Save the Planet. Eat your Pet.

[Bob Smalser]

Textbook. Winning friends and influencing people. Better even than whale thugs. Wonder what (or who) is next?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2...ime-to-eat-dog

The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.

The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.

"If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around," Brenda Vale said.

"A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable."

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats....

[Mitchell Andrus]

Maybe the Koreans have had the right ide....

OK, OK. It's a joke. I've had cats all my life. It's a joke. I love dogs too.... with a side of roasted pep....

Another (Monty Python induced), JOKE!

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Bob,

I find your photo so fitting!

The LOML and I spent last New Years Eve.....1st time on a sailboat.....50' sailboat......had a fine dinner on it (I thought at the time).....sailing Auckland Harbor........

[Horton Brasses]

Very amusing. They say meat eaters also have much higher "carbon footprint" than vegetarians. So if we all became vegetarians we could drive Hummers in peace. Essentially it boils down to all the CO2 produced in the production of livestock.

Personally, I think vegetarianism is fine, but with the exception of practicing Hindus it is a luxury that is uniquely afforded to affluent first world people. Try asking starving children in Africa to give up what little meat they get to save the world.

[Don C Peterson]

LOL, Bob. The answer is that they won't stop until we are all virtual slaves who can't make any decisions for ourselves.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Very amusing. They say meat eaters also have much higher "carbon footprint" than vegetarians. So if we all became vegetarians we could drive Hummers in peace. Essentially it boils down to all the CO2 produced in the production of livestock.

That leads to a question: If the meat eaters substituted plant life for the animal products, could enough be grown and would the carbon footprint really be smaller?

There is a puzzle that hits on this.

You are on that desert island we all seem to end up on and you have a bag of grain and a chicken. Do you feed the grain to the chicken and eat the eggs until the grain is gone and then eat the chicken, or do you just eat the chicken and then the grain? It's obvious there's a net loss in keeping the chicken alive, and the eggs come from the grain anyway.

There is an efficiency in cutting out the middle-man (cow) and just eating the grain, but don't the cows process the grain and cull out the waste as we would during digestion, essentially making the cow's meat a purer food (grain minus the manure)?
.

[Bob Smalser]

One problem with being a vegan is that man didn't evolve as one. A principle reason man's brain developed as large as it is was a combination of efficient, high-end nutrition from an omnivorous diet heated by fire, and the complexity of problem-solving required hunting (dangerous) game of sufficient size to feed family groups and clans.

All the amino acid gaps inherent in poorly-planned vegetarian diets need to be filled. This is doubly true if children are involved. Given enough time and some help by pathogens that are also selected for success as they meet their challenges, failure to do so may solve the human overpopulation problem single-handedly.

[phil harold]

People EatingTastyAnimals

[Dan Friedrichs]

... failure to do so may solve the human overpopulation problem single-handedly.

You know, everyone talks about the carbon problem and all the wacky unrealistic solutions to it, and we all have to feel guilty for using a little bit of fossil fuels, but no one seems to want to mention that the quickest, simplest, and most efficacious solution is: Less people.

[Jon Knauft]

Oh my gosh! Soylent Green was ahead of its time.

[Jason Roehl]

You know, everyone talks about the carbon problem and all the wacky unrealistic solutions to it, and we all have to feel guilty for using a little bit of fossil fuels, but no one seems to want to mention that the quickest, simplest, and most efficacious solution is: Less people.

I've always said that those who advocate fewer people on the planet should lead the way!

Everybody likes more trees, right? Well part of a tree's "diet" is carbon dioxide. So, the more carbon dioxide I produce, the more trees I feed.

[Richard M. Wolfe]

Personally, I am tired of people picking on poor defeseless plants. Nobody asked them if them cared whether they were whacked down and barbequed. If you go after animals then at least they have a chance...you have to chase them down or find some other way to outsmart them.

[Bill Arnold]

... If you go after animals then at least they have a chance...you have to chase them down or find some other way to outsmart them.

Or just go to the market and buy a nice steak!

[Greg Peterson]

You know, everyone talks about the carbon problem and all the wacky unrealistic solutions to it, and we all have to feel guilty for using a little bit of fossil fuels, but no one seems to want to mention that the quickest, simplest, and most efficacious solution is: Less people.

Ah, but in ye' olden days it was a necessity be go forth and multiply. Before the advent of the internal combustion engine farmers that could not afford slaves had to have large families to work the farm. That mode is a bit out dated but still seemingly practiced by far to many.

'Tis of little concern however, as mother nature will correct any imbalance that may occur in her domain. While man may be more than capable of influencing this oasis within an infinity of nothingness, mother nature will always have the last word. The die is cast, we may as well prepare for whatever is in store for us.

Excuse me while I go walk the dog now. She's small, but spirited.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Even more disturbing.....some folks don't want to accept the fact that humans are part of nature..............so in the grand scheme of things....what we do might be what was meant to be or just part of the "natural" evolution of the planet earth and the species.