Dogs twice as bad for environment as SUV's

[Sylvanfan]

Here I thought it was going to blame the presence of dogs in peoples lives for why they owned SUV's instead of Prius'.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

They're comparing how much energy each consumes, not whether we grow this energy or not. We might grow the food for dogs, but it still costs us non-renewable energy to process it into dog food.

Okay, I realize that, but they're expressing it as an area.
For the dog that makes sesnse as you can approximate how much land it takes to grow the grain in the food, and the grain to feed the cows in the food.

For a car it doesn't make much sense. What are they basing this area on? The same density of crops as would be used for the dog food? And in what proprtion of meat and grains?
There just isn't enough information in the article to make a good judgement.

What I want to see is the total energy requirements of the car vs the energy requirments of the dog. As well as the requirments to produce, transport and distribute the fuel/food.
I'm guessing when that's all added in, then the dog won't look so bad.

And if all of this is the case, then doesn't it make a VERY STRONG argument in favour of using cars?

If a dog uses twice as much energy as a big SUV, then imagine how much a horse would use? By replacing horses with cars, we've not only greatly improved our mobility, we've also greatly helped the environment.

[Sliver]

I'm not a dog fan, but yeah, those stats seem pretty out there.

I think there are many reasonable arguments against owning dogs (at least within the city), but this one is a bit of a stretch. It might be a point amongst others, but it hardly stands on its own as any reason to give up your dog.

[burn_this_city]

Care to share those reasonable arguments? Also don't you own cats?

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Really, really weird stats. I'll assume they're right that a dog's food consumption equals 0.84 hectares of agricultural land. Apply that by about 121 kilos of CO2 per hectare for barley production*, and dogs come in right around 100 kgs of CO2 per year.

Compare that with a 2006 Nissan Pathfinder that goes 10,000 km a year (as Iggypop noted, a very skewed number), which generated 3.75 tonnes of CO2. I'd love to hear where the authors get the missing 3.65 tonnes from.

*Couldn't find a great source of barley CO2 footprint, but ended up using a table in this PDF about beer production. http://www.climateconservancy.org/cca_fattire.pdf

Do dogs eat barley? I am genuinely curious because I have never had a pet. The article implies that dogs eat meat products on a 2-1 ratio, so I would have to assume that a better example would be the amount of CO2 that meat products create.

Also where did you find the 121 number in that link? I searched for 121 and the only two times that my computer found it was in relation to transporting barley 65 miles. There would be a number of other input costs beyond just transportation to create pet food. I am guessing that other pet accessories are included in their number (leashes, bones, toys, etc.).

Finally, there are two scientists that have reviewed the data for this article, which I believe gives the numbers more credence.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.u...l/article.html

That is another article that explains the energy consumption slightly better than the Journal article.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Here I thought it was going to blame the presence of dogs in peoples lives for why they owned SUV's instead of Prius'.

That's actually what led us to get an SUV - carting our 2 70lb dogs around in my Mazda Protege was getting to be logistically annoying. Not to mention my friends weren't overly enthused to climb into a backseat covered with dog hair whenever I drove them anywhere.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Really, really weird stats. I'll assume they're right that a dog's food consumption equals 0.84 hectares of agricultural land. Apply that by about 121 kilos of CO2 per hectare for barley production*, and dogs come in right around 100 kgs of CO2 per year.

Compare that with a 2006 Nissan Pathfinder that goes 10,000 km a year (as Iggypop noted, a very skewed number), which generated 3.75 tonnes of CO2. I'd love to hear where the authors get the missing 3.65 tonnes from.

*Couldn't find a great source of barley CO2 footprint, but ended up using a table in this PDF about beer production. http://www.climateconservancy.org/cca_fattire.pdf

Edit: Ah, from reading elsewhere about this article, apparently their SUV calculations don't factor in tailpipe emissions.

Ah, there's the real kicker on this.
If they aren't including the energy requirments to actually move the car then it's a totally misleading conclusion.

If all they're doing is spreading out the production costs of the SUV over the life of it, and ignoring the operating costs (I mean costs energy wise of course) then they could make the data say whatever they wanted.

If I spread it out over a long enought time, I could show that an aircraft carrier is less damaging than a dog.


Care to post where you found that tidbit?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Do dogs eat barley? I am genuinely curious because I have never had a pet. The article implies that dogs eat meat products on a 2-1 ratio, so I would have to assume that a better example would be the amount of CO2 that meat products create.

If they're following typical convention, the hectare footprint they're talking about is the combination both of the grain that goes directly into dogfood, and the grain that feeds the meat that goes directly into dogfood. I chose barley not because it's the most commonly used grain in pet food (that would be corn), but because it's higher footprint than corn.

Also where did you find the 121 number in that link? I searched for 121 and the only two times that my computer found it was in relation to transporting barley 65 miles.

I added up the values in Table 1 in the PDF I linked to. When a choice existed between two values (such as combined applications vs. separate applications) I assumed the one that would result in a higher footprint.

There would be a number of other input costs beyond just transportation to create pet food. I am guessing that other pet accessories are included in their number (leashes, bones, toys, etc.).

Finally, there are two scientists that have reviewed the data for this article, which I believe gives the numbers more credence.

Yup, but there are a lot of other factors in cars (roads maintenance as a most obvious example) that aren't factored in, either.

This guy does a much better job than I could at debunking it:

http://daily.sightline.org/daily_sco...2/dogs-vs-cars

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Care to share those reasonable arguments? Also don't you own cats?

Well I think it will be counter-productive to the thread to go into detail here, but barking, biting, excrement, etc. would be some big ones.

I owned cats but I gave them away to good homes that were better suited than mine.

[octothorp]

Ah, I discovered the big point of confusion.

In some articles, it's being described as a comparison of the carbon footprint, in some articles (including the original New Scientist article here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...et.html?page=1), it's described as a comparison of eco-footprints. Big difference between the two, and really sloppy by the Edmonton Journal and other sources that got them mixed up.

Which is why some people are saying that the tailpipe emissions aren't counted. The eco-footprint argument they're using looks at the amount of land required to raise a dog, assigns a hypothetical maximum amount of energy that land can produce, and then compares it to the amount of energy a car consumes (without even looking at the issue of CO2 emissions).

[KTrain]

My feelings about owning pets are the same as my feelings about having children.

One or two are great. Three is cool too. But if you have 5 or 6 or more dogs, cats, kids, etc. you're not doing anyone any favours.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by fotze

That is the problem with this whole thing. Most people who are pro-environment that I have ever met (and lived with for years) are also pro-someone else should change their behavior but not me. Those who hate SUV's and oil companies are usually very fond of travelleing on jet to Chile to hike the macchu picchu or African safari's or to Tibet out to BC every single weekend to go hiking. Disagreeing with people's choices "cause they're lame" under the guise of saving the planet.

That sounds like my favorite kind of hippy. The "I work for an oil company but hate the concept of oil comapnies" hippy. The only real hippies are poor and dirty, because that's the only way to have a significantly smaller environmental footprint.

[puffnstuff]

I don't believe anyone actually 'owns' a cat... its more that they have a home that a certain cat, or cats, feel is a minimally acceptable place for them to be given food, a place to sleep and someone to remove their poop.

Gawd I hate my wifes cat....at least she claims it is hers... I have my doubts as to who owns who in that relationship

[Phanuthier]

Interesting find, interesting topic, and interesting replies ... not because that dogs are bad for the environment or whatever, but I love to attitudes and replies here. Eddy and fotze said it best, people (especially Canadians and Americans) LOVE to tell other people what to do under the disguise of being "environmentally friendly" ... unless they have to change something about themselves. Typical.

For now, we'll just keep telling other people and other countries what to do. Now 'scuse me, I'm going to go drive to the mountains with my dog to do some outdoorsy stuff.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well I think it will be counter-productive to the thread to go into detail here, but barking, biting, excrement, etc. would be some big ones.

I owned cats but I gave them away to good homes that were better suited than mine.

A responsible owner cleans up after their dog I never leave excrement lying on the sidewalk.

Barking? seriously? When the cars on my street stop having their alarms go off, then I'll worry about barking. Also I find that sirens are too loud when they are nearby, NO MORE SIRENS!

As far as the biting goes, well that also goes to a responsible owner, but that can be applied to a lot of things. When someone hits a pedestrian in an SUV , does that mean all SUV's should be elminated?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Interesting find, interesting topic, and interesting replies ... not because that dogs are bad for the environment or whatever, but I love to attitudes and replies here. Eddy and fotze said it best, people (especially Canadians and Americans) LOVE to tell other people what to do under the disguise of being "environmentally friendly" ... unless they have to change something about themselves. Typical.

For now, we'll just keep telling other people and other countries what to do. Now 'scuse me, I'm going to go drive to the mountains with my dog to do some outdoorsy stuff.

Painting with a wide brush, no?

A very disturbing trend I am finding is that those that ARE trying to do a little something for the environment are constantly being kicked in the groin.

- Unless I'm having friends over, I keep the thermostat at 17 throughout the winter. If I'm cold I put on a sweater.
- All the lights in my house are compact florescents
- I became a vegetarian 20 years ago for purely environmental reasons
- I gave up driving a car in turn for taking public transportation for environmental reasons

First, as many in this thread have pointed out, the math used in this study looks fishy at best. So until I see some corroboration I'm not about to buy this study right off. However, I think it a bigger issue. People want to slam on those who ARE trying to do something by pointing out any type of hypocrites they are.

The underlying theory is that Bob who recycles NOTHING can crap all over Sue who recycles everything except milk cartons. She throws her milk cartons in the garbage because even after cleaning them they smell. However, Bob can lord over her as a stupid evil hypocrite because she doesn't recycle her milk cartons!! Bob feels good about himself by tearing Sue down, Sue feels stupid about trying to do anything at all. Mission accomplished.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by fotze

That is the problem with this whole thing. Most people who are pro-environment that I have ever met (and lived with for years) are also pro-someone else should change their behavior but not me. Those who hate SUV's and oil companies are usually very fond of travelleing on jet to Chile to hike the macchu picchu or African safari's or to Tibet out to BC every single weekend to go hiking. Disagreeing with people's choices "cause they're lame" under the guise of saving the planet.

Those who actually limit things they enjoy themself, that have an impact, are the people I can respect for sticking to their principles, they are rare though.

The cost of things should just more accurately reflect what their real full cycle cost is but they don't because people don't want that, they would rather have boogeymen pay out of their profits, which means it will never get solved just like the boogeyman will never exist.

I need to quote this because it's so utterly true.

There's one poster on this board that fits this to a tee.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Well I look at it this way. North America gets a free pass on dog ownership. Any carbon foot print created by dogs in NA is offset by all the buffalo that are no longer on the continent.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

A very disturbing trend I am finding is that those that ARE trying to do a little something for the environment are constantly being kicked in the groin.

Your poor, poor groin.

[Netskot]

Originally Posted by iggypop

Wow, what skewed statistics. Considering the average distance driven is closer to 15000 miles (~24000 km), it is no where near double.

What a weird comparison overall.

Uh... what?

Let's read again..

"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."

So ..

1 dog = 0.84 hectares
1 vehicle @ 10,000 + energy to build a car = 0.41

10,000 x 2 = 20,000
0.41 x 2 = 0.82

how is that nowhere near double?!