Britain’s problem with pets: they’re bad for the planet

Posted on November 14, 2009
Filed Under 1 |

…

A new book with the somewhat provocative title of Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living has triggered a highly charged debate about the environmental efficacy of our pet-owning habits. If we are to examine the environmental impacts of all our lifestyle choices, the book argues, then we must also include pets in the discussion, no matter how unsettling the answers.

…

The New Scientist, in a recent editorial entitled “Cute, fluffy and horribly greedy”, largely agreed with the book’s findings that some pets, due to the food they eat, have a surprisingly high “ecological footprint” (a way of quantifying human demand on the planet’s ecosystems using a measure called “global hectares”). “According to the authors . . . it takes 0.84 hectares [2.07 acres] of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. In contrast, running a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000km a year, requires 0.41 hectares. Dogs are not the only environmental sinners. The eco-footprint of a cat equates to that of a Volkswagen Golf. If that’s troubling, there is an even more shocking comparison. In 2004, the average citizen of Vietnam had an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares. For an Ethiopian, it was just 0.67 hectares. In a world where scarce resources are already hogged by the rich, can we really justify keeping pets that take more than some people?”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/13/ethical-living-carbon-emissions