Tui on flax.
New Scientist brings an article that has raised hackles around the world: How green is your pet?:
SHOULD owning a great dane make you as much of an eco-outcast as an SUV driver? Yes it should, say Robert and Brenda Vale, two architects who specialise in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. In their new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living, they compare the ecological footprints of a menagerie of popular pets with those of various other lifestyle choices — and the critters do not fare well.
As well as guzzling resources, cats and dogs devastate wildlife populations, spread disease and add to pollution. It is time to take eco-stock of our pets.
… [the calculation] gives [a medium sized dog] a footprint of 0.84 hectares. For a big dog such as a German shepherd, the figure is 1.1 hectares.
Meanwhile… [a] Land Cruiser’s eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares — less than half that of a medium-sized dog.
Newfies in Wellington.
Two major factors I haven’t seen mentioned are the exhaust fumes from the vehicle and the whole mess of roading infrastructure that cars require. I imagine that once they were reckoned in the picture would look very different.
But of course the point of research reported like this is to generate controversy.
Hugely important parts of pet ownership, such as companionship, increased exercise, metal wellbeing, opportunities to socialise with others and the like don’t enter at all into the calculations.
Cat and rat on the mat.
And just a word in defence of cats: I know they prey on birds and can cause real problems around endangered species.
But I also know our cats kill far more mice and rats than they do any other creature. Rats are a major threat to birds in New Zealand, and have been responsible for extinctions all around the world.
There’s plenty more to pet ownership than just how much land is required to feed them.
Note: thanks to spammers, comments are closed until around mid-January 2010.
