I am posting the following article (from Yahoo news and cited on Riptide: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/lf_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood) ONLY to emphasize how far awry today's extreme, soulless environmental movement, led by the likes of Brent Plater, John Curtis, Dyer Crouch et al, has gone. At one time, I was a great supporter of the environmental movement. We did some pretty good things back then. But that day is gone. Today's radical green movement which emphasizes elimination of humans and their pets, punishing economic well being, and the artifical inversion of the food chain, has left me far behind in the carbon saturated dust. I am calling for a return to a saner, more pragmatic form of environmentalism - which is pretty much where everyone else is.
--Rocky
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.
posted by: Rocky Golub
8 comments:
In the old days , we used to trap and eat raccoons and possum. Skin them and use the fur for hats and purses.
Humans need dogs and cats, they earn their keep.
Environmentalists leave huge carbon footprints, with all their jet setting around the world, chartering huge buses, renting out training facilities, protesting, clogging traffic, creating massive amounts of paperwork. They should be killed, cooked and fed to the pigs.
well why don't we compare the carbon footprint Pacifica has left be obstructing the expansion of Highway 1 and green development, versus the carbon footprint of our dogs and their lack of a proper recreational facility? Dog haters like Dyer Crouch and Paul Jones can volunteer to take a step down the food chain for all I care.
Too many pets and humans? Practically and responsibly how about this version of "environmentalists" putting their unified effort toward neutering/spaying and "birth control". Meantime, implement better ways to feed the 2 billion hungry or starving people on the planet, work on improved, sanitary drinking water, housing, medical care, education and jobs for humans.
Locally, how about directing energy and concern toward the sewage system which is polluting this city's waterways and the ocean? Action against existing habitat at Sharp Park golf course, tear down the sea wall which holds back the Pacific Ocean; adding the additional cost of $60,000 in trails and cliff stairs to the urgent Esplanade revetment permit, etc.-- seems illogical, goofy and misguided to those of us who acknowledge the value of responsible environmentalism.
Oh yea, good point Jeff, obstructing the expansion of Highway 1, and keeping most jobs and shopping out-of-town, rather than developing for city needs and financial stability-- that's the environmentalism pushed here.
Kathy,
Pacifica's #1 gross polluter is its broken down Highway 1 (stalled traffic, wear and tear on vehicles from bad road conditions), its #2 gross polluter is the export of jobs (15,000+) over the hill, and its #3 gross polluter is the sewage plant. Guess what group of people have been instrumental in delaying the fix of Highway 1, have obstructed any development to bring significant jobs to Pacifica, and are continually covering up the problems at the sewer plant? The so-called "environmentalists".
Pacifica's problem is the deep seeded hypocrisy of the "environmental" leaders of the community, one of whom works for the EPA. There is no lie too big, no tale too tall, and no action too egregious to prevent them from keeping Pacifica locked into its early 1970s groove. It has nothing to do with loving Mother Earth, and everything to do with subsidizing their bohemian lifestyle under the guise of "our environment is our economy."
Sadly, no matter how much truth we've managed to expose, Pacifica still lies in a deep fog of denial. As long as veteran shill-mongers like John Curtis and Fred Howard are given any credence in this town, the community as a whole will suffer.
This reminds me of that nonsensical study from earlier in the year that said two google searches generated as much carbon dioxide as bringing a teapot to boil.
How many pet owners will be driven to take global warming less seriously because of this story?
Here's a link to the December 2009 Department of Energy Report on Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2008:
http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2009/12/15/14/Greenhouse.source.prod_affiliate.81.pdf
I think its fairly obvious that, as a society, our focus should be on reforming the energy industry (and I don't mean boondoggle biodiesel plants that have a zero net effect on reducing carbon emissions) in alternative sources (nuclear, anyone?) and reducing demand.
Here's a thought: the same people who are going after dogs are most likely resistant to new residential developments in Pacifica, even though over 70% of Pacifica's housing stock was built before 1970. The net effect in reducing carbon emissions by allowing the construction of new, more energy efficient homes would be far more significant than removing every dog from Pacifica. In fact, I'd be willing to bet if we did a spot check of the residences of the most vocal "nobies" in Pacifica, we'd find their homes to be the least energy efficient.
Selective environmental hypocrisy will be the legacy of Pacifica.
Steve Sinai said:
"...study from earlier in the year that said two google searches generated as much carbon dioxide as bringing a teapot to boil."
Steve, that's why I use Yahoo. duh...
Post a Comment