1 hour ago
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
A tough choice for any family, but according to a new study recently published the family dog looks to be contributing more to global warming than that favorite villain of environmentalists... the SUV. Read the full story here.
This really is disappointing news, if only this study had been published before I went on my carfree crusade I could have saved myself a lot of useless headache. Part of my reasoning for going carfree for a year was to reduce my ecological footprint, but it seems this new study gives me an easier alternative.
Rather than giving up my '83 Toyota Landcruiser that only gets 14 miles-to-the-gallon I could have been practicing a little population control on the neighborhood dogs, having a tasty meal, and saving the planet all at the same time. I could be out there stalking around my neighborhood at night dressed all in black luring neighbor's dogs out with the promise of steak, then capturing them for my planet saving plan... just garnish with some seasoning and a side of baked potatoes. I could still be driving around with a clean conscience and I could have had more of an impact than by giving up on driving... all the while hot having to screw around with riding a bike in subzero temperatures.
Now, I am only kidding as I never intentionally eat such a meal. But it is amazing to think that a pet could be twice as harmful to the environment as an SUV, mainly because of the food that we feed them. I think this study is great because pet ownership is something that most American enjoys and also an aspect of people's live that hasn't received such an analysis. The impact of our transportation and food systems are well known, continually being debated and revised. But pet ownership is something that completely fell under the scope of any analysis. I doubt this will seriously wake people up to the idea of getting rid of fluffy, but maybe it will inspire more debate and a new look at our collective ecological footprint.