Slashdot Mirror
Cats and Dogs Contribute Significantly To Climate Change, Says UCLA Study (patch.com)
New submitter Zorro shares a report from Patch.com: When it comes to global warming, Fido and Fluffy are part of the problem, a new study by UCLA indicates. Pet ownership in the United States creates about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, UCLA researchers found. That's the equivalent of driving 13.6 million cars for a year. The problem lies with the meat-filled diets of kitties and pooches, according to the study by UCLA geography professor Gregory Okin. Dogs and cats are responsible for 25 to 30 percent of the impacts of meat production in the United States, said Orkin. Compared to a plant-based diet, meat production "requires more energy, land and water and has greater environmental consequences in terms of erosion, pesticides and waste," the study found. And what goes in, must come out. In terms of waste, Okin noted, feeding pets also leads to about 5.1 million tons of feces every year, roughly equivalent to the total trash production of Massachusetts. The study has been published in the journal PLOS One.
How much CO2 does an average person produce, compared to a dog ?
Pets used to eat mostly left-overs from their owner's plates. Then we started producing food specially for them, which is one of the main reasons hat they live about twice as long as they used to.
Having said that, the stuff in cat and dog food tens to be the stuff that humans don't want. Mechanically recovered head meat, the kind of stuff that only KFC would try to feed you out of one of their buckets.
And my cat loves fruit and vegetables. Western cat food seems to be mostly meat, but Japanese cat food has a lot more fruit, vegetables and seafood in it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
64 million tons eh? That sounds like a big scary number. Oooh scary. That should get the panic merchants panicking. Of course since the atmosphere contains 2.996×10^12 tonnes already, one might imagine that an additional 0.002% is really not going to make much odds.
...someone wants to invent to worry about?
To hear other doomsday sayers talk, the cats only eat wild birds. But anyway, nobody can or would want to do anything about this, so its not worth considering. We'll either live or die with our cats and dogs, and these "studies" aren't going to change a thing.
Can't we just get rid of Massachusetts instead?
It's less the CO2 production, it's more the fact that he contributes to global warming with all the hot air.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Dogs have a higher tolerance for carbohydrates, but really, this is an accident of domestication.
Not true. Dogs are not obligate carnivores. Even wolves routinely supplement their diet with fruits and vegetables in the wild.
In any wild setting, all canine species would eat a diet almost entirely of meat because that's what's available.
Also not true. All wolf subspecies (including dogs, coyotes, dingoes) have an evolutionary preference for meat but will voluntarily eat vegetation in substantial amounts and if necessary can live without meat indefinitely. The Maned Wolf has a diet that is approximately 50% vegetation. With certain exceptions most of what you eat is also readily digestible by your dog too. Dogs are omnivores in actuality.
That's some kind of pitiful argument. No wonder they're losing.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
The meat we feed to animals are cut-offs that don't make it into hotdogs. It has its own separate grade, "canning grade".
Meat is not grown *for* pets, although I'm sure there's some fru-fru company that does it. As such, the pets are eating waste, and the CO2 budget is zero.
No kidding.
Limiting people to a bland, tasteless nutrient-rich food paste of exactly the right quantity and monitoring them 24/7 so they don't take risks or do anything "wrong" would also help prolong life, but it would also be a living-hell not worth living in....
This study is completely wrong. Cat and dog food are made with the offal, the meat by products that humans don't want to eat. Thus the cat and dog food contribute 0% to the impacts of meat production in the United States.
When you use a waste stream you don't contribute to the problem, you contribute to the solution.
This study reads like propaganda. Unfortunately ill-informed people will believe it.
Its not like a truck full of cows shows up at the typical pet food factory. Pet food tends to be made from human food byproducts.
"The raw ingredients used in rendering are generally just leftovers of the meat, poultry and fishing industries."
- http://www.petmd.com/dog/nutri...
There is no additional impact from cow farts by using animal already raised for human consumption to begin with. If the study got the manufacturing of the food this wrong, how badly was the rest botched?
Except that developing countries tend to, you know, develop {...} Better to control the population growth while the development is happening,
Except that demographic transition IS A THING.
And as the countries are developing, the birth rate is getting lower.
So better control of the population is auto-happening and has been measured everywhere.
(Basically, as society develops, children aren't an advantage - helping hands in the farm - but are a burden - need education, etc.
So overtime parent have less incentives to have as many as possible,
which in turn compensate the fact that modern medicine is having less of the them dying of diseases.
That's an actually observed phenomenon)
So "one child policies" aren't the best method.
Having them access education, better jobs, even better farming equipment will accelerate the transition.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I'm not originally from Massachusetts, and I've lived in a whole bunch of states (Alabama, Connecticut, Maine and now Iowa), and I can see why people from Mass have this attitude about environmental issues. It is very clear that on environmental issues both large and small, not only is Mass better than they in terms of regulations but also in terms of people simply being willing to do minor things in their day-to-day lives like reusing things rather than throwing them out, or keeping their heating and air conditioning at temperatures that reduce use, etc.
Soylent Green meets 1984.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Been-there done-that. You know there have been wars fought over byrd poop. Mostly because byrd poop (aka guano) was very helpful in making bombs (as well as being fertilizer for food)
Fortunately (unfortunately?), we discovered how to industrialize a process to fix nitrogen straight from the air (haber-bosch), so we don't need to annex and dig up islands for byrd poop anymore. We just need to burn natural gas...