Are Pets Bad For The Environment?

A new book written by Robert and Brenda Vale from New Zealand called "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" seems to thinks so!

According to the book, the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is double that of your standard gas-guzzling SUV, making man's best friend to be the environment's worst enemy.

Victoria University of Wellington, sustainable living specialists, the Vales, examined a few popular pet food brands and were able to determine that a dog of medium size would eat approximately 360 pounds, or 164 kilos, of meat and 95 kilos of cereal per year of its life.

Once the Vale considered how much land would be needed to grow and produce the food, they discovered that a medium sized dog would have annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres). This is more than double the 0.41 hectares that is required by a 4x4 SUV driving 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) per year, including the energy that is needed to build it.

In an effort to confirm the Vales findings, John Barrett from the Stockholm Environment, was asked by the New Scientist magazine to assess a pet's eco-pawprint using his own data.

Mr. Barrett's results were more or less the same than those of the Vales.

"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.

However, it is not just dogs that are detrimental to the environment, say the Vales.

It was also determined that cats have an eco-pawprint of 0.15 hectares, which is a little less than driving around in a Volkswagen Golf for a year.

Other pets targeted were two hamsters that were compared to a plasma television and goldfish that actually burn energy that is equivalent to two cell phones.

Of course such findings have already met with much opposition from pet lovers and animal rights organizations around the world, such as from Reha Huttin, the president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation, who simply states that the human impact of abolishing pets would be just as devastating.

"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, and they are good for the elderly. 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?" Huttin was reported as saying.

The Vales also state that domestic cats and dogs also have a devastating impact on the environment, by polluting the waterways, spreading disease and eating other animals.

For example, New Scientist states that in Britain where there are 7.7 million cats, roughly 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by domestic cats every year; this equates to 25 birds, mammals and frogs for every cat living in Britain.

Dogs reduce biodiversity in the areas in which they are frequently walked. A dog's feces also causes rather high levels of bacteria in rivers and streams, thereby polluting the water and killing off aquatic life.

Owners who flush their cat's litter down the toilet affect the lives of sea otters with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a deadly brain disease.

However many solutions exist to helping reduce your pet's carbon pawprint!

One such solution is to reduce your pet's protein-rich meat consumption.

"If pussy is scoffing 'Fancy Feast', or some other food made from choice cuts of meat, then the relative impact is likely to be high. If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower," said Robert Vale.

Other tips include keeping your cat indoors at night to prevent them from eating other smaller animals; and avoiding walking your dog in areas that are abundant with natural wildlife.

Photo Credit: Playful Pirate