YOUR Pet caused Global Warming

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, not by itself, but if it's not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.

To measure the ecological paw, claw and fin-prints of the family pet, the Vales analysed the ingredients of common brands of pet food. They calculated, for example, that a medium-sized dog would consume 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily in its recommended 300-gram portion of dried dog food. At its pre-dried weight, that equates to 450 grams of fresh meat and 260 grams of cereal. That means that over the course of a year, Fido wolfs down about 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals.

It takes 43.3 square metres of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year - far more for beef and lamb - and 13.4 square metres to generate a kilogram of cereals. So that gives him a footprint of 0.84 hectares. For a big dog such as a German shepherd, the figure is 1.1 hectares.

Meanwhile, an SUV - the Vales used a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser in their comparison - driven a modest 10,000 kilometres a year, uses 55.1 gigajoules, which includes the energy required both to fuel and to build it. One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of energy per year, so the Land Cruiser's eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares - less than half that of a medium-sized dog.

Not just dogs, either, cats too.

Alternatively, consider the cumulative environmental impact of our furry friends. The US, which tops the list for both cat and dog ownership in absolute terms, is home to over 76 million felines and 61 million canines. Taking the estimated cat population for the top 10 cat-owning countries, the Vales calculate that the land required just to feed these cats is over 400,000 square kilometres. That's equivalent to one-and-a-half times the area of New Zealand. A further five New Zealands are required to feed the pooches living in the top 10 dog-owning countries - which, perhaps surprisingly, does not include the UK.

Then there are the other environmental impacts of pets. Every year, for example, the UK's 7.7 million cats kill over 188 million wild animals (Mammal Review, vol 33, p 174). That works out at about 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat. Similar figures have emerged from surveys in the US and Australia. There is also a knock-on effect because cats feasting on wildlife can leave wild predators such as hawks and weasels short of food.

Hmmm, but what value is the Hawk & Weasel to us, other than keeping those things the cats are killing, under control?

Then there are all the other animals we own. Doing similar calculations for a variety of pets and their foods, the Vales found that cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf), hamsters come in at 0.014 hectares apiece (buy two, and you might as well have bought a plasma TV) and canaries half that. Even a goldfish requires 0.00034 hectares (3.4 square metres) of land to sustain it, giving it an ecological fin-print equal to two cellphones.

If it ain't a pet rock, it's guilty.

Link

[gvidas]

Everything has impact. But some things have dramatically more impact. And not all impact is necessarily negative. There were cats and hawks well before there were Volkswagons.

What seems to be missing is the fact that living creatures give back to this whole cycle: they're part of the foodchain, helping in turn create nutrients for plant growth (poop, carcasses).

Cars, or the cement industry, are more of a one-way street.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But if people didn't keep pets, (it's a fairly recent phenomenon), and all those critters had to compete/survive in the wild, there would be a lot fewer and they would be part of the balance. The idea that cat and dog poop return to the earth, nurturing plants, is ludicrous. More often it, mixed with kitty litter or wrapped in plastic, goes in the trash for Energy intensive disposal. Cars and concrete are low hanging fruit, ya gotta think green here.

At least that's what the militant Greenies are telling me.

[ZenGum]

Wow, you should browse the discussion/comments at the original link. About 10% are reasonable responses, the rest is ... digital pollution.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sure, you might as well suggest everyone kill their children.

[SamIam]

I think I do far less harm to the environment by owning a cat then I do by owning a room air conditioner.

(and, yes, my kitten is my baby)

[TheMercenary]

PETA would love this logic.

[monster]

no life, no global warming.

no life, no-one to care about global warming.

no life, no death.

Life is bad. kill everything.

[Nirvana]

*