Carbon “paw” print?

I came across this article the other day in an email and I found it very interesting. The article takes on the idea of animals and their carbon footprint. They compare the carbon footprint of building and driving a car to being less then one of a cocker spaniel. That kind of information is insane. In the UK six million households have at least one dog. This is something to think about when wanting to reduce your households carbon footprint. The article goes on to talk about eating your dog and even provides a link for a recipe. I don’t plan on doing that, but still…interesting stuff.

Eric Gietzen


7 Responses so far »

  1. 1

    aspenb said,

    That’s just sick. seriously, we use up the most carbon, but you don’t see any one (shy of Hannibal Lecter) offering to eat our own to lower the footprint. Ethical? Seriously, I’ll leave it to PETA to make sure this never happens, but you don’t eat your pets, you just don’t. If the were wild carnivorous cats and dogs just like the old days before we domesticated them (like horses) they wouldn’t be causing such a large ‘footprint’. It is the way WE feed them that makes their ‘disposal’ bad for the environment. If they ate natural foods, they would cycle back into the earth.
    Maybe we should stop making all our solutions annihilating everything and realize that WE as a species, not ANY other, are the problem.


  2. 2

    egietz said,

    Well, I probably should have made it clear that I don’t agree with the actions they are wanting to take to fix the problem. I was using the article as more of an awareness to people that animals have a large carbon foot print. I don’t necessarily believe that people should eat their dogs because of it, but BBC raises some serious questions and that is what I wanted to focus on.
    It’s alright though, the reader can take a completely negative view and entirely miss the point.


  3. 3

    Alfred said,

    Wow, that really is an interesting article. I like dogs, but wont be puttin’ them on the menu anytime soon, but that is something to think about. I’m sure they weren’t actually serious about eating dogs. Taking that phrase and relating it to us as humans eating each other is kind of ridiculous. We eat chickens, fish, and all kinds of animals. When we eat those it isn’t unethical. Just because a dog is considered a pet because we “domesticated” them, is that what makes it morally wrong? I’m not saying eating a dog is what we should do, but its a little ridiculous to say that is unethical when we eat other animals all the time. Why dont you get PETA on that too. We as humans are responsible for everything. There is no doubt about that, but how you got there through eating dogs being unethical… I dont know about that.

    – Al to the Fred

  4. 4

    shermanj said,

    I just ran across this article that challenges the idea that pet’s have a big carbon footprint. Check it out:

    – Jacob S.

  5. 5

    gietz said,

    Jacob this is a great article! It definitely puts things in to perspective, but like the article said, you need to still look at the fact of the matter. Dogs have a impact on the atmosphere, as does everything else…but still.

  6. 6

    Mad Dog Schneider said,

    I like to argue as much as the next person! I think the BBC raised a good tongue in cheek question and the point is that EVERYTHING has a foot print or pawprint or ‘fin-print’ and it needs to be taken into account. Now in regards to eating Dog, it is quite regular for many different cultures to have consumed dog as part of their regular diet, there are many instances where Eskimos and adventurers who travel in the artic and antartic and also native americans and indigious people eat their pets. Not that I would ever want to eat one of my dogs, I wouldn’t presume to judge another person’s culture as that would assume that mine is dominant. I think Sherman raised a good point and the analysis he submitted was excellent. I think the reason he is so smart is that he probably was the pet to Mr. Peabody, see the following link. The resemblance is uncanny.

  7. 7

    Matthew said,

    Let me ask you this: what difference is there in growing meat to be slaughtered and eating your own pet? If anything, you offer your pet a longer, happier and healthier life! Also, if you wait to eat your pet when they near the end of their life, you do it a favor as most pets (dogs at least) suffer tremendously as they grow old. Besides, eating our pets is a way of allowing them to repay their debt to society.

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: