[NatureNS] How green is your pet?

From: Christopher Majka <c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:02:21 -0400
References: <C656EA4A-FD16-4496-9F75-8E213D162EDC@ns.sympatico.ca> <19B5D036-7146-4F8F-BE9C-5DFFC18956EE@ns.sympatico.ca> <3EA76D0B7CB54A49B6CE05AE207F95F2@peterx89pxnmmn>
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

e into dogfood and horsefood. A semi tract

--Apple-Mail-3-385267615
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Peter,

On 10-Nov-09, at 10:11 AM, Peter & Lorraine Hope 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.

There are many ways of drawing attention to wasteful lifestyle  
choices, and the environmental impact of human activities can be  
analyzed according many criteria. Calculating ecological footprint  
according to how much land is required to generate food or energy is  
one such method. It doesn't, as you point out, tell the whole story.  
Science is all about looking at the vast complexity of the world and  
choosing one or two threads at a time to follow.

So, for instance, rather than looking at input (food and energy) one  
could look at output (i.e., greenhouse gas emissions). SUV's directly  
produce a lot of these whereas pets (at least dogs and cats) don't (at  
least as far as I'm aware). However, ruminants and other livestock  
raised for human and pet food production, produce vast amounts of  
methane and CO^2 worldwide. Methane (emitted in great quantities by  
cow flatulence and "burping"), in particular, is of great concern  
since it has 25 times the greenhouse gas impact of carbon dixoide over  
a 100 year time span.

Thus, one could do another comparison of the climate change impact of  
a SUV in terms of its greenhouse gas emissions (and those required to  
manufacture it) and dogs or cats in terms of the greenhouse gas  
emissions that are produced in raising the food they consume. It would  
be interesting to see how a large dog compared with an SUV on these  
grounds.

Again, it would only tell one part of the story. There are other parts.

>
> 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.

You're point being ...?

>
> 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.

They are not my calculations; they are those of several scientific  
studies reported on in an article in the New Scientist, a highly  
respected international journal. Moreover, the editors of New  
Scientist point out that:

"The Vales are not alone in reaching this conclusion. When New  
Scientist asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in  
York, UK, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data, his  
figures tallied almost exactly. "Owning a dog really is quite an  
extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," he says."

So, as a responsible scientific publication, they asked for an  
independent evaluation of the data, which came to a nearly identical  
conclusion.

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

As do we all. :->

>
> 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

Again, the point of science as a methodology is we try and move these  
questions from the area of belief, to the terrain of fact. There are  
many studies on the ecological impact of cat predation, and (it seems)  
ever more on the impact of dog disturbance. They only tell part of the  
story, but that part is a useful one! :->

The larger point (as I hope I've indicated) is that for too long  
people (especially in the developed world), have been living  
lifestyles, and making unthinking lifestyle choices, the consequences  
of which now jeopardize the biosphere itself. We can't afford to keep  
our head in the sand any longer.

I think we as naturalists, who have a particular interest in and love  
of nature in all its forms, have both an obligation to inform  
ourselves about this, and an opportunity to serve as spokespeople to  
the wider community. We are the ones who can help carry the message  
that nature is truly important, and its degradation and loss has  
tragic environmental, aesthetic, moral, and economic consequences. We  
know more about this than the average urban dweller, who may not be  
able to differentiate a gull from a goldfish, or a pine from a  
poplar. :-> We can make a difference!

There are also smart alternatives! As the New Scientist article points  
out, pets don't need to be fed expensive, designer, organic, high food  
and energy-utilization, commercially produced and marketed pet foods.  
Cats can (for instance) thrive on fish heads, discarded from a  
neighbouring fish processing plant. If you feed your pets this way,  
don't let them run wild to kill birds, mice, and frogs, and ensure  
that their droppings are not polluting and or local water courses,  
your cat may have an almost zero environmental footprint! The choices  
reside with us, their owners.

Cheers,

Chris
--Apple-Mail-3-385267615
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Peter,<div><br><div><div>On =
10-Nov-09, at 10:11 AM, Peter &amp; Lorraine Hope wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: =
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; =
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; =
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: =
auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; =
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" =
style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font size=3D"2" =
face=3D"Arial">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&nbsp;( produced how?) &nbsp;plus plastics,