Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend
December 21, 2009 by Isabelle Toussaint and Jurgen Hecker
A man walks his dog in the snow in the East Village on December 19 in New York City. 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.
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 poo 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 pussy 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.
(c) 2009 AFP
-
Study says dogs have larger carbon footprint than SUV
Nov 04, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Researcher reveals the truth about cats and dogs
Mar 02, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
-
The truth about cats and dogs
Sep 08, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Lost dogs found more often than lost cats, study suggests
Jan 15, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Dog owners more likely to share germs with pets by not washing hands than by sleeping with dog
Jan 27, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (30) |
30
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
The hidden nanoworld of ice crystals: Revealing the dynamic behavior of quasi-liquid layers
Jan 30, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
-
Stock market network reveals investor clustering
Jan 27, 2012 |
3.9 / 5 (23) |
8
-
Of microchemistry and molecules: Electronic microfluidic device synthesizes biocompatible probes
Jan 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
-
where gems are found in the world
4 hours ago
-
Wind Waves in Reservoir ~ Wind run-up and Wind set-up
Feb 08, 2012
-
Balance of oxygen in the atmosphere
Feb 01, 2012
-
The case for a methanol-based economy
Jan 30, 2012
-
Weather in a rotating cylinder
Jan 25, 2012
-
Importance of difference between SVP over ice and water?
Jan 19, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
Deconstructing a mystery: What caused Snowmaggedon?
In the quiet after the storms, streets and cars had all but disappeared under piles of snow. The U.S. Postal Service suspended service for the first time in 30 years. Snow plows struggled to push the evidence ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
7 hours ago |
4.7 / 5 (3) |
1
|
Ocean microbe communities changing, but long-term environmental impact is unclear
As oceans warm due to climate change, water layers will mix less and affect the microbes and plankton that pump carbon out of the atmosphere but researchers say it's still unclear whether these processes ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
9 hours ago |
5 / 5 (2) |
2
|
Researchers create 3-D laser maps that show how earthquake changes landscape
Geologists have a new tool to study how earthquakes change the landscape down to a few inches, and it's giving them insight into how earthquake faults behave. In the Feb. 10 issue of the journal Science, a team ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
9 hours ago |
5 / 5 (4) |
0
|
New views show old NASA Mars landers
(PhysOrg.com) -- The High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter recorded a scene on Jan. 29, 2012, that includes the first color image from orbit showing ...
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
15 hours ago |
4.9 / 5 (7) |
5
|
NASA's TRMM satellite sees Cyclone Jasmine in 3-D
Data from NASA's TRMM satellite was used to create a 3-Dimensional look at Cyclone Jasmine, currently moving through the South Pacific Ocean.
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
5 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
'Dark plasmons' transmit energy
Microscopic channels of gold nanoparticles have the ability to transmit electromagnetic energy that starts as light and propagates via "dark plasmons," according to researchers at Rice University.
Hydrogen from acidic water: Researchers develop potential low cost alternative to platinum for splitting water
A technique for creating a new molecule that structurally and chemically replicates the active part of the widely used industrial catalyst molybdenite has been developed by researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley ...
Ultraviolet protection molecule in plants yields its secrets
Lying around in the sun all day is hazardous not just for humans but also for plants, which have no means of escape. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun can damage proteins and DNA inside cells, leading ...
FDA-approved drug rapidly clears amyloid from the brain, reverses Alzheimer's symptoms in mice
Neuroscientists at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine have made a dramatic breakthrough in their efforts to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease. The researchers' findings, published in the journal Science, show t ...
Anyone can learn to be more inventive, cognitive researcher says
There will always be a wild and unpredictable quality to creativity and invention, says Anthony McCaffrey, a cognitive psychology researcher at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, because an "Aha moment" is rare and ...
Cell biologists describes mechanism by which some people may be more susceptible to colon cancer
An international research team led by cell biologists at the University of California, Riverside has uncovered a new insight into colon cancer, the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United ...
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 3.6 / 5 (14)
So reduce your footprint by not having children!
Strange that this obvious message isn't advocated.
Everyone who claims to be 'eco' and has a child (or even worse, has several children) is a complete hypocrite and should shut up about the subject.
(Funny how people always find an excuse to have children.)
The discussion about carbon footprint is of course a distraction from the real problem: the ever expanding human habitat that reduces and pollutes the living room of all other animals.
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (10)
Everyone who claims to be 'eco' and has a child (or even worse, has several children) is a complete hypocrite and should shut up about the subject.
(Funny how people always find an excuse to have children.)
if this is your honest opinion then You are clearly not right in the head!
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (11)
"if this is your honest opinion then You are clearly not right in the head!"
I assume you have (or 'plan' to have) children, hence the fierce reaction. But can you elaborate on your response (some chain of reasoning for example).
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (8)
This number is completely off the mark. At least in my case.
My dog (35kg) eats about a 100 to 150gr (about 1/4 of the estimated 450 gr) meat per day. He also regularly eats the leftovers and fish, so the number could even be lower.
And to cut of the funny people, my dog isn't skinny, in fact he is very well fed and muscular.
Maybe US dogs have the same overweight problem as their owners?
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (8)
I'm guessing the accounting methods used by these authors are pretty flawed.
If you live in NZ and have a dog and live near these authors, please allow your pup to express itself on their lawn. I think that's a fitting review of the quality of their work.
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
My observations of pet owners is most own pets for themselves, not children. Pets are substitutes for children or a spouse.
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Oh please no, not the baby sea otters! Nevermind those "other" animals like sharks or sea cucumbers, they aren't cute and cuddly so who cares.
(that particular disease might not affect those particular animals, but you get my point)
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Guess he never heard of "Rabbit starvation" i.e. insufficient essential fatty acids to survive plus the severe environmental destruction THEY cause.
Carbon pawprint is moot anyway because CO2 driven global warming is, as has recently been revealed in FOIA releases from UEA, a political movement and not scientifically supportable.
Bottom line here, as well presented by Jo01, is simply too many people.
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 3 / 5 (7)
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (8)
Simple answer, if you're afraid the environment is being damaged, don't have kids, pets, electricity, a car, legs, lungs, or opinions and further damage the environment.
The last time I heard someone say something about a full solution was back in Germany when they touted the "Final Solution".
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (3)
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Can we apply that logic to other things in our lives to validate them? Because I feel the same way about beer and guns
Seriously, though, I hope no one ever takes that woman seriously about anything ever again
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (3)
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Are the carbon footprints of the mice and birds that the cats kill calculated into the total carbon footprint of the cats? i.e. is it break even, or?
But obviously cats and dogs DO have a carbon footprint. I'm glad to finally see some studies coming out. I read once that half the meat consumed in America went to cats and dogs–but don't know how accurate that is and/or whether or not it was waste product that humans wouldn't have eaten otherwise.
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
This story is pathetic.
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
So for me to be a good socialist AGW proponent, believer, I cant have pets, kids, fly, own a house, drink beer, own a gun, eat meat, eat fruit in the winter, drive, heat or cool my home, have lights.
But I ask, why does Al Gore and a lot of the other rich AGW proponets do/have/does all these things? Can someone please answer me that before my faith fails me?
Dec 21, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Is it because of climategate or is it because the party of the rich and famous is over?
Dec 22, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Dec 22, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Is it because of climategate or is it because the party of the rich and famous is over?"
:)
It is because it got so cold in Europe and North America.
Last week was the first winter week. Had it been warmer they might have been way more vocal. But in the cold is better to shut up as not to hurt your throat and stay indoors.
There was Nathan Myhrvold speaking on CNN proposing geoengineering by spraying aerosols in the stratosphere above the polar caps. The aerosols will reflect 1% of the sun rays and will cool the caps by at least 1 degree. It seems feasible to me.
http://www.thaind...755.html
Dec 22, 2009
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
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.
Why should you have to say or do that?
Is there a Law that limits your "Carbon Footprint" now?
And if there is, are you not responsible for the carbon emissions of your children? And thier Children? Perhaps you should cut your own throat to help save the planet.
What a self serving and utter farce. If you added up all the numbers the AGW folks have put out over the years to "educate" us lowely non elites we would have a 100% Carbon doixide.
Which would likely be fine by them since it would mean everyone was dead.
Dec 24, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
My dogs (32 pounds & 60 pounds) go through about 6 pounds of dog food per week. In bulk, premium dog food is about $1/pound. That's $312.
A typical SUV cost is $30k, and avg miles driven is 15k. So over ten years the SUV cost to "make" is $3000. The fuel cost is about $2000-3000 per year.
I assume the resources to produce goods is at least approximately proportional to their cost, so something is quite fishy with their numbers.
Dec 24, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
There's a lot fishy with their numbers and the way you can tell is by the fish.
They say a pair of goldfish produce less CO2 than a pair of cellphones. If these two had any knowledge of fish keeping they'd know that you're running a minimum of 90 watts to keep your fish alive. That'd be in a few gallons of water. Now imagine keeping a pair of fancy goldfish like I have in a 50 gallon tank, with filtration, lighting, and heating I spend about $50 in electricity just on the fish. The carbon footprint for that is much higher than my dog who stays and sleeps outside most days.
Dec 26, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
You are right, your detractors are wrong. Overpop is the source of all the worlds problems. Our disproportionate compulsion to reproduce is a remnant of the Pleistocene. Our deeming this rampant ability as 'sacred' is one more reason for religions to end. Pets are a neurotic expression of this, another form of children we cant seem to have enough of. I say outlaw all domestic animals except the food animals and those with jobs to do. Free the slaves! Neuter them all and send them to... Madagascar? -to live out their lives in freedom.
@velanarris
Every time somebody brings up family planning somebody else evokes the third reich, usually religionists. Are you a godder of convenience? Oh and hospitals use more energy than most facilities; quit smoking.
Dec 26, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 27, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Dec 27, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 27, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
I wonder what's responsible for the insanity in urban libtard america?
Dec 27, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 27, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
Dec 28, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
Otto, here is my problem with your post - I simply can't tell if you are being direct or sarcastic. Don't forget this board does get it's share of nuts of all varieties. So - what *IS* your opinion on these things?
Dec 28, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Hasn't it already been well documented that people who smoke end up having less total health care expenses than those who don't (because they die earlier)?
Here's an example of a news article discussing this:
http://www.usatod...ts_N.htm
Dec 28, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Hmmm, let's see, what is the known and proven best way to reduce birthrates in human populations? That's simple, education.
Hmmm, now what's the best way to raise a peoples standard of living? What, education? Interesting.
Okay, well, what's the best way to reduce crime...? Ah yes, education.
What's the most effective means of getting people to reduce their carbon footprint, if they are so inclined, or make any positive eco-friendly change in their life? Education.
Noticing a trend? Overpopulation is not the problem in and of itself, the problem is ignorance, educate people and so many problems take care of themselves. The problem is the induced-apathy of People, subtle economic oppression and the governments that employ these tactics, i.e. socialism/big government.
Forget universal healthcare, universal education should be the issue. And I dont mean the advanced day-care that is college.
Dec 28, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
Let's see, hmm, uh (scratches nose)... We've been down this road before. Try educating fundamentalists that god wasn't serious when he promised to provide for unending babies of the pious. Your 'education' is only 40 yrs old- before that family planning was a godless evil. Try educating anyone whose education has taught them that you're the devil.
Dec 28, 2009
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
you may be aware that Im not alone in realizing the impact of overpop on the world? Take out a pencil and write on your best coffee table:
people = 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64;
food supply = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
See? Even without the commas, commodities can't keep up. Inflation sets in, stability crumbles, everybody blames the king, war or revolt ensues. The only noncyclic result without 'management' is irreparable damage to the environment. With 'management' destruction is limited and Progress continues.
And really, what good are those hairy little pseudopeople we love to project our personalities onto? Watchdogs maybe. Talk to your wife, your kids, your buds, not your animals. They could care less.
Dec 28, 2009
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dec 30, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Otto, Paul Erlich made that argument back in the late 60's with his book "The Population Bomb". He was wrong and not just by a little bit. So are you.
Dec 30, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
That same Paul Erlich is an advisor to all commers in regards to AGW and mankind's footprint on the world. Pretty sad isn't it?
Dec 30, 2009
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
And of course malthus and many others. The equation falls in and out of favor depending on the political climate. It is currently IN. Arguments against it have never taken into account the effect of the rockefeller foundation-funded family planning efforts across the globe, and most significantly the 1 BILLION abortions which have taken place since the 1950s.
Dec 30, 2009
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
http://www.johnst...dex.html
-what's really sad is suppression of facts like these in order to prove a point. Humans reproduce like tribbles. Luckily rampant human fecundity is not being allowed to affect the course of civilization. Stability and Progress still rule. People still suffer and die according to Plan but not quite so many since prenatal infanticide became the norm.
Dec 30, 2009
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)