.

[CJH]

Don't forget about the carbon traders. They can't wait to get their hands on this and start making free money.

Oh yeah, Al Gore started one of those companies.