A cat has the same carbon footprint as a VW golf...

[Pappa]

I saw this article in the paper about a month ago. . . what a load of shit.

Actually, it's pretty sound. Pets do have quite significant carbon footprints.

Every pet cat? The same carbon footprint?

No, it depends on what they're fed on mostly.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I saw this article in the paper about a month ago. . . what a load of shit.

Actually, it's pretty sound. Pets do have quite significant carbon footprints.

Every pet cat? The same carbon footprint?

No, it depends on what they're fed on mostly.

Ah, and how often is the Golf driven and by what kind of driver?

[piscator]

I saw this article in the paper about a month ago. . . what a load of shit.

Actually, it's pretty sound. Pets do have quite significant carbon footprints.

indeed...




well, on second thought...

[Pappa]

I saw this article in the paper about a month ago. . . what a load of shit.

Actually, it's pretty sound. Pets do have quite significant carbon footprints.

Every pet cat? The same carbon footprint?

No, it depends on what they're fed on mostly.

Ah, and how often is the Golf driven and by what kind of driver?

An average one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I saw this article in the paper about a month ago. . . what a load of shit.

Actually, it's pretty sound. Pets do have quite significant carbon footprints.

Every pet cat? The same carbon footprint?

No, it depends on what they're fed on mostly.

Ah, and how often is the Golf driven and by what kind of driver?

An average one.

I'm good then, I only have 72,000 miles on a 13 yo GMC Sonoma, so I have credit for my cats.

[Pappa]

I'm good then, I only have 72,000 miles on a 13 yo GMC Sonoma, so I have credit for my cats.

It's not a competition.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm good then, I only have 72,000 miles on a 13 yo GMC Sonoma, so I have credit for my cats.

It's not a competition.

You say that when I've already won?

[anna09]

So what do these people expect everyone to do with their domestic cats and dogs? Kill them? Abandon them?

That's ridiculous.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So what do these people expect everyone to do with their domestic cats and dogs? Kill them? Abandon them?

That's ridiculous.

The carbon footprint should be charged to the human that maintains the animals, not the animals.

[anna09]

These articles are repulsive and sending a horrible message.

But there are more acceptable ways to reduce your pet's impact. Feeding the cat or dog leftovers will have an immediate effect - and also help do something about the scandal of food waste.

You can't just give your pets food scraps and leftovers! There are MANY things that are extremely unhealthy for them that are in our everyday food plus, how are you so sure that the "scraps" that you'd give them have the complete nutritional value for them to be healthy?

As far as diseases and over-population, we counter that by spaying and neutering, keeping cats indoors, cracking down on puppy mills and vaccinating our pets. I don't like how these articles are suggesting that cats and dogs are just wasteful appliances sucking energy and should be tossed like some old car.

[Thinking Aloud]

Interesting reactions here.

"Scientists say keeping a pet has a pretty big carbon footprint."

"Pet owners dismiss scientific findings as 'repulsive and abhorrent'."

Almost like dismissing the evidence that the earth is 4.6 billion years old just because your favourite book says it isn't.

Whether we like it or not, pets are a luxury item. No-one needs to keep a pet, people just want to, for whatever reason. (I'm ignoring trained 'assistance' animals here.) And no-one likes being told that keeping their favourite luxury item may have adverse effects elsewhere.

[Reverend Blair]

Whether we like it or not, pets are a luxury item. No-one needs to keep a pet, people just want to, for whatever reason. (I'm ignoring trained 'assistance' animals here.) And no-one likes being told that keeping their favourite luxury item may have adverse effects elsewhere.

It's one of those ugly memes the denialists love to plant and expand on though, TA. "Environmentalists want you to kill your cat."

As for whether we "need" pets, there have been studies reported in the mainstream media showing health benefits for pet owners.

The article also doesn't take ghg reductions from pet ownership into account. If you have a cat sitting on you, you tend to keep the heat turned down. If you have a dog, you tend to walk more for short errands. If your wife would let you get a goat, you wouldn't have to run the lawnmower, but your wife will never let you get a goat just because she knows that when it got cold in the winter you'd bring the goat into the living room and get it to come up on the couch to help keep you warm. And don't even get me started on llamas.

So yeah, pets are a luxury item and they do increase your carbon footprint, but there are benefits to it. The VW Golf comparison is bullshit though...one of those meaningless non-measurements used to make us stupid like "Six football stadiums" or "438 elephants high." It's essentially a goofy scare tactic.

It also ignores that a lot pets are rescues. They already existed, so taking them in may increase the owner's carbon footprint, and looking after them properly may increase the pet's carbon footprint, but there was some sort of footprint there to begin with.

[Clinton Huxley]

If there weren't so many cats, there'd be a lot more songbirds. Any one know the carbon clawprint of a sparrow?

[Blip]

You can't just give your pets food scraps and leftovers! There are MANY things that are extremely unhealthy for them that are in our everyday food plus, how are you so sure that the "scraps" that you'd give them have the complete nutritional value for them to be healthy?

That's true. Plus cats need taurine in their diet, which they won't get from human leftovers.

As far as diseases and over-population, we counter that by spaying and neutering, keeping cats indoors, cracking down on puppy mills and vaccinating our pets.

That's true too. Not everyone realises that spaying and neutering helps to protect companion animals from diseases (e.g. pyometra, in female cats) as well as helping to control their populations. There's a very accessible summary at http://www.catchat.org/neuter.html

It also ignores that a lot pets are rescues. They already existed, so taking them in may increase the owner's carbon footprint, and looking after them properly may increase the pet's carbon footprint, but there was some sort of footprint there to begin with.

Yes. A stray animal's life is a hungry, miserable one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Interesting reactions here.

"Scientists say keeping a pet has a pretty big carbon footprint."

"Pet owners dismiss scientific findings as 'repulsive and abhorrent'."

Almost like dismissing the evidence that the earth is 4.6 billion years old just because your favourite book says it isn't.

Whether we like it or not, pets are a luxury item. No-one needs to keep a pet, people just want to, for whatever reason. (I'm ignoring trained 'assistance' animals here.) And no-one likes being told that keeping their favourite luxury item may have adverse effects elsewhere.

"Some scientists" say . . .

And the source is dubious at best.