Pets Worse than SUVs for the Environment?

Last week, a friend sent an article for me to read, which to say the least, got me rather deeply disturbed. She was rather upset about it and wanted my opinion. Now I am very concerned about our environment and I try my best to be ecologically savvy.

I do my part to help keep our environment safer by recycling, using environmentally friendly light bulbs and other contributory simple tasks. But at the same time, I do think that some people go overboard in their attempt to promote ecological soundness. Perhaps I am over-reacting, but this "gem" of research that she sent me, seemed to me to be over the top!

According to Robert and Brenda Vale, the authors of a recently released book, "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living", apparently our pets are leaving a huge carbon "paw print" on the planet. The Vales who are specialists in sustainable living at the Victoria University in Wellington, man's best friend annually consumes about 360 pounds of meat and 95 kilos of cereal.

Photo credit: ABC News This translates, in land requirement which is needed to produce this amount of food for a medium-sized canine has an "annual footprint of 2.07 acres which is twice the amount of energy needed to drive a 4X4 6,200 miles a year which additionally includes the energy needed to by manufacture the car, alone!

The New Scientist Magazine confirmed the data provided by the Vales by requesting Mr. John Barrett from the Stockholm Environmental Institute located in York, Britain, to re-calculate these eco- paw prints himself. Interestingly, Mr. Barrett's results were basically similar. Mr. Barrett said, "Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat."

Cats have an eco- footprint of approximately 0.15 hectares which is almost as much needed to drive a Volkswagen Golf for 12 months. Furthermore, goldfish burn enough energy to power two cell phones and keeping two hamsters fed and cared for equivalents the energy needed to run a plasma TV.

The Vales added that "Other animals aren't much better for the environment." The Vales caution that our pets' environmental impact is not only in the carbon foot prints that they leave. They continue by reminding us that cats and dogs spread disease, decimate wildlife and poison our waterways. Cats feces is far more toxic than dog poop, and people who flush this waste down the toilets makes a huge negative impact upon wildlife living in streams and lakes.

According to the New Scientist, in Britain, with a total of 7.7 million cats, annually over 188 wild animals are hunted, killed and consumed by the feline predators. Broken down into categories, this is an average of 25 mammals, birds and frogs per cat.

As one solution to the negative impact our pets are making on our environment, Mr. Vale suggests that we feed our pets a reduced protein-rich meat diet. He says, "If pussy is scoffing 'Fancy Feast' -- or some other food made from choice cuts of meat -- then the relative impact is likely to be high. If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower."

However, what Mr. Vale may not fully grasp is the necessity of high protein meat diets, especially for the obligate carnivore, the housecat, to ensure its robust health. It seems to me that he neglects to fully consider the nutritional needs of our pets.

Of course, this research has certainly made a negative impact upon pet lovers, who consider their pets essential to their well being and their inner psyche-environment. Since it has been established that a purring cat can lower our blood pressure, and the friendship which develops between humans and their pets is deep and long lasting, do the Vales stop and consider these factors into their equation? I think not.

What reaction do you have to this research? Leave a comment and share your thoughts.