Am not a fan of sustainable living, to be honest, I don’t believe in the green architecture. Don’t get me wrong, sustainable architecture is a good idea, the trouble is buildings are a minute part of the entire ‘Global Warming’ threat. By cladding buildings with solar panels is not a ‘sustainable solution’, it takes a huge amount of energy to fabricate, transport, and installs them, and these solar panels have a life span of 25 – 40 years.
In their book “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living”, New Zealand-based architects Robert and Brenda Vale say keeping a medium-sized dog has the same ecological impact as driving 10,000 km (6,213 miles) a year in a 4.6 liter Land Cruiser. Calculating that the modern Fido chows through about 164 kg of meat and 95 kg of cereals a year, the Vales estimated the ecological footprint of cats and dogs, based on the amount of land needed to grow common brands of pet food. Source: Reuters/Yahoo News
Great news, New Zealand-based architects Robert and Brenda Vale found the answer to sustainable living – by eating our pet.
By 2050, the world will host nine billion people, most of them from developing countries. How about eating human babies instead? Joking.
I like the idea of eating your own pet. I’ll start from my dog’s tail and make my way to the stomach; you guys can have the head.
The book’s playful title, and serious suggestion that pet animals may be usefully “recycled”, by being eaten by their owners or turned into petfood when they die, may not appeal to animal fans.
The answer to global warming and sustainability is none other than nuclear energy. The source of carbon dioxide emissions comes from burning coal, gas, and oil in exchange for energy. Therefore an electric car is NOT the solution; we’re simply shifting the source of carbon dioxide emissions from the car to the power plant. Electric car is the same thing with a better packaging.
Do you watch Top Gear? Jeremy Clarkson and his eco friendly car Range Rover, now that is what I call sustainable living!
“You thought green peace would save the world? But no, its Top Gear! We’ve done it!”
My lecturer once said, why should we conserve energy or save water? There are plenty of energy from the sun and nuclear, they are as good as infinite. What’s the point of saving or conserving water? Not even a single drop of water is leaving the planet, if water is not enough for the 6 billion people (9 billion in 2050), there is this ancient technology known as desalination. (How else did you think Christopher Columbus and the Spanish Conquistadors traveled to the new world with so little water?)
According to Wikipedia – A typical aircraft carrier in the U.S. military uses nuclear power to desalinate 400,000 gallons (US Gal.) or 1514 m³ of water per day. “World-wide, 13,080 desalination plants produce more than 12 billion gallons of water a day, according to the International Desalination Association.”
Professors Brenda and Robert Vale were wildly off the mark in their calculation. The real numbers, with sources, show that they were off by a factor of twenty in their comparison of the amount of farmland required to maintain a Toyota Land Cruiser and a typical dog.
I don’t mind people making provocative statements, but I don’t like mathematical dunces.
I agree with you Celvin and Cocoa, but also don’t agree. I also don’t believe to sustainable architecture and green buildings, because everyone thinks it is box covered with super ultra technology, which calculates how often do you poop, and how can we change it in to the water. And those things can only do an experts of course with licenses and glasses.
But hundred years ago, building have been build almost in diy style, with local materials, reflecting local climate, with no building approval, no technology and they live out all so called modern houses.
I know some people (mike reynolds) who think that sustainable means using local material (even trash) with diy style, with 20th century knowledge. Those are real architects, who just don’t copy modernism and thinks forward.
they need scientology
@L Ron Hubbub
Scientology? I think the Amish Mennonite church and the Islamic Taliban extremist are both better than Scientology in so many ways, at least they dont contribute to global warming.
Actually, buildings are not a “minute part of the entire ‘Global Warming’ threat.” Buildings account for 40% of our total energy use, while industry uses 32% and transportation uses 28%. Reducing the energy consumption of buildings will have the largest impact on global warming.
Also an electric car runs far more efficiently than an internal combustion engine. Certainly some load will be shifted to electricity producers, as less gasoline is used, but electric cars require less energy and produce far fewer emissions. There is of course the problem with the hazardous materials in the battery, that must be disposed of carefully. I figured this isn’t a concern for you, since you are such a strong proponent of nuclear power.
When they all stop using electricity, heating, gas, etc. pet-loving people will consider stop having pets. Not any sooner.
Do they mention that dog food is made up of meat from “Rendering Plants” (food processing)? Humans won’t eat this meat in the U.S. (and the government says that’s it’s not fit for human consumption). Meat from rendering plants is all waste, essentially animal by-products that would be thrown away. Also when cows, chicken and swine eat, they process corn and wheat that humans cannot eat (I do know that corn is not their natural food). Not to mention making a car requires the use of animal by-products (the factory machinery needs lubricants from animal by-products, not to mention industrial chemicals using the same by-products). I think the authors have no idea how consumer products are manufactured (food is a consumer product).
Also I wonder if I feed my dog all table scraps or my local butchers surplus meat and not dog food is the impact the same? It is certainly less than a human baby or an inmate in a prison.
Ever since learning this news, I have been training my dog to breath less. I used to let him run about in the yard for much of the day, sometimes the whole time I was at work, not knowing the amounts of CO2 this foot-printed. I’ve also shut the blinds and blocked off the lower windows so he doesn’t get worked up and excited about people wandering past our property. Overall I estimate I’ve significantly lowered his CO2 emissions and he’s in general a more sustainable dog now.
He watched Al Gore’s movie on the small energy efficient LCD screen TV, and has a polar bear chew toy which he is quite fond of, so I think his overall awareness level is quite high for a dog.