This is another example of wrong headed stupidity from the same people who say cows are killing us all. They don't know that cows, goats, sheep and other domestic mammals spend most of their lives eating cellulose material that humans cannot digest, thereby turning it into nutrient packed foods such as milk, cheese, and meat. Humans need these foods and benefit greatly. Soy and other vegetable meat substitutes require fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels for their production. Farmers aren't using mules and plows these days.
Pets, despite what this article say,s do not consume nearly this much meat. Have you looked at a label? Corn is always number one. Maybe some very expensive brands of pet food contain this much meat, but the majority of pets aren't consuming these high dollar brands.
So I am going to keep on consuming meat and dairy products, buying pet food for my pets, driving my paid for gas guzzler and sending Christmas cards printed on real paper.
The joy of a live well lived with all things in moderation received with a thankful heart cannot be measured by monetary cost or carbon footprint equations.
Bah humbug to the chicken littles who spread this nonsense!!!
Are Dogs Bad for the Environment?
Updated: Tuesday, 22 Dec 2009, 7:31 PM CST
Published : Tuesday, 22 Dec 2009, 3:28 PM CST
By LILY FU
(MYFOX NATIONAL) - Are dogs just as harmful to the environment as gas-guzzling SUVs? That's the claim by a new study from researchers in New Zealand.
AFP reports that Robert and Brenda Vale who wrote the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 360 pounds of meat and over 209 pounds of cereal a year.
The land needed to produce such food is calculated to be 2.08 acres, which is more than twice the 1.01 acres needed to create enough energy to build a Toyota Land Cruiser. But because the Land Cruiser drives an average of 12,000 a year, the carbon footprint of the SUV and the dog are roughly equal.
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, told AFP. The Vales asked the Institute to run their own calcuations that compared dogs to SUVs, and it got the same result.
Cats were also found to be harmful, but their footprint was less -- about the equivalent of driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year.
http://www.kljb.com/dpps/news/dpgo-are-dogs-bad-for-environment-lwf-20091222_5220392This blog is:
© Janet Crain
Click here to view all recent Sarah Palin in 2012 posts
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment