Dog's eco-footprint a Hummer, study says

[bgwah]

Thanks for killing the planet, dog owners.

Well, that's a rough paraphrase of a New Zealand study that claims a medium-size dog leaves a larger ecological footprint than an SUV.

In "Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living," authors Robert and Brenda Vale argue that resources required to feed a dog — including the amount of land needed to feed the animals that go into its food — give it about twice the eco-footprint of, say, building and fueling a Toyota Land Cruiser. Noting that a cat's pawprint was roughly equivalent to a Volkswagen Golf's, "New Scientist" (www.newscientist.com) asked an environmentalist at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, U.K., to independently calculate animals' environmental impact, and reported that "his figures tallied almost exactly." The study apparently didn't take into account the emissions of either the SUV or the dogs...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010183212_dogcarbon02m.html

I've been wondering about this for a while. Not that I expect trendy faux-environmentalists to care. While it does sound a bit dramatic and is probably exaggerating somewhat, it never ceases to amaze me how people seem to focus exclusively on transportation when it comes to "helping" the environment.

[bgwah]

What do these people want us to do?  Start butchering all the animals of the world?  After all I'm sure free-range cattle are even worse.

A gradual reduction in the number of domesticated animals would be preferable.

[bgwah]

The main reason why people tend to focus on transport is... oh, why bother. It ought to be obvious enough, and if it isn't, then there's not much point in...

Another worthless post from Al.

Shock.