uh oh, time to get rid of Fido?
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
Robert and Brenda Vale, two researchers from Victoria University in New Zealand, have released a study that claims dogs have a larger carbon footprint than gas-guzzling SUVs.
The Vale couple reached that somewhat surprising conclusion by calculating how much land it takes to generate enough food to feed a dog for a year.
They found that the average mid-size dog eats 3.17 ounces of meat and 5.5 ounces of grain in a 10.5-ounce serving of dry dog food. That takes about 2.07 acres of land to generate each year.
The Vale couple then pitted the average dog against their 4.6-liter V8-powered Toyota Land Cruiser. They calculated that if they drive the SUV about 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) a year it uses about 55.1 gigajoules of energy annually, a number which equates to 1.1 acres of land per year, or 50 percent less than the carbon footprint of a dog.
“We’re not saying that we think SUVs are a good idea,” said Robert, “but we do find it interesting how they have been vilified for their damage to the environment while pets have been completely ignored.”
The couple used the aforementioned formula to calculate the carbon footprint of the average cat and found that it is similar to that of a Volkswagen Golf. They also measured the impact of a hamster, which is similar to that of a flat screen TV, and the impact of a goldfish, which is on par with the footprint of a cell phone.
Mr. and Mrs. Vale have published a book based on their findings which is titled “Time to Eat the Dog?”End quote
However a eco person would use the hamsters to mow the lawn eliminating the lawnmower gas and then feed the hamsters to the dog.
The Vale couple reached that somewhat surprising conclusion by calculating how much land it takes to generate enough food to feed a dog for a year.
They found that the average mid-size dog eats 3.17 ounces of meat and 5.5 ounces of grain in a 10.5-ounce serving of dry dog food. That takes about 2.07 acres of land to generate each year.
The Vale couple then pitted the average dog against their 4.6-liter V8-powered Toyota Land Cruiser. They calculated that if they drive the SUV about 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) a year it uses about 55.1 gigajoules of energy annually, a number which equates to 1.1 acres of land per year, or 50 percent less than the carbon footprint of a dog.
“We’re not saying that we think SUVs are a good idea,” said Robert, “but we do find it interesting how they have been vilified for their damage to the environment while pets have been completely ignored.”
The couple used the aforementioned formula to calculate the carbon footprint of the average cat and found that it is similar to that of a Volkswagen Golf. They also measured the impact of a hamster, which is similar to that of a flat screen TV, and the impact of a goldfish, which is on par with the footprint of a cell phone.
Mr. and Mrs. Vale have published a book based on their findings which is titled “Time to Eat the Dog?”End quote
However a eco person would use the hamsters to mow the lawn eliminating the lawnmower gas and then feed the hamsters to the dog.
>10,000km a year
>Toyota Land Cruiser
>Toyota Land Cruiser
Two VW Golfs for me! 
a watt is a joule per second
Except we eat sheep. We do not derive anything useful from pets except enjoyment.
Red_Liner740
Well-known member
what a moronic comparison....how about how much energy and pollution it took to drill the raw materials, convert them to steel/plastic/etc etc, transportation of said materials, creation of car parts, assembly of such parts, transportation of final product to customer etc etc.
Then....a dogs waste can be reused as compost, their waste does not produce greenhouse gases (well a bit from farts, lol) and its a circle of life, whereas the gas used by the car is gone bye bye, no more dinos to convert to oil.
Then....a dogs waste can be reused as compost, their waste does not produce greenhouse gases (well a bit from farts, lol) and its a circle of life, whereas the gas used by the car is gone bye bye, no more dinos to convert to oil.
So time to eat Fido?
Actually I'd say its a fair comparison since they didn't even get into the chemicals that we make for medicines that vets use on dogs, not to mention all vet associated costs. And more importantly a vehicle has a practical use. The energy consumed by a dog these days is merely for pleasure. We cant afford to properly feed the worlds population, but pets, not a problem.
Red_Liner740
Well-known member
you guys are off your ROCKERS if you're singling out dogs as being bigger polluters in a society where consumerism and disposable things are the norm. Hey, skydiving servers NO purpose and yet people do it, flying ANYWHERE for vacation is 100x worse than owning an SUV so why the BS comparison? Oh, thats right, those idiots want to justify why owning an SUV is okay....like anyone cares....
rmemedic
Well-known member
A lot of medication we use on pets is the exact same stuff we use on people.
Most if not all of our pleasurable pursuits leave a carbon footprint of some sort. Hello, this is a motorcycle forum? Definitely not a practical item in any sense of the word.
Hey, we need something to wash down the dog stew after all.
I'm not sure if this means we've run out of even semi intelligent things to research as a people.. or simply that these two are geniuses because they actually got someone to pay them money for writing a book about nothing..
And to those who said dogs don't serve a purpose.. that may be true, but for every dog out there there is also an equal or greater number of people who don't serve a purpose on this planet who's carbon foot print is far greater (and that's not including the marijuana emissions and farting contests while consuming electricity playing x-box in their parents basements at 35 years old..) - At least the dogs provide enjoyment and don't collect welfare.
And to those who said dogs don't serve a purpose.. that may be true, but for every dog out there there is also an equal or greater number of people who don't serve a purpose on this planet who's carbon foot print is far greater (and that's not including the marijuana emissions and farting contests while consuming electricity playing x-box in their parents basements at 35 years old..) - At least the dogs provide enjoyment and don't collect welfare.
Umm no. And even if this was correct we would need to manufacture that much more of it for pet use. So your point is moot.
I agree with you.
I don't get why pet owners get so bent out of shape about it. Not like I give a ****. I have fires in my backyard all the time. My tenant leaves her lights on 24 hours a day 7 days a week and I don't tell her a damn thing about it. I own two bikes and 3 cars. But what I don't understand is why people are so offended that someone would dare say their pet is a massive consumption of energy when they are in fact. The way I see it is if you are able to afford the energy (because that's what we are buying basically) then go for it. But don't try to play it off like leaving your dogs **** everywhere is good for the environment or something. Someone mentions about the dog **** being good fertilizer? Thats ****in rediculous, it does not make good fertilizer, you need to process any kind of **** before it can be used for that purpose (again more energy used there).
