Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Moosecox" data-source="post: 2069367" data-attributes="member: 702032">For all you global warming lovers out there, I expect your pets to be gone by the end of the week. Don&#039;t say you care about global warming and then DARE the extravagance of owning a dog.excerpt...Combine the land required to generate its food and a &quot;medium&quot; sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.&quot;Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat,&quot; Barrett said.Other animals aren&#039;t much better for the environment, the Vales say.Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood(These people are getting absurd.)CHEWY IVAN: Are you going to argue with scientists? They&#039;ve done the research, TWICE just to make certain...are you a scientist? NO so you HAVE to listen to them, you can&#039;t argue with scientists, they know whats best for all of us...and they&#039;d never lie.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Moosecox, post: 2069367, member: 702032"] For all you global warming lovers out there, I expect your pets to be gone by the end of the week. Don't say you care about global warming and then DARE the extravagance of owning a dog. excerpt... Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car. To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same. "Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said. Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say. Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood (These people are getting absurd.) CHEWY IVAN: Are you going to argue with scientists? They've done the research, TWICE just to make certain...are you a scientist? NO so you HAVE to listen to them, you can't argue with scientists, they know whats best for all of us...and they'd never lie. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…