Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Dogs are worse for the environment than SUVs?
Reality seems more fictitious and unbelievable than the latest Adam Sandler film.
A recent headline on Yahoo caught my eye and I fully expected satire or a redirection to the comical Onion website. Unfortunately, this was and is not the case.
From Paris, AFP, dogs are more harmful to the environment than large SUVs, including the gas guzzling Hummer. The new book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale pet owners are the target of the environmental assault.
From the book: a medium-sized dog eats about 362 pounds of meat and 209 pounds of cereal each year, with 43 square miles of land needed to create just 2.2 pounds of dog food cereal. The Vales calculated the carbon footprint of a medium-sized dog as 2.08 acres, more than twice the 1.01 acres needed to create enough energy to build a Toyota Land Cruiser. However, the pair said the average driver travels about 12,000 miles a year, making the carbon footprint of the Toyota and the dog roughly equivalent.
A dog = Toyota SUV at 12,000 miles per year.
"Everything has an impact on the environment but I'm surprised by the size of these numbers. Without analyzing them further I find it difficult to believe," said John Buckey, managing director of carbonfootprint.com.
This is an article from 2008, in which the pooches (and children for that matter) are designated harmful for the environment. In case you want to dismiss this as the voice of the fringe or kooks, the author of this 2008 piece is Dr. Arthur Kling, a MIT grad, economist at the CATO institute and on Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Strange times – Indeed.