Climate change: Time to eat Fido?
A startling new book claims that pet dogs are more harmful to the environment than SUVs—should we listen?
A new book claims dogs are worse for the environment than sport utility vehicles.
(Corbis/Scott Lowden)
Dogs cause more damage to our planet than SUVs, according to a controversial new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living. The environmental footprint of an average "resource-guzzling" hound is twice that of a typical sport utility vehicle, say New Zealander researchers Robert and Brenda Vale, who note that a surprising amount of land is required to produce Fido's meals each year (roughly 2 acres). The book has caused a ruckus by saying people should go pet-free—and even consider eating strays. Have environmentalists gone too far?
(Watch a CNN report about SUVs becoming more eco-friendly)
So what is acceptable — pet millipedes? The green movement is becoming "progressively batty," says Ralph Reiland in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. First we have to "shut down our oil, gas, and coal industries, bike to work," and take the briefest of showers. "Now they want us to cook our dogs"? Apparently, a pet "bug" is the only companion these "hysterical" activists would consider guilt-free.
"Gang Green going to the dogs"
The authors' research is sound: OK, eating our pets "is surely a non-starter," say the editors of New Scientist. But the Vales are right about the science: "Man’s best friend, it turns out, is the planet’s enemy." And while giving up Fido might be "a sacrifice too far," we can take smaller steps. The solution might start with "green, eco-friendly pet food."
"Cute, fluffy and horribly greedy"
You can’t quantify a pet's value: Even if we Americans were to adopt "petless lifestyles," says The Washington Times in an editorial, we’d still be "major carbon offenders in the eyes of the green theocracy." Anyone obsessed with sizing up "carbon pawprints" is missing the point: "A pet’s value, like the worth of a human being, cannot be reduced to a rude carbon quotient." They make us happy, and "that is enough to justify their existence."
"Eat your pets, save the planet"
Why not eat pets? "Dogs are wonderful," says Jonathan Safran Foer in The Wall Street Journal, but they’re not any smarter or more affectionate than pigs. In fact, unlike farmed meat, soon-to-be-put-down strays and runaway pets "are practically begging to be eaten" — and "in a sense," we’re already consuming them. Millions of euthanized cats and dogs are already "rendered" into livestock feed each year. Why not just eliminate this "inefficient…middle step"?
"Let them eat dog"
RELATED: For more on the environmental impact of dogs, see How green is your pet?
Show: Oldest | Newest
456 Comments
Posted by Ben, Thursday, November 5, 2009, 12:05 pm All polarizing arguments aside, does anyone seriously wonder why we have such high cancer and disease rates in this country when we're are consuming animals fed growth hormones, genetically modified corn grains and now to read, ground up cats and dogs. Why aren't people as angry and disgusted with this industry, where we get our 'nutrition', as they are about what idiot radio personalities are saying or whether our tissue paper is too many ply?!?
Posted by Annye, Thursday, November 5, 2009, 1:02 pm A recent study touted the huge carbon footprint of having and raising a child, but I don't recall them recommending we eat 'extra' children.
Posted by I'm just sayin'..., Thursday, November 5, 2009, 1:06 pm Annye, honey...? Dogs are not children.
Posted by DigitalBob, Thursday, November 5, 2009, 1:12 pm They both have the same ecological impact which is zero. Global warming is a hoax invented by ecobillionaire Al Gore to enrich himself and propgated by the Democratic party to remove your freedoms. Wake up fools!
Posted by Annye, Thursday, November 5, 2009, 1:23 pm Some people treat their dogs like children, and some people treat their children like dogs but not in a good way. I'm just sayin' why make such a harsh recommendation for one socalled problem and not the other?As for DigitalBob's post: you must really think Al Gore is powerful to assert he 'invented' global warming all by himself and can alter the weather to back it up.
Posted by johnny rotten, Thursday, November 5, 2009, 1:27 pm all environmentalists should immediately display the courage of their convictions and kill themselves to eliminate their carbon footprint. feed them to the dogs.
Posted by TrustButVerify, Thursday, November 5, 2009, 1:31 pm I will be keeping my dogs so they can warn me when the starving hordes are coming up the hill so I can turn the hordes into dog food so I can hunt game with my hunting dogs so I do not have to eat the starving hordes.
Posted by Annye, Thursday, November 5, 2009, 1:31 pm Or to the polar bears.
Post a Comment