By Maybe the alarmists can use this to explain the Miedeval Warm Period, civilizations back then just owned a lot of dogs!
A man walks his dog in the snow in the East Village on December 19 in New York City.
Man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
But the revelation in the book “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living” by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.
The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.
Combine the land required to generate its food and a “medium” sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) — around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4×4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.
To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.
“Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat,” Barrett said.
Other animals aren’t much better for the environment, the Vales say. [AFP]
Judging by the above picture the American East Coast could use a little global warming right now. Anyway read the rest of the article, but essentially all pets are bad for the environment according to this report. So this means that if you are Korean and someone complains to you about how Koreans eat dogs now you can just say you are just simply protecting the environment. 
However, the big story is the natural evolution of the eco-faith. Now we can add animal sacrifice to their list of rituals. I wonder if the high priest Al Gore will conduct the first sacrificial rights to the Gaian Gods for the eco-faithful?
What does this say about Americans?...
1:10 pm on December 22nd, 2009 1
[...] Environmentalists Recommend Eating Your Dog Before Getting Rid of … [...]
1:44 pm on December 22nd, 2009 2
Wow, you’re a walking, talking stereotype: in the US Military, pro-Republican, climate change denier.
2:04 pm on December 22nd, 2009 3
Uh, in case you didn’t realize there is no Fairness Doctrine and its (mostly) a free country. I suppose the solution which would make you happy is for GI In Korea to shut up and just let these academics publish whatever they want?
2:30 pm on December 22nd, 2009 4
If this is true then I guess we can say that Koreans are more environmentally friendly than lets say – dog loving (in a slightly different way) Germans.
2:38 pm on December 22nd, 2009 5
I am a global-warming believing hypocrite who drives an SUV — finally, a solution!
4:36 pm on December 22nd, 2009 6
So let me get this straight, a medium size dog eats 1 pound of meat and .6 pounds of “cereal” each day and a gas guzzling SUV drives 6,200 miles per year?
Am I suppose to be impressed with these numbers? I know of know dog that eats a pound of meat a day and I know of no one who drives their SUV 6,200 miles a year.
Am I reading these numbers wrong? Does an average size dog require more calories per day than an adult male human?
Are these numbers derived from the great mathematician Paul Watson on the Wayback Machine Steve Irwin?
4:53 pm on December 22nd, 2009 7
Start your own Blog Bob. You can call it Bob’s Blog that sucks less than Huffpo.
5:24 pm on December 22nd, 2009 8
Well said!
5:29 pm on December 22nd, 2009 9
Don’t worry Bob. The Communist Party is looking for new blood. Or, you can leave whenever you find a better country. China, Iraq, england, France and many others will take you also.
5:33 pm on December 22nd, 2009 10
Lemmy, are you really trying to understand “Warmers”.
5:47 pm on December 22nd, 2009 11
Well Bob the only thing you know for sure is that I am in the military, you however have no idea if I am a Republican or a “denier” whatever you believe that to be.
Especially when I have already clearly pointed out the climate has changed before like during the Medieval Warm Period which your buddies at the CRU were busy trying to cover up.
5:49 pm on December 22nd, 2009 12
Well Lemmy they may have employed the CRU to doctor their numbers for them. They have a wealth of experience doing this
6:01 pm on December 22nd, 2009 13
A carbon footprint has nothing to do with land area. WTF kind of bearded tea drinker wrote this crap? How about telling us how many pounds of carbon an average dog is using or producing? For example 1 KwH of electricity produced by a coal fired generator in the United States produced on average 2.095 LBS of CO2 in 1999. This article and the ‘study’ are intentionally turning apples into kiwi fruit so you can’t compare it to anything except what is in the article. Worthless.
Besides… no one can provide any data telling you that a reduction in X amount of CO2 will result in Y amount of Temperature reduction (Or how many dogs to cull for that matter). They can’t because they have no idea how the climate actually works. Yet the eco freaks want the average joe to sacrafice and pay carbon tax for the good of the planet. More like the good of their wallets.
Trivia: Which greenhouse gas is at least 100 times more effective than CO2 at retaining heat in the atmosphere?
It’s WATER VAPOR. We better get the EPA to make it a harmful gas like they have done with CO2 so the gubment can regulate and tax you for your Water Vapor Footprint.
6:17 pm on December 22nd, 2009 14
Reminds me of the Y2K scare tactics.
6:24 pm on December 22nd, 2009 15
I know this guy who has a pretty neat theory. He thinks Global Warmists should solidly back the US military and the Global War On Terror. Why? Because we are snuffing out so many carbon footprints!
6:27 pm on December 22nd, 2009 16
Free education here (warning may require reading comprehension and critical thinking!)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/global-warming-skepticism-101/
6:42 pm on December 22nd, 2009 17
Why is it that a well documented, scientifically provable, theory – such as Global Warming – needs so much propaganda pushed down our throats. If it is so obvious and the changes are everywhere, shouldn’t the average person be able to perceive it? Is it that the average person is just too dumb?
After all, the average person knows politicians are scum bags and it didn’t require hours of propaganda each day on radio and TV for us to recognize it.
It’s been proven the earth has warmed, and cooled, numerous times in just the last 1000 years. What’s so critical in this cyclical occurrence that suddenly requires smashing economies and lifestyles? Let’s say we ARE warming. Perhaps we have been living in an unnaturally cool era and the earth is returning to it’s normal mean temperatures. As a kid, I recall all the scare mongering about the “Coming Ice age”. Doom was imminent!
With all that said; I would like to see more power generated from solar, wind, hydro etc as long as it is fiscally and technologically reasonable to do so. If for no other reason than to get us off foreign oil. I’d like to see the sheiks drink that crap and return to their desert dwelling, sheep herder ways. The US should lead the way. I think it would stimulate the economy – which paradoxically, the Warming Alarmists always seem to be against.
6:53 pm on December 22nd, 2009 18
Exactly
We have the technology to replace the current fossil fuel energy infrastructure with IFR Nuclear Reactors and Electric vehicles and completly eliminate fossil fuel pollution and oil dependence. Of course the same people who want you to stop heating your house and driving your car in order to save the planet don’t want this either. Why is that? If the situation is so dire then why won’t they explore an existing option that would solve many more issues than just greenhouse gas emmisions?
7:42 pm on December 22nd, 2009 19
Thats easy. We are dealing with hippies. ‘Nuf said!
10:20 pm on December 22nd, 2009 20
We have a congress with a cumulative IQ less that of the outside temperature. Could that be a reason?
3:35 am on December 23rd, 2009 21
Not too many bright spots in there, is there?
7:56 pm on December 27th, 2009 22
I know its a bit of a necro bumb, but we don’t have the technology for all electric vehicles yet. The problem is with the battery, we can’t get a high enough energy density just yet. The real reason we use carbon based fuels (gasoline / diesel / jet fuel) as a portable fuel source is because it packs a LARGE amount of energy in a small size. Thus we can go farther and faster for the same amount of mass.
8:19 pm on December 27th, 2009 23
And what do you do with 300lbs of used up batteries when the vehicle goes to the junk yard? Multiply that by 100 million vehicles.
I think the envirimental problems will quickly become as disasterous as fossil fuels.
1:36 am on December 28th, 2009 24
Depends on the type of batteries. I’m not talking alkaline, LiIon, or NMH here. Those types eventually wear out and need replacing. Super capacitors are used all the time for large amounts of energy storage, but currently they are huge and only reasonable at power stations and other fixed facilities.