[Closed] Environmental cost of pet ownership

As mentioned the mental health/social benefits of dog ownership far outweighs any environmental impact

Tell that to the people suffering the brunt of the environmental impacts

touche Drac !

😉

You nearly had me DezB. 😂

That’s included. That’s why it’s says 10000km/year. It goes on to say a western pet dog has a bigger footprint than the average Vietnamese person. A cat is about the same a VW Golf

I’m pretty sure it’s frowned upon to keep Vietnamese as pets.

I pledge to make my pets carbon neutral by 2035, as they'll probably be dead. After which I'll get my fix from petting zoos.

My 14 year old 3.0 tdi will cause more damage to the environment then my multiple pets ever will

If your pets are goldfish then maybe. If they are dogs and cats then probably not. Unless "3.0 tdi" is the name of your kid

A reasonably balanced article here suggests a significant but perhaps sometimes overstated impact...

"The CO₂e for dog and cat feed is about 1 – 2 % of the countries’ total CO₂e production, but equals about 10 % (for a cat) to 20% (for a dog) of the CO₂e for feeding their owner. The contribution of feed for dogs and cats on the overall production of greenhouse gases may be overestimated in the public discussion, but cannot be neglected if food consumption is considered."

The hidden environmental cost of dogs is the huge number of owners that drive them to walks.

And cyclists who drive to ride, people who drive to walk themselves (yes people do that even if they don't have dogs - the hills wont come to you), people who drive to work, drive to the supermarket, scuba divers who drive to dive, sailors who drive to sail. What's you're point? People do shit and that shit tends not to be right outside their front door. So what's new? You telling me you don't go anywhere to do anything and lock yourself in your house? or that you don't do anything at all that impacts the environment?

Last summer during lockdown we experienced one of the best summers in recent years, people would normally have been out and about anyway...the reality is they were all confined to their local area so you were bound to see more people walking dogs.

On the environmental impact of a dog vs a car. A medium sized dog consumes about 1000 calories a day. A Toyota Landcruiser doing 7k miles a year consumes about 23,700 calories a day. The dog, assuming an average life of 13 years, 4.7 million calories over its lifetime. The Toyota over a 15 year lifespan (probably underestimating it) 130 million calories. I don't think equating the impact to a patch of land is a very representative indication of the environmental impact of anything. Especially as most Land Cruisers I see tend not to be very well maintained and kicking out clouds of black smoke and all manner of horrible toxic substances.

Also that patch of land that has been allocated to the dog is sustainable...it is harvested year after year and keeps on producing and providing beneficial environmental impact. But once you've taken that lump of iron ore out of that mine to make your car, that hole in the ground is useless forever more. And if you need more you need to go and pull up a tree and dig another dirty great hole in the ground. So not sustainable.

Who'd have thought that after that Top gear episode when they went to the North Pole and Clarkson was criticised by all those people for damaging a pristine environment they should have been criticising Hammond instead who got their via dog sled.

On the environmental impact of a dog vs a car. A medium sized dog consumes about 1000 calories a day. A Toyota Landcruiser doing 7k miles a year consumes about 23,700 calories a day. The dog, assuming an average life of 13 years, 4.7 million calories over its lifetime. The Toyota over a 15 year lifespan (probably underestimating it) 130 million calories. I don’t think

Basic mistake - 10 kg of plant to make 1kg of meat so your estimates for the dog are miles out. You also do not include the CO2 cost of transporting and processing the food.

I am not against pets but its one area where folk are so willfully blind. Just be aware of the environmental costs of your lifestyle.

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.

Taking everything else out the equation that's utter shite. As pointed out that doesn't even cover the fuel, never mind the embedded energy and manufacture of the car. Also, it was written 12 years ago so whoever wrote it probably knew nobody would bother checking. If anyone wants a citation on that I have a textbook downstairs with common bioenergy crop energy densities in it, published well after that article.

The other big assumption here is the meat content. Dogs on dry food probably eat far less meat than we do. The cheap ones (and a lot of the expensive ones) are full of grain, you have to really search for decent stuff (we went with Millies Wolfheart which stopped the room clearing stench overnight) Can only guess what the hell is in a tin of chappie. Like others we buy in bulk, 24kg at a time, lasts about a month or so.

I have no doubt he has an environmental impact, not least his shit which, if landfilled (which it is) decomposes anearobically forming methane which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Why can we not just put it in garden waste and send it to an AD plant? Because rules.

I can't be arsed subscribing to New Scientist (particularly as the article is over 11 years old) but does that link detail how they measure (or convert) Toyota Land Cruiser total lifetime energy consumption in hectares, instead of more obvious (accepted?) units of measurement (e g. Kilojoules)? And the same for dogs (or cats)?

I'd then be interested to know what their methodology is for determining how much of that energy was generated using clean/renewable versus dirty methods...

Plus does it take into account whatever carbon offsets all the parties in the supply chain use?

As a dog owner, I'm under no illusion that there is zero-enviromental cost but I'll consider getting rid of my mutt and replacing him with a big SUV if it really does reduce my carbon footprint! 😉

Unsurprisingly people don't like being told that their pets/wood burners/bitcoins/hobbies are bad for the environment. I'm sure we all have a blind spot somewhere and have no trouble doing the mental gymnastics to justify it.

Realistically, existing has an impact on the environment. If you live and breathe, you consume. So there's an obvious answer, my branded zero impact koolaid will be available shortly, payment in gold bullion only.

I’m sure we all have a blind spot somewhere and have no trouble doing the mental gymnastics to justify it.

Dont be so judgemental many of us think this through properly and make choices to mitigate our impact, TJ by spending less internet time arguing about everything. And like last year I can make sure we choose the green option for our 2 week ski holiday, we went to whistler because of the hydroelectric projects that power the resort.

If anyone is interested in the science this is quite interesting. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/6/467/5486563

It has some peer reviews of the study quoted in the New Scientist article. Also some comparisons of methods for reducing a pet's environmental footprint

And cyclists who drive to ride, people who drive to walk themselves (yes people do that even if they don’t have dogs – the hills wont come to you), people who drive to work, drive to the supermarket, scuba divers who drive to dive, sailors who drive to sail. What’s you’re point?

My point is that all of these journeys have an impact but many dog owners do it daily as part of routine.

ps. your

My next pet will be an electronic replica. No vet bills, power it down when you go on holiday, no ruined furniture, no piss on the carpet etc. Hopefully boffins are working on it now.

Davros - how about a pet rock?

My next pet will be an electronic replica. No vet bills, power it down when you go on holiday, no ruined furniture, no piss on the carpet etc. Hopefully boffins are working on it now.

Tamagotchi

having children has to be far more damaging than my little white panther

And like last year I can make sure we choose the green option for our 2 week ski holiday, we went to whistler because of the hydroelectric projects that power the resort.

This is a troll right?

having children has to be far more damaging than my little white panther

Is your little panther going to pay tax or work in the NHS or develop vaccines?

This is a troll right?

I took it as parody agreeing with the point I was making.

I have 4 cats, 2 dogs and 4 chickens. I must be a one man environment killer.

I have however not been in a plane for 20+ years and I drive about 2,000 miles a year (using a car that does over 60mpg). I also haven't eaten meat for almost 40 years.
I think I have offset my pet ownership and it is certainly not something I will be worrying about.

Do you have a child kerley? 😉

all I want is for people to be aware and realistic about the choices they make.

I took it as parody agreeing with the point I was making.

Aha yes, whooooosh!

I've not read the article and I can't be arsed to either as you can always find a study somewhere to justify one position or another.

What I do know is that my pets will have far less of an impact on the environment over their lifetime than someones kids ever will. Comments like 'dog walkers cause pollution by driving them for walks' are just daft. If you weren't taking your dog for a walk you'd be driving somewhere else to do something else. Think about how many trips in cars are made due to any leisure activity, especially if you have children.

I'm also struggling to believe for a second that my cat is more polluting than a 4x4 tbh...

this has made me think a bit. i make our dog food from deer i get from a local culler. so one bullet, and about 10 miles of diesel for the chap, the last one was about 50kg larder weight so should last a while. i do use vac pac bags though, maybe you can get reusable ones? i do walk to the park, or drive locally to walk him also. get through a lot of poo bags which are apparently biodegradeable, i wonder if there is a greener option? and of course he farts which can peel the paint of the walls....

Comments like ‘dog walkers cause pollution by driving them for walks’ are just daft. If you weren’t taking your dog for a walk you’d be driving somewhere else to do something else. Think about how many trips in cars are made due to any leisure activity, especially if you have children.

No they are not daft. You do not have to drive everywhere FFS. You have legs, there are buses and trains. You have become conditioned to think you cannot move further than 100 yards without mechanical assistance. Just make better choices where you can. I'm not advocating a blanket ban on driving anywhere. I just wish that the attitude you display above was not the majority view. I have two children and the vast majority of leisure activities when they were growing up involved a walk or bike ride from our house. I accept that inner city flat dwellers may not be so lucky. But I see so so many Chelsea tractors rammed with kids/dogs that are clearly not from a tower block.

this has made me think a bit.

I think this is the key for me. I like dogs and have no issues with pet ownership in principle. The key is to be aware that there is an environmental factor but also that you can do something about it.

The environmental impact of children is far worse. Children should be banned before pets

Couldn't agree more. Disposable nappies/washing non disposable ones just for a start.
Why anyone would want 3-4 kids nowadays is beyond me & how they afford them is another mystery, but still there's always food banks & free school meals. I digress.....

I really do not like children anymore.

Why would anyone trust children, they are here to replace you.

I just wish that the attitude you display above was not the majority view. I have two children and the vast majority of leisure activities when they were growing up involved a walk or bike ride from our house. I accept that inner city flat dwellers may not be so lucky. But I see so so many Chelsea tractors rammed with kids/dogs that are clearly not from a tower block.

Ok..Well firstly I very rarely drive to take my dog for a walk. Infact i drive less than a 1000 miles a year in total for any purpose so im perfecty aware you dont need to drive everywhere. So my attitude is just fine thanks. Plenty of folks do like to jump in the car and get into country however, and if it wasn't for dog walking it would be for some other purpose. Fact of life I'm afraid.

When it comes to the environment, I really cant take the judgmental overtones of anyone with children seriously. Just by having kids you have done far more to damage the environment than I ever will I'm afraid.

Just by having kids you have done far more to damage the environment than I ever will I’m afraid.

Yeah but someone wanted to have sex with me, just saying 😉

Yeah but someone wanted to have sex with me, just saying 😉

You are bragging on the internet you were occasionally allowed to have sex with your wife?

🤣 let's get back to the real issue. What e-dog for trail riding? Specialized spaniel?

I am beginning to think that by far the biggest influence on carbon footprint is how much you earn (or at least how much you spend). Whether the money goes on cats, dogs, SUVs, flights, coffee... is of secondary importance - it is just rearranging the furniture.

So if you do find yourself in the unenviable position of earning too much - buy quality over quantity and stick the rest in the pension and retire young.

I am beginning to think that by far the biggest influence on carbon footprint is how much you earn (or at least how much you spend).

I suspect there is a lot of truth in that. I remember a program many years ago where people from different lifestyles came together in some kind of eco-off. One woman was very preachy about her green lifestyle when they did the calculations a student came out far greener than her as they never drove anywhere, didn't really go on holiday and lived on tins of beans.

I remember a program many years ago where people from different lifestyles came together in some kind of eco-off.

I did some work for a family who lived in a 5M+ mansion near Henley, daddy worth 200M+. Hubby was really into green issues and supported electric cars so much that he bought 3 of them, and he regularly attended big environment events in the UK, Europe and US - flying first class of course. They also had a green assessment done of the house and were disappointed to find that even after making changes their kitchen/dining/living area (glazed on 3 sides) was using about as much energy as the average house, probably because it was about the size of the average house.

I am beginning to think that by far the biggest influence on carbon footprint is how much you earn (or at least how much you spend).

And how you spend it.

Again to me this comes back to the light green / dark green split. People want to be reassured that they are doing their bit and a lot of effort goes in to convincing people they can still consume but by doing this and that is makes it all OK. Greenwashing.

Not that many people are really realistic about the environmental costs of their lifestyle and / or care enough to do anything significant about it.

The only real answer to the climate crisis is we all need to consume less - a lot less. I guess many / most of you would find the compromises I make very hard - but even what I do is not enough.

Its interesting how the dog owners on here refuse to accdept they create a huge environmental cost

I think it was implicit in my post that I accepted having dogs had an environmental impact but in case I wasn't clear - I fully accept that having dogs has an environmental impact. Sorry everyone. 😉

This sounds like a job for 'more or less'.

It is interesting just how hard it is to work out the environmental cost of anything. For instance the sentence:

flying first class of course

at first glance seems indulgent, but then I started to think..

...if the objective is to spend the most money with the least environmental impact. Flying first class is pretty good at that: for around 10x the cost you get say 3x the cabin space of economy.

...On the other hand by travelling first class, there would be additional environmental costs such as provision of the first-class lounge, more cabin staff per passenger, and more general "propping-up-the airline industry" costs. which aren't accounted for simply by the size of seat.

... and of course if the objective is instead to get as many people from A to B with the least impact, flying first-class spectacularly fails on that count. But then it begs the question why do they need to get from A to B in the first place?.

...and I ended up back where I started: how much you spend probably makes far more difference than how you spend it.

Anyway, if nothing else, "saving the planet" has been a good self justification for my lack of career/financial ambition.

Anyway, if nothing else, “saving the planet” has been a good self justification for my lack of career/financial ambition.

Its a great catch all for a whole load of things like being cheap or avoiding fashion.

Anyway, if nothing else, “saving the planet” has been a good self justification for my lack of career/financial ambition.

Its a great catch all for a whole load of things like being cheap or avoiding fashion.

Works for me 🙂

Less than kids. I have no kids so I'm still ahead on the eviro stakes.

Its interesting how the dog owners on here refuse to accdept they create a huge environmental cost