A MEDIUM-sized dog has the same carbon impact as a Toyota Land Cruiser driven 6,000 miles a year, a new book claims. Time To Eat The Dog: The Real Guide To Sustainable Living also suggests a cat is equivalent to running a Volkswagen Golf.

The findings are based on the amount of land needed to grow food for pets. Even a pair of hamsters do the same damage as running a plasma television, say the book’s authors Robert and Brenda Vale. But rabbits and chickens were eco-friendly because they provide meat for their owners, while a canary or a goldfish does little harm to the planet, the authors said.

Good Grief!

  1. Ah_Yea says:

    Well, it looks like there is nothing else we can do except kill all cows, dogs, cats, and 4/5th of the human race so we can reverse this imaginary global warming.

  2. Jägermeister says:

    #1 – Ah_Yea – … imaginary global warming.

    Are you really that ignorant, Ah_Yea?

  3. Greg Allen says:

    >> Ah_Yea said, on October 24th, 2009 at 9:32 am
    >> this imaginary global warming.

    I remember when conservatives also called the link between smoking and cancer “imaginary” or the effectiveness of seat belts “imaginary,” or the possibility of a nuclear reactor meltdown “imaginary”, or coal miners black lung “imaginary” and on and on and on.

    Why do conservatives hate science and block solutions to real problems?

  4. Ah_Yea says:

    To all the sheeple who have not figured it out yet. (see #2 and #3)

    Although I don’t believe these sheeple are smart enough to understand the information below, I’m sure there are others who are.

    “Uncertainties in Solar Measurements.
    Despite all that scientists have learned about solar irradiance over the past few decades, they are still a long way from forecasting changes in the solar cycles or incorporating these changes into climate models. One of their biggest obstacles has been technology. Because even the smallest shifts in solar energy can affect climate drastically, measurements of solar radiation have to be extremely precise. Instruments in use today still are subject to a great deal of uncertainty.

    The sensors … disagree significantly in the decadal average level of the TSI—up to 6 watts per square meter. This difference is larger than the total variation in solar irradiance in the past 500 years, so a more accurate assessment is needed to study the Sun’s impact on climate change.

    This large uncertainty in absolute calibration of the instruments means that any possible trend from one 11 year cycle to the next, the most important change for global warming, is not known accurately enough to even decide whether the trend is positive, negative, or zero. With such data, scientists have a good approximation of the 11 year cycle, but no real insight into more subtle changes that may occur over many decades and centuries.

    Even larger uncertainties exist for measurements of the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere, ocean, and land. As of now, researchers know that the atmosphere absorbs between 20 and 25 percent of the TSI and that the land absorbs 45 to 50 percent. With solar radiation, a 5 percent difference is huge. A difference of even 1 percent would completely throw off climate models of global warming and scientist’s understanding of convection (warm, upward moving air currents) in the atmosphere.”

    So apparently we are still guessing.

  5. Jägermeister says:

    #4 – Ah_Yea

    So, you’re trying to say that earth isn’t warming up? It’s a big conspiracy, isn’t it?

  6. Buzz says:

    ,,,aaaaand, the carbon footprint of a single human being would beeeee….

  7. chuck says:

    I think what Ah_Yea is saying is that there is no evidence that the earth is warming up.

    Al Gore’s hockey stick chart has been proven false.

    We are currently in a cooling period, with no explanation from climatologists why they could not predict this cooling period with their computer models (all of which predicted warming).

    And, while CO2 is a “greenhouse” has, so is Methane and Water Vapor. And Water Vapor is far more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2.

    Finally, if we eliminated all CO2 emissions in the world, most of the climate models (the one’s that say the planet is warming) indicate that the temperature might drop by 1/2c .

  8. Glidedon says:


    Read and tell me where Watts is wrong.

  9. Ah_Yea says:


    OUTSTANDING! I applaud you for being able to see past the hysteria and hype, and get to the core of the issue.

    As we see in this blog (see #2 and #5), there are those who cannot get past the hysteria.

  10. StoopidFlanders says:

    So now, thanks to this moron author, the government now has an excuse to tax your pets. This is nothing but another way for the government to take more power over you and more of your money.

  11. Jägermeister says:

    #8 – Glidedon

    Just looking at the first chart… which shows an increase. Is there a global warming or not? I’m sure the 10s of thousands of scientists are all wrong and this radio/tv meteorologist and friends are correct, right? No, do like Ah_Yea… get your science from Glenn Beck and his ignorant cohorts.

  12. mr. show says:

    They can take my pet when they pry them from…ah never mind here’s my wallet Uncle Sam.

  13. dusanmal says:

    @#11 Global warming (in particular carbon related or human caused) vs. natural climate variation, mainly driven by the largest heat producing furnace in the ‘hood: Sun.

    I’ll keep to my science specialization. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and even Pluto have precisely measured planetary temperature increases over the same period as the Earth (for mercury and Venus we do not have good and precise enough methodologies, though even on Venus increased radiation levels hint, but not prove the same T increase over the same period). With some natural events paralleling situation on Earth (Mars polar caps melt, Jupiter intensifying and moving storms, …)

    Worse over for human-emitted carbon as a source of Earth warming, our closest climate relative – Mars – warmed so much faster during the 1990’s (with no humans or any other natural sources of warming up but Sun) vs. the Earth that effects scaled to Earth imply we should have warmed MUCH MORE (ex. completely lost both ice caps) during that decade from Sun alone. If anything, something (human induced or natural) in Earth atmosphere is slowing down heating expected from the Solar activity alone. As Sun activity slowed down in 2000s, so did the heating. Chart you mention shows that what CO2 fear mongers predicted was wrong and hence that CO2 levels are not the source of temperature variation. At least not to the extent claimed. Observed temperature rise closely follows Sun activity.

    There are many scientific papers published on this issue. Just not propagandized by Revren’ Al and company.

  14. ECA says:

    Want a solution??

    Take every human and domesticated animal..
    Shove a TUBE up their buts,
    USE the gas to POWER the world and the SOLIDS to be Cleaned processed and RE-EATEN.. ADDINg nutrients as NEEDED..

    soilent green is HUMAN..

  15. green says:

    What happened to global warming?

    This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

    But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

    And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

    So what on Earth is going on?

  16. SparkyOne says:

    they always make the gunners shave in combat

  17. deowll says:

    If we made the “friends of the environment” such as Gore and Obama and their click stop wasting so much energy we might get somewhere.

    You don’t have to put half the population out of work, double the cost of energy, and eat your pet to be a reasonable person besides the mountain glaciers are growing.

  18. Ah_Yea says:

    green said, “So what on Earth is going on?”

    It’s simple. Man made global warming is a farce.

    All the climate models are wrong. Garbage in, Garbage out.

    How in the world can anyone have an accurate climate model when no one has an accurate measure of the output of the sun (the primary source of energy) nor a good understanding of the effects of water vapor?

    So what we get are scientist making a name for themselves, Al Gore and company making a killing on carbon credits, and politicians trying to appeal to the radical left.

    And all of them screwing the rest of us.

  19. Ah_Yea says:

    Here is another link about a NASA satellite which was designed to measure variations on atmospheric carbon which conveniently crashed into the ocean.

    “The satellite was designed to help scientists determine which mechanisms (carbon absorption or release) are dominant by allowing them to trace where carbon dioxide is being absorbed, and how much. Ground-based measurement stations aren’t up to the task.”

    We don’t even know what is going on with CO2!

    So let’s recap.
    A) We don’t know how much solar radiance the earth is receiving,
    B) We don’t understand the effects of water vapor, and
    C) We don’t understand the cycle of carbon emission and reabsorbtion.

    And we’re supposed to have accurate models??

  20. Jägermeister says:

    #19 – Ah_Yea – NASA satellite which was designed to measure variations on atmospheric carbon which conveniently crashed into the ocean.

    As if that was the only satellite that can measure CO2… But then again, you’ll just say that its data is false…

  21. Ah_Yea says:

    Ugg, it’s like talking to a child.

    Ok, Jägermeister, tell me. What is the resolution of the SCIAMACHY sensors?

    Do you even understand what the question means in this context?

  22. Jägermeister says:

    #21 – Ah_Yea

    So, I was pretty much on target…

  23. Ah_Yea says:


    Again, you know nothing yet pretend…

    I also see that you couldn’t answer the question.

    Not surprised.

  24. Dan Pangburn says:

    All of the global average temperatures for the entire 20th century and until the present are readily calculated with no consideration whatsoever of changes to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas. See . There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide.

  25. Xanthippa says:

    Excuse me, but….

    Are the authors of the study suggesting that pet rabbits are eco-friendly because they provide meat for their owners?!?!?

    What universe to they come from?

    How exactly do they think pet rabbits provide ‘meat’? By hunting?

    Because there is no way in hell that a person who has a rabbit for a pet would actually eat them!!! And, yes – I do know many rabbit owners, being one myself.

    A pet is a pet: the species is irrelevant.

    If the authors of this study are as perceptive in all their research as they are about the psyche of people with pet rabbits, we can freely dismiss the whole thing as nonsense!


Bad Behavior has blocked 13647 access attempts in the last 7 days.