We are currently a no-pet family, although I am hoping we will be getting cats, rescue cats, 2 of them, after Christmas. That was until my husband read an article in the Guardian saying that some pets are worse for the environment than an SUV. My first instinct was to be outraged. I want a cat, how can a cat be worse for the environment than an SUV? (To be fair, cats aren't it's medium and large dogs which are, according to the article). Then having gotten over my outrage I decided to think rationally - if cats really are that bad for the environment then maybe I shouldn't get two, or even one. It's no good only listening to the green info I want to hear.
I arranged my thoughts into some sort of order and then read the Leo Hickman (who I do really like, I subscribe to his blog, but must have missed this post, I have his books on my amazon wish list too!) article. So, the article is quoting research from Time to Eat the Dog by Robert and Brenda Vale which finds that a cat requires 0.15 global hectares to keep it fed, the equivalent of driving a VW golf for 10000 miles a year, plus the energy required to make the car in the first place. So my two cats is almost at the energy cost of buying a 4.6 litre Toyota Landcruiser and driving it for 10000 miles a year (0.41 global hectares). Luckily I don't drive a Toyota Landcruiser as well then!
My next thoughts all concern the fact that I would be getting a rescue cat, so that cat is already having that footprint regardless of whether I own it or not. So actually so long as I promote responsible pet owning and only get a rescue cat I should probably get the cats so as to reduce the load on the shelters. Plus if it is going to be having the footprint anyway someone might as well get the joy from it, which I would.
My next thoughts all concern all the positives about having a pet. For instance, the joy and love that I myself would get. Then there is the positive personal and social impact that pets have on children (which I don't have yet, but would like to, although of course they have a far larger footprint than a cat, no joke). The article also explained some additional benefits - people with pets have greater immunity and visit the doctor less, 21% less when they are elderly, how many global hectares does that account for one wonders. Plus the mental health benefits that pets bring.
I would also think I might be less likely to go out if I had a pet thereby reducing my consumption and waste in shops, pubs, restaurants and cinemas. Of course I don't drive a car at all, very often. We have a small car between us which neither of us drive very often. I walk to work and get the bus and train further afield, despite the additional time, money and stress costs that this can often entail. I take all my compostable waste to work, I bring home any recyclable waste from work. That's right - I carry bags of waste to and from work despite the fact I walk, often in the rain - because it is the right thing to do. I don't eat any animals (that themselves have an eco footprint), I try to minimise my plastic consumption, I try not to fly. I pay extra to have 100% renewable electricity from Good Energy. We try not to have the heating on, and didn't turn it on at all until December this year (except one freakishly cold day in November).
I don't think that doing that means I can do anything I like, indeed I hate to hear people say, "I can do this ungreen thing because I recycle most of my stuff at home". But actually, surely I have reduced my footprint by that of a cat, so I am still on a positive even if I do have a cat? Plus the fact that my children will be more socially adaptable and I will use the NHS less later in life, and I will go out less. Maybe all these things add up to a cat having less of a footprint than it would seem?
I do think we should consider the ecological footprint of activities we partake in and lifestyle choices we make, but I don't think that means we have to not do anything which carries a number, which everything does. It's a case of weighing up pros and cons, and making thoughtful choices. How many global hectares does going to a pub every friday and saturday take? How many global hectares for out of date food which has been thrown away (I eat yoghurts 2 months out of date), how many global hectares to buy a newspaper every day? How many to have a cup of tea every day?
I appreciate the article for giving me the chance to consider the impact of having a pet (which I already had from a vegetarian standpoint, but i think this post has maybe been going on for long enough!) and I have added the book to my wish list, but I have weighed it all up and will still be getting my cat in the new year :)
(do you know I didn't even discuss the indoor cat/outdoor cat arguments, maybe I will do that when I have the cat)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have read this comment on a related article:
ReplyDelete"I wonder if a science magazine sometimes takes a little more effort than merely copy and paste without a single moment wasted on verifying the plausibility of an "academic" paper. To give you a few hints what to check out about the article on pets vs. SUVs etc: Food is not biofuel! Crop yield is not the same as biomass! Everything mixed up arbitrarily, supported by dubious numbers to fit the purpose of this concoction, at least in the form of this article. If you want to know more reasonable figures than given in this nonsense vindication of SUVs etc., simply turn to your local farmer! And do look up the statistics about average milages per year etc.
Doesn't the "fact" that a cat is 2% of a human footprint and this equals the use of a VW Golf make any-one think that there's something got to be wrong? Using a compact car is just 2% of the personal footprint?
For the cat, the author gives the supposed space for food production, for the car, the space to absorb its CO2 emissions but not the space to produce the fuel, left alone to offset its production by available technology. With the given numbers, you could travel around 5,500 km with your Golf. Only for the fuel. Simply check the figures. How realistic! Besides: does a pet emit PM and nitric oxides? How many animals like frogs, deer etc. are killed per CAR and year? If a cat is 2% of human footprint, wouldn't you agree that there would be some other ways to reduce the latter worth considering? With more benefits for our world, living in an oversaturated country where the majority is overweight and a third is obese... Why not simply leave a little of YOUR food for your pet?"
And from a different point of view, this comment too:
ReplyDelete"The author of the book and this article have gotten their information based upon the misinformation being propagated by animal rights radicals. These lies are intended to do away with all domestic animals. There are a number of animal rights radicals who have other reasons for wanting people to stop eating meat and they continue propagate the misreading of the EPA study. What they all fail to tell you is that the biggest contributor to methane production in terms of net emissions worldwide are rice production, natural wetlands, and a major contributor by far is the breakdown of methane by plants. The biggest producer of methane gas with the largest carbon footprint it soy bean fields in Brazil where slash and burn continues. Transporting and processing soybeans is big business and every vegan pushes this product because it is the only protein substitute for meat. Rice paddies are the second largest contributor of methane gas. The Association pointed to an Inventory on Greenhouse Gas Emissions reported by the US Environmental Protection Agency. It shows agriculture, including non-livestock activities, accounted for 6 percent of national greenhouse-gas emissions in 2004. By comparison, the EPA reports that the transportation sector accounted for approximately 27 percent of total US greenhouse gas emissions in 2004. In 2006 Fossil fues combustion, then electricity followed by transportation were the chief contributors to green house gases. Always keep in mind that all methane gas in the total amount of greenhouse gases is only 7.9% of the total of all greenhouse gases. Carbon by far is the greater number when it comes to greenhouse gases. Plants especially soybean production account for 40% of methane production whereas all domesticated animals only contribute 17% of that 7.9% total of methane in the greenhouse gases. These studies condeming livestock and pets are intently false and meant to stop the eating of meat and the owning of pets, as well as, the use of animals in medical research. We know that methane gas clouds are created above tropical rainforrests, rice paddies and wetlands. Changing your lifestyle by getting rid of your pet will do nothing to change global warming. Fossel fuels and other forms of energy used in industrial processes resulting from stationary and mobile energy activities including fuel combustion and fugitive fuel emissions accounted for the vast majority of U.S. CO2 emissions for the period of 1990 through 2006. In 2006, approximately 83 percent of the energy consumed in the United States (on a Btu basis) was produced through the combustion of fossil fuels. Quit worrying about a 7.9% solution that is a fake and worry about your use of plastic, fossil fuels, and synthetic fabrics and materials. Cotton produces far more methane than a cow and you can't eat cotton. Soybeans require more fuel to process and transport for all the various vegan products than any amount of livestock. Eat grass fed beef and wear leather thats what we did before global warming occurred. Soy is not a good food for animals and nor should it be in people as it is linked to cancer from its ability to interfer with normal hormones. Before you change your lifestyle based upon the agenda of animal rights radicals you had better read the tested studies and not some fantasies made up by animal rights radicals. Common sense should tell you moderation is the key, but blaming methane is not the answer nor making up false studies to bolster an anti animal agenda will in fact produce a false sense of security and do nothing to stop global warming."
I hate the anti-vegan soya bean argument. I mean it's not like vegans are out eating soya at every meal, it isn't the only plant based protein at all. AND, most soy beans are for animal feed that will be fed to cattle which presumably an anti-vegan such as the commenter will eat, so he is being vegan and more.
Still, food for thought is always good.