AllAboutPrius.com
GreenCarReports.com
AllCarsElectric.com
AllSmallCars.com
HondaInsightReviews.com
ChevyTruckReviews.com
PickupConnection.com
GMCReports.com
FordF150Reviews.com
MotorAuthority.com
LuxuryCarReport.com
AudiReports.com
BenzConnection.com
LexusReports.com
MINICooperReviews.com
BMWMonitor.com
PorscheReports.com
RangeRoverReviews.com
LotusConnection.com
FerrariReports.com
AllMinivans.com
FamilyCarGuide.com
VolvoReports.com
FordReports.com
ToyotaMonitor.com
HondaReports.com
ChevroletReports.com
VolkswagenReviews.com
AcuraRatings.com
NissanReports.com
KiaReports.com
CadillacReports.com
MustangBlog.com
CamaroBlog.com
ChallengerBlog.com
Forums
RSS
Dealers
Bengt Halvorson
Are dogs worse for the environment than SUVs?
You'll find a number of sources trumpeting the widely publicized results from New Zealand researchers, concluding that yes, dogs are worse for the planet than SUVs. But don't kick out the hound quite yet and head for the Hummer dealership; according to the Seattle-based Sightline Institute, the research is very flawed in many respects.
Robert and Brenda Vale, of Victoria University in Wellington, have claimed that a mid-size dog has a larger eco-footprint than a large luxury SUV (in their calculations, a Toyota Land Cruiser V-8).
They argue that a medium-size dog consumes 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily, resulting in a footprint of 0.84 hectares, while a Toyota Land Cruiser uses 55.1 gigajoules yearly, equating to a footprint of about 0.41 hectares.
However, they make some questionable assumptions—first off ignoring that dog food is mostly byproducts that might not otherwise be used in the human food chain; then by assuming that the vehicle will only be driven 10,000 km (about 6,200 miles) annually. According to the Department of Energy, the true U.S. average is more than twice that, at 13,700 miles. Sightline also points to a number of ways in which the energy the SUV uses—supposedly including the cost of manufacture—was severely underestimated, with the true figure about three times what they give, before including indirect impact like roads, bridges, and fuel infrastructure.
New Scientist also points to the icky issue of pet feces, which causes elevated bacteria levels in rivers and streams. But there was another environmental aspect not included on the SUV side of the researchers' calculation: tailpipe emissions.
So are our precious pooches only speeding up climate change and planetary doom? Can you feel better about the guzzler in the driveway because you don't have a dog? As usual, moderation is probably the better answer instead of these silly one-versus-the-other calculations. Just as car-sharing is a viable solution for some drivers, New Scientist suggests pet-sharing as one way to enjoy companionship while reducing your footprint.
And if you're already a dog owner, you might want to check out the Dog Friendly package offered on the quite fuel-efficient 2010 Honda Element…
[New Scientist; Sightline Institute]
2010 Toyota Land CruiserEnlarge Photo Are dogs worse for the environment than SUVs? You'll find a number of sources trumpeting the widely publicized results from New Zealand researchers, concluding that yes, dogs are worse for the planet than SUVs. But don't kick out the hound quite yet and head for the Hummer dealership; according to the Seattle-based Sightline Institute, the research is very flawed in many respects. Robert and Brenda Vale, of Victoria University in Wellington, have claimed that a mid-size dog has a larger eco-footprint than a large luxury SUV (in their calculations, a Toyota Land Cruiser V-8). They argue that a medium-size dog consumes 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily, resulting in a footprint of 0.84 hectares, while a Toyota Land Cruiser uses 55.1 gigajoules yearly, equating to a footprint of about 0.41 hectares. However, they make some questionable assumptions—first off ignoring that dog food is mostly byproducts that might not otherwise be used in the human food chain; then by assuming that the vehicle will only be driven 10,000 km (about 6,200 miles) annually. According to the Department of Energy, the true U.S. average is more than twice that, at 13,700 miles. Sightline also points to a number of ways in which the energy the SUV uses—supposedly including the cost of manufacture—was severely underestimated, with the true figure about three times what they give, before including indirect impact like roads, bridges, and fuel infrastructure. New Scientist also points to the icky issue of pet feces, which causes elevated bacteria levels in rivers and streams. But there was another environmental aspect not included on the SUV side of the researchers' calculation: tailpipe emissions. 2010 Honda Dog Friendly ElementEnlarge Photo So are our precious pooches only speeding up climate change and planetary doom? Can you feel better about the guzzler in the driveway because you don't have a dog? As usual, moderation is probably the better answer instead of these silly one-versus-the-other calculations. Just as car-sharing is a viable solution for some drivers, New Scientist suggests pet-sharing as one way to enjoy companionship while reducing your footprint. And if you're already a dog owner, you might want to check out the Dog Friendly package offered on the quite fuel-efficient 2010 Honda Element… [New Scientist; Sightline Institute]
Responses (12 total)
By dogggy #4, Posted: 11/9/2009
Theres a dog in the hallway here that leaves a larger footprint than I have ever witnessed from an SUV. I can't recall ever going out on the street and thinking to myself that from the smell of things an SUV must have just past by. However, I can't say the same for the local dog, there are always telltale signs.
By Jim b #5, Posted: 11/9/2009
Well, even better and more interesting will be an articles about
cats and prius. I'm sure the findings will be interesting, no?
Moreover, we all know that cows and sheep (see new Zealand) are
the main reason al gore is (still) in the news :)
By Limousine Liberal #6, Posted: 11/9/2009
Ain't being a true environmentalist a bitch. Once these preachers get done with the easy targets - "big oil"; "greedy corporate polluters" - the reality of everyday human consumption and its disproportionate impact on everything is revealed. Trying to then preach about that gets some push back the preachy environmentalists aren't used to hearing (at least from those who aren't easy to paint as villains)
By greedo #7, Posted: 11/9/2009
By this logic, having kids is the ecological equivalent of opening a strip mine, and the ASPCA is a bigger polluter than, say, the domestic auto industry.
Doesn't sound quite right, does it?
By carguy #8, Posted: 11/9/2009
my wife is much more scared of dogs then she is of SUV's so less Dogs means happier wife for me.
By What About Cats? #9, Posted: 11/9/2009
I'm curious...we're planning on having a few hundred or so.
By Seriously #10, Posted: 11/9/2009
Seriously? Researchers get paid to compare dogs to cars?
By Sullivan Conches #11, Posted: 11/9/2009
THIS, folks, is John Stuart Mill's marketplace of ideas. Everyone gets to say (or study) anything, and then the good ideas rise to the top (mostly) and the bad ideas ultimately get disproven, criticized, or otherwise invalidated. It's how a free people operate. I don't get the sneering ...
By Damien Thomas #12, Posted: 11/9/2009
The 2010 Honda Dog Friendly Element picture - classic :)
By Tim #13, Posted: 11/10/2009
sightline.org is a very far left, anti-capitalist organization. I'm not saying they are wrong. Just pointing out their politics...
Post a comment