Another great idea from the Green Monster brigade.
The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.
So you could run two of these gas-guzzlers and its carbon footprint is the same as a pet pooch? So, turning that around, a car doesn’t really cause very much environmental damage at all?!
Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.
Provocative or just stupid?
The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.
“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said.
Mmm. Climate change tax on pet food?
“A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact … is comparable.”
A lot of people just don’t worry about the fact that they have a dog. Neither should they. I wonder what the carbon footprint of a brontosaurus was?
Professor Vale took her message to Wellington City Council last year, but councillors said banning traditional pets or letting people keep food animals in their homes were not acceptable options.
We’ll probably get the one pet policy and then the one child policy – after the EU mandarins have returned from their fact-finding mission to China.
Kelly Jeffery, a Paraparaumu german shepherd breeder who once owned a large SUV, said eliminating traditional pets was “over the top”.
I know: why not eat the environmentalists? They think there’s too many people in the world.