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!
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?
#21 – Ah_Yea
So, I was pretty much on target…
See?
Again, you know nothing yet pretend…
I also see that you couldn’t answer the question.
Not surprised.
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 http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide.
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!