How sick is the left? Now they say swap your dog or cat for pets that you could eat!

“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said.

No, this is not a joke. This is absolutely sick. Left wing global warming nutjobs and Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, are now suggesting, according to Stuff.nz. People trade in their dogs or cats for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits. BTW, I never never eaten Rabbit, have you?

“A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact … is comparable.”

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.

They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle’s eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog’s.

They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.

Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming.

“The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone’s pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment.”

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)

October 22, 2009 · Filed Under General Politics


Comments

  • http://www.jennyweber.com JennyPennifer

    I think the Vales should be lobotomized while there’s still time. It would be merciful.

  • Dan

    Why so wierd? That is how people survived for millenia. You people are right wing. You’re supposed to be predisposed to killing things. And rabbit stew is awesome. You obviously aren’t corresponding with the right-wingers in the south.And before you freak out, I’m not a liberal. I have no political affiliation.

  • Randy Dutton

    This proposed policy that wants to wean us off our pets because of their negative environmental effect sounds far fetched, until you read a book written by the same authors, Robert and Brenda Vale, Sustainable Living The Role of Whole Life Costs and Values, and find Science Czar John Holdren’s IPAT (population growth limitation) philosophy quoted within that justifies numerically scoring human existence.

    Now the book seems closer to proposed policy than some fanciful progressive joke.

    2010 elections are coming. IF you want to stop this, you MUST get involved NOW. Help candidates, spread the message of Constitutional limitations of government, and VOTE. It’s not enough to talk about it, you must help candidates (or if no one is challenging a progressive, sign up and you be the Right Guy). I’ve done it, its hard, and fun.

  • http://www.boxerurkabustaiz.es/kea.html boxer

    When they all stop using electricity, heating, gas, etc. pet-loving people will consider stop having pets. Not any sooner.