An Article: Dogs are not environmentally friendly...!

[homesteader]

I would like to say on the issue of environmental impact that this country as well as a lot of others intire economies is based on corporate consumerist waste which translates directly to environmental impact.
By this I mean that most all of the mass produced goods are designed to end up in land fills and for corporate consumerism, the faster the better. Built in obsolescence is the standard of industry. Many items purchased are obsolete before thay are released for sale. A throw away culture is what keeps most businesses going. Until this can be changed to a sustainable system of goods made to last a lot of other things are mute as far as a positive impact on the environment. How exactly this will come about I am not sure but it must come about as the system that is in place now is not sustainable. As many here recycle anyone that has ever been to a dump or landfill can see exactly what I am relating to. Full of gadgets, gizmos and purchase to throw away items.
Research and developement is paid to produce items to replace the obsolete items released for market today to keep the profits going. This is waste and negative environmental impact in it`s truest sense.

 

[DianeB]

Oh, I hate those articles. They distract from real environmental issues. Yes, pets and other animals use resources. We all use resources. We should not all cease to exist.

Having children uses even more resources. When I was an undergrad, there was two people that told me that if I was contiplating having children I should not. One who already had children said she wish she hadn't. I am glad her teenage children did not hear her say that. That made me mad to no end. It still makes me mad. Who were they to tell me not to have children.

If these scientists fly and stay anywhere that use more resources than a few pets. If they are driving or buying produce flown in from another country - Whole Foods Stores - they are use quite a bit of resources.

There is several ways to cut back your ecological footprint. (It is impossible to cut it back completely.) Personally, giving up my animals is not one of them.

Lets focus on our energy intensive and highly polluting transportation systems. Lets focus on changing our main sources of electricty (coal and oil) to something with less impact.

P.S. The average vegetarian does use less energy than those that include meat in their diet. On average, less land, energy and water is need to produce plant foods. Most people get their meat and other animal products from modern factory farms. These are not resource efficient.

 

[patandchickens]

I agree with "Eating Academics". We can feed them to our pets. Of all the things in this world that are "environmentally non-friendly" this research rates right up there at the top. Look at all the trees that were cut down to make the paper they wrote their book on. The electricity used to process the information. The gasoline used for the research. Probably jet trips across the world to conduct the research. I am guessing they used up quite a few resources themselves just to get to the point of publishing this new book. And why? To make money or a name for themselves would be my first guess.

Well, let's just shoot everyone ELSE who writes a book, too, then, shall we. Sheesh.

Gotta tell you, books like this are not generally written by spending money. Only time.

Pat

 

[FarmerChick]

If people could be more responsible for their own lives and well being and sufficiency....the impact would be incredible.

But---the big old bad city. where no one produces truly anything to credit to their survival on the basic level.

The basic natural world is gone. It isn't coming back any time soon either.

 

[Wifezilla]

P.S. The average vegetarian does use less energy than those that include meat in their diet. On average, less land, energy and water is need to produce plant foods. Most people get their meat and other animal products from modern factory farms. These are not resource efficient

One of the largest sources of CO2 is RICE PATTIES. Somewhere in the range of 50 to 100 million tons per annum. Cattle have an estimate around 80 million metric tons. That is global. US cattle is around 5.5 million metric tons.

I'll give up my meat when everyone else gives up rice.

 

[FarmerChick]

yea I agree

cost to produce food is not taken into consideration that SOME foods can not be produced in other areas.

While grain/rice etc. is a staple---many countries farm lands can not support it. Animals can be supported in areas that produce production can not. So the animal proteins are way better situation choice than the grain imported.

It is never black and white. It is a compromise for the region involved and the whole picture.

 

[DianeB]

P.S. The average vegetarian does use less energy than those that include meat in their diet. On average, less land, energy and water is need to produce plant foods. Most people get their meat and other animal products from modern factory farms. These are not resource efficient

One of the largest sources of CO2 is RICE PATTIES. Somewhere in the range of 50 to 100 million tons per annum. Cattle have an estimate around 80 million metric tons. That is global. US cattle is around 5.5 million metric tons.

I'll give up my meat when everyone else gives up rice.

In order to calculate the total impact of cattle, you have to incude the food that they consume.

 

[DianeB]

If people could be more responsible for their own lives and well being and sufficiency....the impact would be incredible.

But---the big old bad city. where no one produces truly anything to credit to their survival on the basic level.

The basic natural world is gone. It isn't coming back any time soon either.

Cities are not the environmental evil that most people assume them to be. If planned correctly, cities have a much lower impact per person than living in the country.

 

[miss_thenorth]

P.S. The average vegetarian does use less energy than those that include meat in their diet. On average, less land, energy and water is need to produce plant foods. Most people get their meat and other animal products from modern factory farms. These are not resource efficient

One of the largest sources of CO2 is RICE PATTIES. Somewhere in the range of 50 to 100 million tons per annum. Cattle have an estimate around 80 million metric tons. That is global. US cattle is around 5.5 million metric tons.

I'll give up my meat when everyone else gives up rice.

In order to calculate the total impact of cattle, you have to incude the food that they consume.

And also what they give back to the land.

 

[enjoy the ride]

There are people who don't like dogs and nothing will convince of their importance.
There are people who love dogs and nothing will convince them that they are not important.
The most ecologically useful person is one who is dead and composting away. Not everything needs to be evaluated according to it's use.