Is Owning a Dog Worse than Owning an SUV?
- Posted by: Zach Frechette
- on November 3, 2009 at 10:06 am
New Scientist took a look at the relative carbon impact of owning a dog (or cat, or hamster) and owning an SUV like a Toyota Land Cruiser. The results, plotted in the chart above, may surprise you. Take a look at the original article to see if you agree with the methodology, or if you can even put an environmental price on your furkid.
(Via @foodrumblings)









DISCUSSION: 11 Comments
What if your dog only eats carbon?
Cuddles combat global warmings!
Pretty low mileage driven per year:10,000 km = 6,200+ milesStill interesting. You can have my wife’s dog.
What about kids?
“But if you must own your own, think about getting an animal that serves
a dual purpose. He recommends hens, which partly compensate for their
eco-footprint by providing eggs. Or there is an even better
alternative, if you can stomach it. ‘Rabbits are good,’ he says, ‘provided you eat them.’”Have we really gotten to the point where the companionship, health, happiness and good times provided by a pet are not legitimate purposes of human activity?
Wow, this is interesting
yeah kill your dog and go to buy a SUV NOW!!!! you’ill be much more environmental friendly…1) 10,000km/year is really too low…2) they included the energy for the construction of the SUV but what about the dog?3) they didn’t consider the entire life cycle…what about the final disposal? I think a dog is much more biodegradable than a SUV!!i’ll keep my dog while i wait for futher investigations…
As Fast Company said on their take on the results published by New Scientist, “Too bad the figures smell like bullshit.” Bang21 already hit the nail on the head, 6200 miles per year is barely half the actual average mileage in the United States. And the meat and grain that goes into dog food is mostly byproduct from meat processing for humans, so what’s the “fresh” bit in that 450 grams the Vales are using? I mean valiant effort and all to try to “live green,” but let’s put a bit more research and thought into things before publishing.
…but my cat also stop many birds and mice from making carbon emissions, so shouldn’t he be getting a carbon credit for that? If that were taken into account I am sure my cat is carbon neutral.
I’m mostly curious why someone would think up this question and spend time comparing the need of a living thing to a machine? But like the previous commenter mentioned, the meat that is the hugest chunk of this equation is mostly byproduct, not primarily grown just for dog food. Who funded this study?
Maybe a better question would be, “What’s worse? Being a smug wanker with nothing better to do than attempt to make people feel bad about their pets, or minding your own damn business?”