[NatureNS] How green is your pet?

From: "Peter & Lorraine Hope" <peterhope@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
References: <C656EA4A-FD16-4496-9F75-8E213D162EDC@ns.sympatico.ca> <19B5D036-7146-4F8F-BE9C-5DFFC18956EE@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:11:38 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

New Zealands are required to feed the dogs found in 
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01CA61EE.3103E510
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

How can you compare a dog eating meat and cereals, which can be linked =
to growth on an area of farmland, with a motor vehicle burning =
hydrocarbons formed 300 million years ago and built in a modern plant =
using electricity ( produced how?)  plus plastics, etc..=20

Boy this argument doesn't make sense at all.

I noted months ago an article about the Halifax market refurbishing a =
building to be a green model. It cost millions. Where do people think =
money like that is generated? Most does not come in green manner.

So with respect Chris, I have a lot of problems with the calculations =
you have provided and with other examples we see of greener living.

I'm not a model of such myself - but I try in a modest way.

Pete Hope - owner of 2 medium sized dogs and 2 largely housebound cats ( =
3 of the 4 are neutered - the other is very old)
PS I do believe the predation arguments made regarding pets=20

----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Christopher Majka=20
  To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
  Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:47 AM
  Subject: [NatureNS] How green is your pet?


  Hi folks,


  In an article published 23 October 2009 in NewScientist entitled "How =
green is your pet?", Kate Ravilious looks at the ecological impact of =
pets. The results of her research are fascinating. Part of the article =
is based on a recent book by Robert and Brenda Vale at Victoria =
University of Wellington in New Zealand, entitled "Time to Eat the Dog: =
The real guide to sustainable living."


  The Vale's analyzed the ingredients of pet food and calculated the =
ecological footprints of pets. For example, a medium-sized dog consumes  =
about 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals a year. It takes =
0.84 hectares of farmland a year to generate that much food. For a large =
dog such as a German shepherd, the ecological footprint is 1.1 hectares.


  Meanwhile, an SUV (the Vales used a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser in =
their comparison) driven a modest 10,000 kilometres a year, uses 55.1 =
gigajoules, which includes the energy required both to fuel and to build =
it. One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of =
energy per year, so the Land Cruiser's eco-footprint is about 0.41 =
hectares, less than half that of a medium-sized dog. So, a large dog has =
about 2.5 times the environmental impact of a gas-guzzling SUV!


  Similar calculations show that the ecological footprint of a cat is =
0.15 hectares (slightly less than that of a VW Golf); a hamster's is =
0.014 hectare; a canary 0.007 hectares; and even a goldfish has a =
fin-print of 0.00034 hectares (3.4 square metres), about the same energy =
usage as two cellphones.


  The United States, which tops the list for cat and dog ownership, is =
home to over 76 million cats and 61 million dogs. Taking the estimated =
cat population of the top 10 cat-owning countries, the Vales calculated =
that the land required just to feed these cats is over 400,000 square =
kilometres. That's equivalent to 1.5 times the area of New Zealand. A =
further five New Zealands are required to feed the dogs found in the top =
10 dog-owning countries!


  Ravilious also examines other effects of pet ownership. For example, a =
recent article (Mammal Review, 2002, volume 33, page 174) indicates that =
cats annually kill 188 million wild animals in Great Britain, i.e., =
circa 25 birds, mammals, and frogs per cat per year (and surveys in =
Australia and the United States have shown similar numbers). Also, cat =
excrement is particularly toxic. In California a decline in sea otters =
has been linked to a brain disease caused by the parasite, Toxoplasma =
gondii. It is found in cat faeces and ends up in rivers due to cat =
owners who flush their cat litter down the toilet or allow their cats to =
defecate outside. Dolphins and whales have also been affected [this is =
from a study by Gloeta Massie and Michael Black presented in 2008 at the =
annual meeting of the American Microbiology Society].


  Dogs also cause problems by disturbing wildlife in wild areas where =
they are allowed to run off-leash. In Australia  Peter Banks and Jessica =
Bryant of the University of New South Wales (Biology Letters, volume 3, =
page 611) showed that areas frequented by dogs had 35 per cent less =
avian diversity and 41 per cent fewer birds overall compared to areas =
where dogs were not allowed. Studies in Great Britain link the decline =
of some species of birds, such as European Nightjar (Caprimulgus =
europaeus), to disturbance by dogs (The Ibis, volume 149, page 27).


  A quick calculation I did from some of the data in the article shows =
that the ecological footprint of an average person in Great Britain is =
is ~ 7.5 hectares/year. Thus, a large dog would comprises about 15% of =
that value. David Mackay, the United Kingdom government's new energy =
adviser is quoted as saying, "If a lifestyle choice uses more than 1 per =
cent of your energy footprint, then it is worthwhile reflecting on that =
choice and seeing what you can do about it."


  The full NewScientist story is available at:


  =
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.=
html


  Cheers,


  Chris



  Christopher Majka
  6252 Jubilee Rd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 2G5
  c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca


  "The further backward you can look, the further forward you can see." =
- Winston Churchill




------=_NextPart_000_0009_01CA61EE.3103E510
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.18852">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY=20
style=3D"WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space"=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>How can you compare a dog eating meat =
and cereals,=20
which can be linked to growth on an area of farmland, with a motor =
vehicle=20
burning hydrocarbons formed 300 million years ago and built in a modern =
plant=20
using electricity&nbsp;( produced how?) &nbsp;plus plastics, etc.. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>Boy this argument doesn't make sense at =

all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>I noted months ago an article about t