Both the BBC and the Guardian (UK) report on the provocatively-titled "Time to eat the dog?", which takes an interesting new approach to analyzing our environmental impact.
We need to become part of the solution. If using Fido or Fluffy gets people's attention, then the authors' unusual approach has done its job. Judging from the comments on various news articles, though, there is a significant population who won't quite get the point of the book.
Oh... for those who think the "Time to eat the dog?" people go too far, you might not want to click here.
UPDATE: Ah, it seems it was too bad to be true, or at least too bad to be accurate. Take a look here for a nice skeptical look at the analysis. (In a nutshell, the researchers underestimated the impact of SUVs, and overestimated the impact of dogs; the majority of pet food comes from "byproducts" of the production of food for humans, and cannot be meaningfully seen as competing for the same scarce resources. On the other hand, the Guardian article did focus on a trend of gourmet dog food, which does use the same cuts of meat that people eat. It is, admittedly, a small part of the market.)
Source:
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.in/2009/11/time-to-eat-dog.html
Instead of measuring emissions of CO2, or CO2 equivalent, they calculate the literal footprint or "global hectare" (gha) - the amount of land it takes to support a given activity.Taking a closer look at that 0.84 gha figure for a border collie, New Scientist points out (in an editorial titled "Cute, fluffy, and horribly greedy"):
So they work out that constructing and driving the Land Cruiser for a year takes 0.41 gha.
Growing and manufacturing the 164kg of meat and 95kg of cereals a border collie or cocker spaniel eats every year takes about 0.84 gha.
A bigger dog such as a German shepherd consumes even more - its pawprint is more like 1.1 gha.
By their reckoning, that is more than the environmental footprint of the average Indian person, who uses just 0.8 gha of resources.
If you are a multiple dog owner you are in even more trouble. Two big dogs have a bigger carbon footprint than some British citizens.
According to the book the average resident of Cardiff requires just 1.89 gha.
The average American, by contrast, requires a whopping 9.5 gha.
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?As I have known for some time now, I am clearly part of the problem. We all are, in a global Tragedy of the Commons.
We need to become part of the solution. If using Fido or Fluffy gets people's attention, then the authors' unusual approach has done its job. Judging from the comments on various news articles, though, there is a significant population who won't quite get the point of the book.
Oh... for those who think the "Time to eat the dog?" people go too far, you might not want to click here.
UPDATE: Ah, it seems it was too bad to be true, or at least too bad to be accurate. Take a look here for a nice skeptical look at the analysis. (In a nutshell, the researchers underestimated the impact of SUVs, and overestimated the impact of dogs; the majority of pet food comes from "byproducts" of the production of food for humans, and cannot be meaningfully seen as competing for the same scarce resources. On the other hand, the Guardian article did focus on a trend of gourmet dog food, which does use the same cuts of meat that people eat. It is, admittedly, a small part of the market.)
Source:
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.in/2009/11/time-to-eat-dog.html