|
Posts: 290
Joined: 03-06-2008
|
A group of architects from New Zealand have calculated that a pet dog has an environmental footprint twice that of an SUV. The calculations are based on how much land is required to grow enough food to feed a dog throughout its lifetime. They have calculated that a medium-sized dog has twice the environmental impact of a large four-wheel drive vehicle, when all factors are considered. The calculations are based on how much land is required to grow enough food to feed a dog throughout its lifetime compared to the comparable amount of energy and resources, converted to hectares of cultivated land, required for a large gas-guzzling vehicle. The calculations include both the construction of the vehicle as well as its running costs.
On average, a medium sized dog will eat 164kg (361.5lbs) of meat and 95kg (209.4lbs) of grain per year. Meat production is extremely resource consumptive, requiring on average 7kg (15.4 lbs) of grain and about 100,000 liters (26,417 gallons) of water to produce 1kg (2.2lbs) of beef.
All in all, the authors calculated that in all 0.84 hectares (2.08 acres) are required to produce enough dog food for Fido. A large dog will have an environmental footprint of 1.1 hectares (2.7 acres).
This is compared to the 0.41 hectares (1.01 acres) required to build and drive a 4.6 liter Land Cruiser for one year, less than half that required by a dog.
Cats don't pollute nearly as much, with a footprint of only 0.15 hectares (0.37 acres), ten times that of a hamster.
In comparison, a human in the West will require 1.8 hectares (4.4 acres) while a person from the Third World needs up to 6 hectares (14.8 acres).
The study sheds light on the environmental impact of some of the human activities we don't usually think of as environmentally unfriendly. While transportation is the leading cause of air pollution, there are many other sources which are less apparent than the cars driving down your street. These include coal power plants, oil refineries, plastic and metal factories, and not least large livestock farms and agriculture which not only emit greenhouse gases but also pollute groundwater, clear-cut forests and consume enormous quantities of petroleum based fertilizers.
from: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/280866
|
Joined: 12-05-2006
Crap, I have 27 dogs that run approximately 4000kms per year. I better buy a SUV instead.
Joined: 13-05-2008
Yes, but can an SUV give you the love of a dog? I'd walk before drive; (and I'd take my dog with me) before ever driving a gas guzzling machine. Loyalty over luxury.
Joined: 18-06-2009
that's just silly
Joined: 23-12-2006
did that report take into account the impacts and related emissions from the mining of the metals to make the steel?
Snow Valley News - Fernie News, Blogs, Forums and Classifieds
Joined: 28-10-2009
whether or not the report did take that into account sanook, it sounds like you are trying to stretch the conclusion some. What about the impact of the mining necessary to produce the mining equipment used in the mining of the steel? The regression concerning the environmental impact could in theory be infinite. Most everything has an impact on the globe which is neither good nor bad from the earth's point of view, it is we humans that place morality and values into the equation.
Joined: 23-12-2006
just curious
Snow Valley News - Fernie News, Blogs, Forums and Classifieds
Joined: 30-03-2008
in the same vein, how many miles a year do you have to drive and how much do you have to save gas-wise to pay back the the total carbon footprint of a new "energy efficient" car vs an older version of the same thing?
Joined: 26-11-2008
I saw on a TV show (I think dateline) that the methane produced by cows is 25x worse than the impact a vehicle has on the environment... they said that driving an eco-friendly vehicle to the store for some beef just cancelled out the eco-friendly-ness 25x ...interesting...
________________________
Say NO to Flathead Park!
Joined: 04-06-2006
there is also a study that says walking causes more damage to the environment than driving
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2195538.ece
Joined: 03-06-2008
The study was based on emissions per year. So I don't think that the metal to produce the car was taking into consideration. Most of the "dogs" greenhouse gases comes from the growing and farming the wheat, and the growing and butchering of the beef. The walking VS. driving article doesn't take into account people that hunt for food. And people that grow a large garden for food.