Kitchen Garden Forum

Chantal and I share a seriously bad habit which will destroy the planet.

"Owning a pet dog or cat may seem a harmless, even beneficial, thing to do.
In fact it can be as damaging for the environment as driving a gasguzzling car, according to a controversial new book.
The authors say people should be discouraged from owning some of Britain's favourite pets or at least consider sharing them with other families.
Failing that they should give a home to a more environmentally friendly pet such as a goldfish instead."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0Uz7xI7Jo

I could write my answer to this article and the book it is about, but it is too rude for this forum.

There's a similar article in New Scientist this week, too. The book's authors clearly have a good agent. I must admit there's quite a lot about it I agree with, but only in so far as much of the criticism is towards dog owners who overindulge their best friend. We had two dogs until two years ago, both of whom we fed almost exclusively on kitchen scraps. We walked them everywhere, and never got the car out to do so, unlike some friends of Mrs Leiter's who, despite living in the middle of rolling, roamable countryside, get their car out to take their pampered pooch for its walkies.

As for cats, they make a clean sweep of knackering birds and other delicate woodland creatures, as well as crap*ing in everyone else's gardens but their own. To cap it all, they give their owners toxoplasmosis so that they become deluded into thinking Tibbles is the centre of the Universe. All in all environmentally disastrous, it's safe to say.

FelixLeiter wrote:As for cats, they make a clean sweep of knackering birds and other delicate woodland creatures, as well as crap*ing in everyone else's gardens but their own. To cap it all, they give their owners toxoplasmosis so that they become deluded into thinking Tibbles is the centre of the Universe. All in all environmentally disastrous, it's safe to say.

And my next door neighbour has 9 of the flipping things

Seedling and I were discussing this as we walked with her Toyota Land Cruiser back from the allotment yesterday.

I'm now working out how to carbon offset my two VW Golfs who at least crap in their cat litter and do eat some of our left overs rather than environmentally damaging cat biscuits

At least my chickens are acceptably carbon neutral, so long as I eventually eat them

I particularly liked this, from the Times

"Which do you think has more impact on the environment: a Toyota Land Cruiser or an Irish setter? According to a new book, it’s pretty much neck and neck (although you don’t have to stop every 10 yards to pick up the waste products from a Toyota Land Cruiser). The book, Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, claims we should get rid of our dogs and keep goldfish if we’re serious about saving the planet (although, to reassure pet lovers, the authors have provided no actual recipes for dog).

Dogs are certainly irresponsible energy users. You can tell a staffordshire bull terrier time and again to ensure the television is properly switched off and he will still leave it on stand-by. But to eat dogs seems particularly short-sighted. Rottweilers might be trained to patrol car parks, barking at the owners of excessively large cars. Then there is the old english sheepdog, perhaps the most environmentally friendly breed of all. If you can get hold of half a dozen or so and train them to lie down for long periods, they make very effective loft insulation."

Oh dear, 4 dogs, 1 rabbit (a buck so no offspring) & 1 hamster . Maybe these are offset by the 5 small fish and 6 chickens? I would rather give up meat myself than my dogs!

I suppose taking this to its logical conclusion everyone should have goldfish instead of babies who must have a much larger carbon footprint than a dog or cat. My sister's dog closes doors if she feels a draught so how about that for being environmentally aware!

Isn't stroking a dog (or cat) supposed to lower blood pressure etc and therefore isn't it offsetting its carbon footprint by saving the NHS some money. Don't think a goldfish would have the same effect!!

By the way hedgehogs have a high carbon footprint. I ended up on a 70 mile round journey last week taking one to hospital!!

I've just fed our visiting hedgehog a few scraps of beef - bad carbon news.
But I can tell you, it ain't going to hospital. From here it would be a fair bit more than a mere 70 mile round trip

Perhaps we should wait and see what pops up on Readers
Recipes forum - however I should point out I don't understand
chinese

Westi

I suppose taking this to its logical conclusion everyone should have goldfish instead of babies

Good idea

ive heard it suggested that if we didnt wear clothes we wouldnt use electricity to wash them or pollute the water with washing powder

If we didn't breathe out we would reduce our carbon emissions and if we didn't eat beans wel ...!

Hi Pongeroon,
Does this mean I can become a mother?
JB.

Johnboy wrote:Hi Pongeroon,
Does this mean I can become a mother?
JB.

I don't know about that, Johnboy, but motherhood would certainly be less painful

And water births would be more popular than ever