Who presents the greater threat to the planet: Antonio the Lhasa Apso or the Land Rover?
In their book Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, authors Robert and Brenda Vale make the argument that people who love the planet should trade in their dogs for sports utility vehicles (SUV). These authors argue that a mid-size canine leaves a greater carbon pawprint than a gas-guzzling Toyota Land Cruiser. The Vales contend that resources required to feed a dog — including the amount of land needed to feed the animals that go into its food — emit twice the eco-footprint of the manufacturing and fueling a Toyota Land Cruiser.
New Scientist magazine hired John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, UK, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data, Barnett's calculations echoed those of the Vales, The conclusion? "Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barnett told New Scientist.
Seventeen per gallon versus the Kibbles 'n Bits consumer. Vote the dog off the island.
If the City of Seattle took these studies to heart, bureaucrats would pave over the off-leash areas and replace them with parking lots. Put in parking meters, and we reduce the city's financial woes by a grand or so.
But really: Which would you prefer in your neighborhood: A harrier or a Hummer? Would you prefer dealing with the bodily waste that comes from a Weinmaraner or the pollutants from the neighbor's Range Rover?
For the New Scientist editorial:
For a local perspective from the Seattle Times:
No comments:
Post a Comment