Before you read this I want you to know that I love dogs (especially large ones), and cats .
But as many of us saw last night at the Telluride Film Festival, man's activities are drastically accelerating global warming/climate change.
Science news and science jobs from New Scientist - New Scientist article/mg204273 13.200-cute- fluffy-and- horribly- greedy.html? full=true&print=true
"Cute, fluffy and horribly greedy"
* 23 October 2009
* Magazine issue 2731. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
excerpt: "...In a world of scarce resources, can we justify keeping pets that consume more than some people?
...the scale of the ecological crisis facing humanity. ...if we are going to continue to keep animals purely for our enjoyment then we have to face uncomfortable choices. "
.................................................. .................................
HOW much is that doggy in the window? Waggly tail or not, owning a pet comes at a far higher cost than you might imagine.
As you watch a large dog bounding out of the back of an SUV, you might mentally reprimand the owner for their choice of vehicle. You would do better to save your indignation for their choice of pet. Because, as we report on page 46, the ecological footprint of our companion animals can dwarf that of even the most gas-guzzling cars.
Man's best friend, it turns out, is the planet's enemy.
According to the authors of the new book Time to Eat the Dog, it takes 0.84 hectares of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. In contrast, running a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000 kilometres a year, requires 0.41 hectares. Dogs are not the only environmental sinners. The eco-footprint of a cat equates to that of a Volkswagen Golf.
If that's troubling, there is an even more shocking comparison. In 2004, the average citizen of Vietnam had an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares. For an Ethiopian, it was just 0.67 hectares. In a world where scarce resources are already hogged by the rich, can we really justify keeping pets that take more than some people?
In a world of scarce resources, can we justify keeping pets that consume more than some people?
Most consumers have come to accept the scale of the ecological crisis facing humanity. We grudgingly put out the recycling and use low-energy light bulbs. Giving up our pets in the name of sustainability may seem like a sacrifice too far, but if we are going to continue to keep animals purely for our enjoyment then we have to face uncomfortable choices.
The authors' suggestion - that we should recycle our pets by eating them or turning them into pet food at the end of their lives - is surely a non-starter. The prospect of keeping chickens instead of dogs and cats is also unlikely to appeal.
But there are more acceptable ways to reduce your pet's impact. Feeding the cat or dog leftovers will have an immediate effect - and also help do something about the scandal of food waste. Consumer power could also be brought to bear. A trip to any supermarket will tell you that there is a large and growing demand for "green" products, whether less-polluting washing powder or locally sourced food. There's no reason why the pet-food industry shouldn't get in on the act.
At the moment, pet-food manufacturers thrive by selling us the idea that only the best will do for our beloved animals, but once owners become more aware, what they demand from the industry is likely to change. The first manufacturer to offer a green, eco-friendly pet food could be onto a winner. Sustainable lifestyles require sacrifices, and even cats and dogs can be made to do their bit.
Linear Mode
