[NatureNS] How green is your pet?

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
References: <C656EA4A-FD16-4496-9F75-8E213D162EDC@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:32:58 -0400
From: Suzanne Townsend <suzanne.townsend@gmail.com>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
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

&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial&gt;I noted months ago an article about t
--000e0cdfd9ecc558d10478052fc5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Peter, I know a truck driver whose sole full-time non-stop job is to drive
from Kansas City to Sacramento to carry dogfood for shipment to Asia; on the
return run, they haul rice (shipped from Asia) to Kansas City to make into
dogfood and horsefood. A semi tractor trailer gets about 4 or 5 miles to the
gallon. It all adds up and I think Chris's post just points to how it's all
interrelated and how we are often naive about how our lifestyle can harm
others.






On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Peter & Lorraine Hope <
peterhope@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>  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..
>
> 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
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Christopher Majka <c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca>
> *To:* naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> *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
>
>
>

--000e0cdfd9ecc558d10478052fc5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>Peter, I know a truck driver whose sole full-time non-stop job is to d=
rive from Kansas City to Sacramento to carry dogfood for shipment to Asia; =
on the return run, they haul rice (shipped from Asia) to Kansas City to mak=
e into dogfood and horsefood. A semi tract