These enviro-whack jobs just keep getting more ridiculous

[CosmicCowboy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

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

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 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.

[lefty]

Lol

[boutons_deux]

I can't find it now, but there was an article that estimated how many 100s of tons of fish were fed just to USA cats.

Nearly all the major human-eaten ocean fish stocks are 90% down (farmed fish is crap), blue fin tuna is just about finished off, and 100M sharks are slaughtered every year. Ocean bird colonies are down because the birds can't find enough fish.

Man, the deadliest predator and destroyer, is definitely, unsustainably shitting in his own bed.

[CosmicCowboy]

I can't find it now, but there was an article that estimated how many 100s of tons of fish were fed just to USA cats.

Nearly all the major human-eaten ocean fish stocks are 90% down (farmed fish is crap), blue fin tuna is just about finished off, and 100M sharks are slaughtered every year. Ocean bird colonies are down because the birds can't find enough fish.

Man, the deadliest predator and destroyer, is definitely, unsustainably shitting in his own bed.

You whack jobs need to eat more beef and quit eating so much fish.

[Dex]

Dogs eat meat? Well stop the presses, Ann Landers!

Somebody needs to teach these tree huggers about the food chain.

[I. Hustle]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2226/2264159358_bc5eedc02a.jpg

[I. Hustle]

It's done when both eyes are closed.

[Bender]

so university "scientists" don't have anything better to study, than pets are ruining planet earth?

[EmptyMan]

Man, the deadliest predator and destroyer, is definitely, unsustainably shitting in his own bed.Is that not the natural built in cycle?

If natural order did not want this to happen, mankind would not have been given his tools.

The only way to stop this would be to turn everyone into robots, i.e., 100% control over everyone's life. Man is a stubborn bastard and will not stand for this worldwide; another built in natural tool the world has given us.

So basically, it is what it is. You and others could always become Vigilante Pirates protecting the high seas. :toast That'd be kind of fun.

[boutons_deux]

"If natural order did not want this to happen, mankind would not have been given his tools."

So it's NATURAL for man to shit in his bed, simply because he has the power to shit in his bed. Got it.

Your ilk call other people whack jobs?

Eat more (industrial) meat? Typical right-wing ignorance about the Total Life Cycle of industrial food production.

[EmptyMan]

So it's NATURAL for man to shit in his bed, simply because he has the power to shit in his bed.Exactly.

Ever notice how it takes a little something special in people who have higher self-control than others.


This is why most people are obese and in debt. Fast food joints and banks make a living off humans' natural behavior.

[TheProfessor]

Is that not the natural built in cycle?

If natural order did not want this to happen, mankind would not have been given his tools.

The only way to stop this would be to turn everyone into robots, i.e., 100% control over everyone's life. Man is a stubborn bastard and will not stand for this worldwide; another built in natural tool the world has given us.

So basically, it is what it is. You and others could always become Vigilante Pirates protecting the high seas. :toast That'd be kind of fun.
Man was also given the intelligence to work on sustainable conservation efforts. You don't have to be a whacked-out environmentalist to support sustainable harvesting of fish.

[EmptyMan]

I agree.

However, what will the environmental gentleman do when China tells them to fcuk off? Go to war? Oh wait, these fine gentleman don't believe in that. After these fine gentleman give away everything others in their country have worked for to the great Republic of China, what will they then do?

You can't control the world. Therefore you cannot control humans. Humans will always be increasing in population. Fish are screwed.

[TheProfessor]

I agree.

However, what will the environmental gentleman do when China tells them to fcuk off? Go to war? Oh wait, these fine gentleman don't believe in that. After these fine gentleman give away everything others in their country have worked for to the great Republic of China, what will they then do?

You can't control the world. Therefore you cannot control humans. Humans will always be increasing in population.
Yeah, pretty much the tragedy of the commons - overusing a common resource through rational individual maximization. If I don't take it, somebody else will. Though this is what we allegedly have international treaties and conventions for. The UN called for a curb in overfishing a couple of years back, but I don't think there's been any movement on it (big surprise).

[CosmicCowboy]

Eat more (industrial) meat? Typical right-wing ignorance about the Total Life Cycle of industrial food production.

Typical left wing ignorance. If you want to do away with modern agriculture then get ready for hundreds of millions of people to die of starvation and organized civilization to end.

[EricB]

I love how boutons finds a different ultra left wing arguement to take on. Now not only does he hate America he just hates humans lol. Kill urself and end the pain already if it's so horrible to live here....

[Dr. Gonzo]

EricB should just change his name back to T Park.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

What's so crackpot about that article? It is simply making the very valid point that having animals is a luxury that consumes resources, and that on a finite planet in which we have already maxed out the food and fresh water stocks and have 7bil+ people, maybe it's time to re-evaluate that luxury.


I can't find it now, but there was an article that estimated how many 100s of tons of fish were fed just to USA cats.

Nearly all the major human-eaten ocean fish stocks are 90% down (farmed fish is crap), blue fin tuna is just about finished off, and 100M sharks are slaughtered every year. Ocean bird colonies are down because the birds can't find enough fish.

Man, the deadliest predator and destroyer, is definitely, unsustainably shitting in his own bed.

Spot on. The North Atlantic fishery used to be the most productive in the world, now it is GONE. The North Sea fishery is almost gone. Asia's fisheries are a mess, and the Southern Ocean is so devoid of top predators (previously animals like sharks and Southern Bluefin Tuna) that salp/jellyfish numbers have exploded... not to mention the mess we've made of the ocean through pollution (for a start, go look up the 'Great Garbage Patch' in the northern pacific gyre).

You won't be able to buy anything but farmed seafood in 20 years because we have been unsustainably harvesting the sea for 100 years.


You whack jobs need to eat more beef and quit eating so much fish.

1kg beef=6-8 kg grain

Beef uses more resources to produce than any other meat - not just grain (which in turn requires fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, machinery and transport, all of which go into growing it), but also large quantities of water (I've read various estimates from 5000L/kg up to 25000L/kg) and produces more emissions than any other meat. Per calorie, beef takes more energy/water/fossil fuel inputs than any other food.

You'll call me a crackpot for this, but then WGAF, but I decided a few years ago to allow myself (up to) a 500g steak ONCE A MONTH. I love steak, but doing this has only increased my enjoyment of it - when you eat something you like only rarely it tastes 100x better than if it is an every day thing. A bit of delayed gratification leads to a far greater appreciation for what you're consuming.

I do this with all kinds of things in my life and have come to appreciate and enjoy all of them more than I did before. In a world where instant gratification has become the norm and showing some restraint is rare, I am proof that the latter bears more fruit than just lowering your environmental footprint - it also increases overall happiness.

[ashbeeigh]

ahaha. I was waiting for his response. I bet RnR's idol is Al Gore.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Dogs eat meat? Well stop the presses, Ann Landers!

Somebody needs to teach these tree huggers about the food chain.

This has nothing to do with natural food webs.


so university "scientists" don't have anything better to study, than pets are ruining planet earth?

They are pointing out that with pets comes a cost in resources, and that cost is not negligible.


Is that not the natural built in cycle?

If natural order did not want this to happen, mankind would not have been given his tools.

The only way to stop this would be to turn everyone into robots, i.e., 100% control over everyone's life. Man is a stubborn bastard and will not stand for this worldwide; another built in natural tool the world has given us.

So basically, it is what it is. You and others could always become Vigilante Pirates protecting the high seas. :toast That'd be kind of fun.

Man was not "given" anything. Man discovered technology all by himself. He is now using technology willy-nilly without any thought for the impact that has on a finite world with limited resources. None of this mattered before antibiotics because man's effects with limited by population, but on a planet of 7+ billion, doubling its per capita consumption of everything every 20 years, it's a different story.


I agree.

However, what will the environmental gentleman do when China tells them to fcuk off? Go to war? Oh wait, these fine gentleman don't believe in that. After these fine gentleman give away everything others in their country have worked for to the great Republic of China, what will they then do?

You can't control the world. Therefore you cannot control humans. Humans will always be increasing in population. Fish are screwed.

What an absurd thing to say! Food production is at its limit, as is fresh water. Fossil fuels are running out, especially oil which will be gone in 40 years and is absolutely essential in everything we do (eg. 1ha of corn takes 40L petrol and 75L of diesel to cultivate).

Look up "carrying capacity" - you'll learn something.


Yeah, pretty much the tragedy of the commons - overusing a common resource through rational individual maximization. If I don't take it, somebody else will. Though this is what we allegedly have international treaties and conventions for. The UN called for a curb in overfishing a couple of years back, but I don't think there's been any movement on it (big surprise).

First insightful comment in this thread.


Typical left wing ignorance. If you want to do away with modern agriculture then get ready for hundreds of millions of people to die of starvation and organized civilization to end.

He suggested nothing of the sort.

Riddle me this then - how exactly is the modern agricultural system, utterly reliant on oil/natural gas (chemicals, fertilizers, machinery, transport), going to function as the fossil fuels disappear? We need to move our agricultural systems progressively away from fossil fuel dependence to avert the kind of disaster you bring up.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

ahaha. I was waiting for his response. I bet RnR's idol is Al Gore.

You obviously haven't been paying attention because I've said this about 1000 times already, but I fucking hate Al Gore. He has done more to set back the environment movement than anyone by allowing ignorant people like you to conflate politics with science.

FUCK AL GORE.

PS It's hilarious to me the attitudes of you people who think people that care about the environment are crackpots. I'm not some econazi who wants to ruin your life - I value modern civilized life as much as anyone, and I want to see it continue, but sustainably. We all have to realise that running an economic system based on infinite material throughput on a world of finite resources is ABSURD, and it's all going to come crashing down around our ears unless we all start to transition to sustainable economies. Is that so hard to understand?

[whottt]

1kg beef=6-8 kg grain

Beef uses more resources to produce than any other meat - not just grain (which in turn requires fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, machinery and transport, all of which go into growing it), but also large quantities of water (I've read various estimates from 5000L/kg up to 25000L/kg) and produces more emissions than any other meat. Per calorie, beef takes more energy/water/fossil fuel inputs than any other food.

You'll call me a crackpot for this, but then WGAF, but I decided a few years ago to allow myself (up to) a 500g steak ONCE A MONTH. I love steak, but doing this has only increased my enjoyment of it - when you eat something you like only rarely it tastes 100x better than if it is an every day thing. A bit of delayed gratification leads to a far greater appreciation for what you're consuming.

I do this with all kinds of things in my life and have come to appreciate and enjoy all of them more than I did before. In a world where instant gratification has become the norm and showing some restraint is rare, I am proof that the latter bears more fruit than just lowering your environmental footprint - it also increases overall happiness.



Well...there is a bit of a contradicton to your logic, main thing being, cows don't have to have grain to eat. Cows can eat wild grass, in fact they do so all the time. Furthermore, cows can reproduce rapidly if left to their own devices, much as they are in India.

So if cows are indeed such an inefficient food source, it makes sense to eat them as often as possible and those that refuse to do so are directly contributing to cow-made global warming.


And if you think I'm joking...then go ask New Zealanders why they have to pay a tax on cow farts per the Kyoto protocol.

The truth is however, cattle have much more resource value than simply as meat, and when those factors are taken into account, they blow rice and shit like that off the fucking map. They produce clothing, milk, cow shit is both fertilizer and a renewable combustible fuel.


Cows are the shit...

[marini martini]

Well...there is a bit of a contradicton to your logic, main thing being, cows don't have to have grain to eat. Cows can eat wild grass, in fact they do so all the time. Furthermore, cows can reproduce rapidly if left to their own devices, much as they are in India.

So if cows are indeed such an inefficient food source, it makes sense to eat them as often as possible and those that refuse to do so are directly contributing to cow-made global warming.


And if you think I'm joking...then go ask New Zealanders why they have to pay a tax on cow farts per the Kyoto protocol.

The truth is however, cattle have much more resource value than simply as meat, and when those factors are taken into account, they blow rice and shit like that off the fucking map. They produce clothing, milk, cow shit is both fertilizer and a renewable combustible fuel.


Cows are the shit...

Sorry Ozzshit, Whott speaks the truth!!!:toast

[sabar]

Ravage nature until we are extinct. Life will not end. It wont be the first time a species decimated the population of another in the history of the Earth. We will hit a tipping point eventually and everything will correct itself through massive famine and disease.

This study is a waste of research money. What exactly is it suggesting? I feed my cat an all raw meat diet. I could care less what his minuscule environmental impact is.

Pets aren't TVs or cars. They are friends, they are living things. Not surprised that environmental whackos equate them to some material possession.

[Jekka]

Well...there is a bit of a contradicton to your logic, main thing being, cows don't have to have grain to eat. Cows can eat wild grass, in fact they do so all the time. Furthermore, cows can reproduce rapidly if left to their own devices, much as they are in India.

So if cows are indeed such an inefficient food source, it makes sense to eat them as often as possible and those that refuse to do so are directly contributing to cow-made global warming

If you really wanted to be more eco-friendly in eating red meat, instead of consuming crazy amounts of cow, you'd eat more bison. They are better for the natural grasses in the American west (cows, which evolved in Europe, destroy the natural grasses here because they rip from the roots instead of tearing off the tops), and they are healthier for you anyways. And they're damn tasty.

[ashbeeigh]

You obviously haven't been paying attention because I've said this about 1000 times already, but I fucking hate Al Gore. He has done more to set back the environment movement than anyone by allowing ignorant people like you to conflate politics with science.

FUCK AL GORE.

PS It's hilarious to me the attitudes of you people who think people that care about the environment are crackpots. I'm not some econazi who wants to ruin your life - I value modern civilized life as much as anyone, and I want to see it continue, but sustainably. We all have to realise that running an economic system based on infinite material throughput on a world of finite resources is ABSURD, and it's all going to come crashing down around our ears unless we all start to transition to sustainable economies. Is that so hard to understand?

Sorry, I don't keep up with your posts or opinions that often. I had no idea you cared that much about him. :rolleyes

I understand you know a lot about the subject. And if a psychological/counseling/social service/advocacy topic came up I would post passionately about it and to defend it to the death. So I understand where you are coming from.

I believe in a sustainable systems and saving the world and all that jazz as much as the next guy, however, it's this kind of stupid crap (literally) that pisses me off. Spending this type of money (God only knows how much money this study actually cost the university)to, in the end, say don't walk my dog at night because it's the animal equivalent of a vampire, is ridiculous. I didn't need some Phd to tell me it likes to eat at night. Why not drive that money to help starving children, babies, and even animals (or would that be counter productive to saving the world?) out there?

It drives me nuts to think that there are people sending money to organizations that are going to tell me to stop feeding my animal stuff that makes them healthy because it saves the environment. Let's focus on bigger issues (issues I don't know..but I know there are some...carbon emissions? car stuff? Recycling? I don't know)

While I understand most likely somebody pointed this money right to the environment sciences department for this study....and there's no reason to argue about it (because I won't) that's just my opinion. I just think it's a bizarre waste of educational brain power, time and resources.

[Jekka]

Ravage nature until we are extinct. Life will not end. It wont be the first time a species decimated the population of another in the history of the Earth. We will hit a tipping point eventually and everything will correct itself through massive famine and disease.

When was the last time you went to a national park? I don't understand how anyone who has seen any of the amazingly beautiful things in this world could just not care. This study was just pointing out how many of the things that we have put a strain on the environment. The answers to conservation aren't all totally painful - Yellowstone National Park recycles 85% of its waste by promoting awareness and requiring that vendors operating inside the park compost all of the leftover food, etc.

Keep your pet, but making some other changes could really benefit the world.

[whottt]

If you really wanted to be more eco-friendly in eating red meat, instead of consuming crazy amounts of cow, you'd eat more bison. They are better for the natural grasses in the American west (cows, which evolved in Europe, destroy the natural grasses here because they rip from the roots instead of tearing off the tops), and they are healthier for you anyways. And they're damn tasty.

I like bison as much as the next guy darlin, however my wallet has a hard time digesting it :). It's not so much that I disagree with you, as it is the statement they are an inefficient food source, and the end result of that conclusion.

So do we kill off all the cows? Limit their numbers?

If we don't kill them off, then we start having a lot of the problems India has. India almost totally subscribes to the theory cattle are an inefficient food source, and they totally buy into the philosophy that argriculture is a better use of land.

So why then do they have so many problems?

In fact, India has more malnourished people than any other country in the world:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-tops-world-hunger-chart/articleshow/4197047.cms


They eat less beef than just about anyone else too.

If you are saying the stockyards and slaughterhouses are the problem, well I don't support those and never have really other than when I eat fast food. I don't support treating those animals with cruelty either. Although those slaughterhosues are probably a very efficient means of beef production.

[DarkReign]

Although those slaughterhosues are probably a very efficient means of beef production.

Efficent means of beef production, yes.

Humane or cleanly, not even close.

[EmptyMan]

Man was not "given" anything.

By "given", I mean naturally evolved blah blah blah and all that bullshit.

I don't think lightning bolts zapped into us knowledge from God either brah.