Skip to main content

View Diary: They are coming for your pets! (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There could be some truth to this. (0+ / 0-)

    Some are arguing that cats and dogs are terrible for the environment.

    it takes 0.84 hectares [2.07 acres] of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. In contrast, running a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000km a year, requires 0.41 hectares. Dogs are not the only environmental sinners. The eco-footprint of a cat equates to that of a Volkswagen Golf. If that's troubling, there is an even more shocking comparison. In 2004, the average citizen of Vietnam had an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares. For an Ethiopian, it was just 0.67 hectares. In a world where scarce resources are already hogged by the rich, can we really justify keeping pets that take more than some people?"

    In particular cats are driving some species into extinction.  While some people worry about the birds that windmills kill that number is nothing compared to the birds killed by housecats and stray cats.

    If we are going to get serious about the environment then we need to limit the number of pets we have, zero being best.

    Can't we just drown Grover Norquist in a bathtub?

    by Rezkalla on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:36:28 PM PST

    •  How the hell does it take more land to feed a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dogs are fuzzy

      'medium sized' dog, than it takes to feed a person presumably around 4-5 times their bodyweight?  Dogs are omnivores, so it can't be that it takes more meat for them.  Cats are obligate carnivores, if I recall, so yeah, they're going to take more land than a somewhat larger omnivore, but how are they calculating dogs?  Or is it simply that they're using numbers based on US consumption of anything?  I would imagine US human numbers are more along the lines of 10 acres or more per person if it takes 2 for a medium dog in the US, since Americans 'overconsume'.

      If we are going to get serious about the environment then we need to limit the number of pets we have, zero being best.
      Actually, it would be better yet to limit the number of humans on the planet, starting with those that either A) live in areas with super high consumption (the US) or B) breed a lot.
    •  I actually worry more about the birds killed by (0+ / 0-)

      pesticides, rat poisons (that really does a number on owls and raptors if they eat a rodent that's been eating poison bait), herbicides and all the other toxic crap we spew into our environment.

      pre-Valentine's Day sale at my Handmade Gallery on Zibbet: 15%off scarves, jewelry, journals, artwork & more! <3

      by jan4insight on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:53:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Everything (0+ / 0-)

      is terrible for the environment. Everything we consume takes materials and energy to produce.

      Yet, some things make life much more enjoyable. And to me, happiness is one of the primary objectives for humanity in general.

      In terms of engendering human happiness per required 'acre' for upkeep, pets probably are near the top.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (174)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (50)
  • Civil Rights (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Culture (34)
  • Elections (26)
  • Law (26)
  • Economy (25)
  • Education (23)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Media (20)
  • Environment (20)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site