my dog is better than ten environmentalists!

As if any further proof was needed that global warming hysteria was a pretext to invade people's lives and tell them what to do, a "study" -- by so-called "specialists in sustainable living" -- advances the claim that dogs are worse for the environment than SUVs:

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.

I think it's time for everyone to say "screw these people!" Just tell them collectively to go pee up a rope and then fuck off.

Anyone who thinks their efforts will be limited to dog eradication is barking (!) up the wrong tree. This is no time for dog owners to act all apologetic and defensive the way some are:

"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?"
Spoken like a groveling slave. Really, some people talk as if they accept without question that the environmentalists are their masters.

For the umpteenth time, this calls not for denial, but defiance.

If we take these crackpot specialists in sustainable living at their word and assume the average dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares, it should be pointed out that by the environmentalists' own calculations, the average American has a footprint of 10.3 hectares.

Which means that according to the environmentalists' own calculations, my dog Coco is more than ten times less wasteful than a single environmentalist.

Environmentalists propose that people eat their dogs. I propose that it would be more ecologically sound for dogs to eat the environmentalists.

Right now, Coco is chowing down on Rachel Ray's brand of dog food (developed for Ray's pit bill Isaboo), but if the environmentalists could simply be ground up and made into dogfood, I would be willing to feed her ten environmentalists per year. Think of the carbon footprints that could be reduced!

CocoHunger.jpg

It's recycling for a good cause.

MORE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post!

Hope all your Christmases were doggone good!

posted by Eric on 12.22.09 at 03:08 PM










Comments

As usual, these people only care about the impact to plants and chemicals. There are plenty of studies done on the positive effect pet ownership has on people's mental well being. Removing all of that would have a cost to society, since people less happy will behave differently usually more negatively. People who aren't free tend to be negative too :)

But you know that doesn't matter, who cares about humans?

plutosdad   ·  December 22, 2009 5:47 PM

"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."

Actually this also reminds me: why are so many environmentalists against using modern technology in farming? I've even seen them espouse "people power" i.e. humans doing hard labor (as long as they are poor 3rd world humans). Looking at the human body as any other machine, it's very inefficient and wasteful compared to modern farm tools. It takes about 10 seconds of math to figure it out.

plutosdad   ·  December 22, 2009 5:55 PM

I used to think the lefties just hated people. Turns out, they're anti-mammalian. "This would be such a nice planet," I can hear them say, "if it just weren't for all the g*dd*mn LIFE on it."

Rhodium Heart   ·  December 22, 2009 6:59 PM

Accusations of eliminationist rhetoric in 3...2...1...

Pious Agnostic   ·  December 22, 2009 8:31 PM

I say we make them fuck a 6" (diameter) hawser and then we piss on them.

Just for the entertainment value.

M. Simon   ·  December 22, 2009 8:57 PM

Certain eco-fascists seem to think that all fauna are threats to the ecosystem. First it was the sheep we shear for wool, then the animals we shear for cashmere. Any animal we raise for meat is of course an environmental disaster, and now our cats and dogs are on the table.

Why are these enviro-tards so opposed to the bio-diversity necessary to sustaining a healthy bio-sphere? Isn't the loss of species a prime threat to the planet's ability to sustain life-which is what environmentalism is supposed to be all about?

Turns out that any animal of any interest or utility to humans is a threat to the environment.

Dogs provide sustainable security and also pull sleds and carts in addition to herding sheep and minding children. But then, sheep and children are threats to the environment also, arent they?

Laura Louzader   ·  December 22, 2009 10:48 PM

We have 4 cats. Do I have to meet some of these people at the door with my gun? I will if I have too. Is that Revolution I smell in the air?

LYNNDH   ·  December 22, 2009 11:20 PM

I need funding for a study that demonstrates that court intellectuals' dirty little secret is their love of power and force in service to their personal bigotries.

Wait a minute. How does anyone promote their prejudices at taxpayer expense? Perhaps neither court nor private intellectuals should rely on force for their fortunes.

Brett   ·  December 23, 2009 8:36 AM

Well, my proposal wouldn't cost a penny of taxpayers money! Dog food companies are already there as are the rendering plants, and the resulting environmentalist dogfood would be sold at a profit. Moreover, it would at last allow the environmentalists to actually be worth something. And above all they would really be doing something green.

A win-win for everyone!

Eric Scheie   ·  December 23, 2009 9:02 AM

Environmentalists, or just activist parasites.
Most of these birds are living off the avails of forced theft,
otherwise known as government funding.
When do they propose to be accountable?

Hugh   ·  December 23, 2009 3:14 PM

There is an easy solution to the enviro problem. 1) stone wall; 2) 10 guys with AK-74s; 3) a few battlepacks of ammo; Some Assembly Required.

John Cunningham   ·  December 24, 2009 6:29 PM

Screw 'em. Makes me want to put my two St. Bernards in my SUV and go drive around in circles for a while so they can bark at all the environuts.

Choey   ·  December 25, 2009 4:45 PM

I am struck by the similarity between "Environmentalists" and V'ger in the first Star Trek movie; they are ever ready to eliminate all 'carbon units' 'infesting' both the USS Enterprise and Planet Earth. If only there were some way to merge them with reality!

Stewart   ·  December 25, 2009 5:50 PM

If "environmentalists" really cared about the environment, they'd kill themselves to save the earth.

BTW, Tim Blair's got you all beat in the dog department - and it's not even his. :-D

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/merry_christmas_all/

Barbara Skolaut   ·  December 25, 2009 6:39 PM

"Environmentalists propose that people eat their dogs. I propose that it would be more ecologically sound for dogs to eat the environmentalists."

Heck, WE should eat environmentalists!

Eat an Environmentalist for Earth Day!

Mmmm, long pig...

/Homer Simpson

Jim C.   ·  December 25, 2009 7:33 PM

Spoken like a groveling slave.

Best point of the article. Defiance is the best answer. And I agree, we should feed our dogs ground environmentalist.

Peter Buxton   ·  December 25, 2009 7:34 PM

I may not understand the terms, but I have to call BS on these numbers. Given the 6 billion people and the, at least, 6 billion dogs, (not to mention cats, hamsters, goldfish, and chia pets) we must have another planet we are farming.

Dan   ·  December 26, 2009 1:08 AM
M. Simon   ·  December 26, 2009 5:24 AM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits