Is Eating Dogs Better for the Environment than Driving SUVs?

  • News
  • Thread starter Proton Soup
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Time
In summary, a study published in New Scientist compared the environmental impact of owning a dog to driving a Toyota Land Cruiser. The study found that a medium-sized dog's eco-footprint is 0.84 hectares, while the Land Cruiser's is only 0.41 hectares. However, some argue that the focus on reducing the population of dogs as a solution to environmental issues is misguided and that there are other factors that contribute to energy waste and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, there are concerns about the religious undertones of some environmentalism beliefs.
  • #1
Proton Soup
223
1
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/2987821/Save-the-planet-eat-a-dog

..."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."

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.

They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog's...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What a sad idea. Duke loves children and is a constant source of affection and entertainment. He is also a very effective always-on alarm system and provides additional cohesion (as if more of that that were needed!) with our neighbors, who love him. He gets so much attention from one particular family (husband and wife, their daughter, and her two children and their dog) that he practically yanks me off my feet when we are approaching their house and he's on-leash. I had Duke with me when I went to borrow a post-hole digger to uncover my septic tank. The neighbor didn't have one (our soil is VERY bony!), but he came out to visit Duke, and jumped in my Forester, saying that he'd help me dig with spades. We dug down over 2' and finally hit concrete, and he said I should call our other neighbor who owns a very large Ford tractor with a backhoe to help remove that huge mass of soil and rock. He came right over, and using the backhoe and manual shoveling, we excavated the tank. That 2nd neighbor refused any payment, but asked me to tell him when the guy with the tank-pumping truck showed up so he could arrange to have his septic tank emptied, too. When the pumping guy showed up, I paid him $140 each to have my tank and my neighbor's tank pumped. Now the guy with the 'hoe wants to help me with additional ground-work to "get even" with me. Where can you get a couple of hours of skilled operator+large equipment for that minor price? Still, he thinks he owes me. Well-behaved attentive dogs are KILLER ice-breakers.

dukeondeck.jpg


Some "analysts" pretend to know how to compute the cost of something without an inkling of its value. BTW, I could easily feed Duke with home-grown produce and bartered meat - he has a an unexpected taste for green tomatoes, too. He hasn't helped himself to any of the late-fruiting chilies, so he may learn a bit of discretion in garden-grazing. :eek:

BTW, when I was a kid, our Heinz 57 dog Lady would cruise the garden eating green-beans. It was great, because she preferred the milder-tasting, more fibrous large beans that we had overlooked during previous pickings, and she got those off the plants, and we got more blossoms, and smaller, tender beans.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Forget getting rid of dogs. We can just turn the dogs loose and stop having children. Children grow up and have a far greater impact on the environment than dogs (who will eventually adjust to their natural environment like the dingos). Soon we would have a beautiful world without people. But who would notice?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Biological life in general tends to use up energy. If only we could get rid of all of it, the planet would be safe.
 
  • #5
Galteeth said:
Biological life in general tends to use up energy. If only we could get rid of all of it, the planet would be safe.

You forgot your sarcasm tag. But, I agree. What we are looking for are the non-biological contributions to energy waste and greenhouse gas emissions. If the problem were purely from biological sources, I would argue that it's not a problem, just a natural process we just have to cope with or go extinct. It's when we hasten that process to the detriment of our own species that we have a problem.
 
  • #6
We "wasted" energy on Duke today. My wife's shower went a bit long because we tossed Duke in there too, for a dog-wash. Then I used two over-sized bath towels to dry him off and those need to be laundered. I'll gladly "ruin" the world one dog at a time.

One of his new favorite treats is raw carrots from our garden.
 
  • #7
It seems to me these authors represent a problem that people have with environmentalism. There are certain religious qualities to it, i.e., the concept of regressive utopia (man has fallen from some purer state), guilt over existence, etc.
I wonder if some of these things are instinctual (or an emergent psychological byproduct inherent to societies).
That's not to say that some points of theirs might not be valid, but I personally don't accept the concept of original sin, wheter its basis is a fictional garden or a metabolism that has carbon dioxide as a byproduct.
 

Related to Is Eating Dogs Better for the Environment than Driving SUVs?

1. Is eating dogs actually better for the environment than driving SUVs?

This is a controversial and complex topic, and there are varying opinions on the matter. However, based on scientific research, it can be argued that eating dogs is not necessarily better for the environment than driving SUVs. While the production of meat does contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, the impact of driving an SUV on the environment is much greater and has a more immediate effect.

2. What is the environmental impact of eating dogs?

The environmental impact of eating dogs is not well-studied, as it is not a common practice in most countries. However, based on research on the environmental impact of meat production, it is safe to say that eating dogs would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, water and land use, and pollution. Additionally, the transportation and storage of dog meat would also have an environmental impact.

3. Are there any benefits to eating dogs for the environment?

Some argue that eating dogs could potentially have environmental benefits, as dogs are a more sustainable source of meat compared to other livestock. They require less space and resources to raise and have a smaller carbon footprint. However, this is not a widely accepted argument and there are many other factors to consider when it comes to the environmental impact of dog meat production.

4. How does driving an SUV compare to other forms of transportation?

Driving an SUV has a significantly higher impact on the environment compared to other forms of transportation, such as biking, walking, or taking public transportation. SUVs consume more fuel, emit more greenhouse gases, and contribute to air pollution. Additionally, the production of SUVs also has a significant environmental impact.

5. What are some alternative ways to reduce my environmental impact?

Instead of debating whether eating dogs or driving SUVs is better for the environment, there are many other actions we can take to reduce our environmental impact. This includes using alternative forms of transportation, reducing meat consumption, supporting sustainable agriculture practices, and reducing our overall consumption and waste. It is important to look at the bigger picture and consider all of our actions, rather than just one controversial topic.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top