A concerted push by environmentalists to stop people eating meat or owning animals. What is next?

After getting rid of animals to eat and pets to own do they argue that there should be no more humans? I guess that they are already there.

People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.

Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.” . . . .

See this for the concerns about pets. File under the headline that "Land Cruiser is more eco-friendly than your dog!"

In a new research, scientists have determined that pets can play a large part in increasing greenhouse gas emissions, with calculations indicating that a Land Cruiser's eco-footprint being about 0.41 hectares, which is less than half that of a medium-sized dog.

According to a report in New Scientist, the research was done by Robert and Brenda Vale, two architects who specialise in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand.

As well as guzzling resources, cats and dogs devastate wildlife populations, spread disease and add to pollution.

To measure the ecological paw, claw and fin-prints of the family pet, the Vales analysed the ingredients of common brands of pet food.

They calculated, for example, that a medium-sized dog would consume 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily in its recommended 300-gram portion of dried dog food.

At its pre-dried weight, that equates to 450 grams of fresh meat and 260 grams of cereal.

That means that over the course of a year, Fido wolfs down about 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals.

It takes 43.3 square metres of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year - far more for beef and lamb - and 13.4 square metres to generate a kilogram of cereals. So that gives him a footprint of 0.84 hectares.

For a big dog such as a German shepherd, the figure is 1.1 hectares.

Meanwhile, an SUV, driven a modest 10,000 kilometres a year, uses 55.1 gigajoules, which includes the energy required both to fuel and to build it.

The Vales used a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser in their comparison.

One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of energy per year, so the Land Cruiser's eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares - less than half that of a medium-sized dog.

Doing similar calculations for a variety of pets and their foods, the Vales found that cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf), hamsters come in at 0.014 hectares apiece and canaries half that.

Even a goldfish requires 0.00034 hectares (3.4 square metres) of land to sustain it, giving it an ecological fin-print equal to two cellphones.

The Vales suggest that eco-friendly animal lovers should change the diet of their pet. Meat is the key, since its production is so energy-intensive.

They can almost halve the eco-pawprint of their dogs, simply by feeding it many of the same sort of savory foods that they eat, which are likely to be far less protein-rich than most dog foods, they added.

Another discussion of the concerns over pets is available here.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Harry Schell said...

Kll all the animals (people too), shut down the power plants, etc...annual CO2 emissions drop by 4-5%.

Lord Stern needs a good doctor and some meds to help him come back to earth. Or some time in a room with very soft walls and calming music.

Stop emoting and start thinking, you twit.

10/27/2009 10:00 AM  
Blogger Braxton Hicks said...

"Carbon content of my food?"
That's when I char the hot dogs too much on the grill!

10/27/2009 10:07 AM  
Blogger Al B. said...

This is, of course, a very serious matter. By the logic presented here, humans must have an enormous carbon footprint.

But, what about zombies? Do zombies have a positive or negative carbon footprint? By the reasoning used by the Vales, zombies would have an even more substantial carbon footprint than humans, since zombies are voracious eaters and rapidly consume all of the humans in their area. This has been demonstrated by the peer-reviewed math paper available here:


The question is, what happens to zombies when their source of energy -- humans, is exhausted. This has never been resolved in any of the scientific literature on the subject. If they just become inactive, then one could reason that they have a negative carbon footprint since they eliminate all of those wasteful, carbon-emitting humans without any further environmental impact.

On the other hand, what would happen if zombies only ate environmentalists? By eliminating support for cap-and-trade legislation, the zombies would be leading us toward a global climate catastrophe!

With Halloween rapidly approaching, it's critical that we solve this conundrum before it's too late!

Al B.

10/27/2009 2:06 PM  
Blogger Paul Gordon said...

With this bunch, the best rule of thumb is...

"The more insane something sounds, the more likely they are deadly serious about it".


10/27/2009 2:45 PM  
Blogger Chas said...

"Lord Stern"? Didn't our ancestors here in America used to use people like him for target practice back in the 18th century? The American Revolution continues to improve with age. Britain, on the other hand, has become more insufferable. Don't we still owe them a colonization?

10/28/2009 9:05 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home