x
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
Make your dog more hybrid, less SUV
Don't let those puppy dog eyes get blamed for climate change. Instead, put your pooch on the fast track to a lower eco-pawprint.

By

Julie Knapp
Thu, Mar 11 2010 at 9:53 AM
 60

Related Topics:

Pets, Eco-friendly Products
Dog puts its head out the car window

Photo: Jupiterimages

If you’re a dog owner and call yourself eco-conscious, guilt might set in after reading the book "Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by Robert and Brenda Vale, which reveals dogs are worse for the environment than SUVs.
 
The authors, who designed the first sustainable settlement in the United Kingdom in 1996 and are architecture professors at Victory University of Wellington in New Zealand, measured the environmental impact of our lifestyles from the food we eat to how we travel to sports, hobbies and pets based on the Ecological Footprint technique created by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees.
 
Bottom line: Our pooches cost the Earth more than a Toyota Land Cruiser. According to the Vales’ research, a medium-sized dog has twice the impact of driving the luxury SUV 10,000 miles. Why? “Basically dogs are bad for the environment because they are large carnivores, so it takes a lot of land to provide their foods,” says Robert Vale. Luckily, there are a few things you can do to get Fido out of the proverbial doghouse.
 
Put your dog on a diet
Since your canine’s carnivorous diet is the biggest factor in his environmental impact, start by looking at what goes in the dog bowl. Most dog food isn’t produced in an eco-friendly way, and the heavy bags of kibble or cans of wet food have to travel miles to get to your door.
 
Dr. Viv Harris, veterinarian and author of "Natural Remedies Dogs and Cats Wish You Knew: A Holistic Care Guide," suggests making your own dog food using locally grown or organic veggies. Your vet can help you work out the perfect mix of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, minerals and vitamins to meet your dog’s needs. And with all of the tainted pet food scandals in recent years, your dog may be better off eating homemade meals anyway. After all, many dog foods that claim to be natural still contain byproducts or low-grade meats. 
 
If the do-it-yourself doggie diet sounds like too much work, look for smaller, locally made dog food brands. Or select chicken or rabbit based-kibble, which have a lower impact than beef.
 
Do your doodie duty
If you ask the Vales, dog poo isn’t such a big deal compared to what goes in the other end. However, if you don’t scoop up the poop, it can contaminate our waterways. If you’re a city dweller and use plastic bags to clean up, choose biodegradable poop bags.
 
Shop smart
Just like when you shop for yourself, think about the impact of the products you buy for your pets. Choose dog shampoos that are free of sodium lauryl sulfate. For toys and dog beds, avoid plastic and synthetic products and look to natural fibers like organic cotton or hemp as well as products made from recycled goods. We love SimplyFido’s hemp plush collection, West Paw’s Eco Nap dog bed made from recycled plastic bottles, and Planet Dog’s balls made from post-production material that would otherwise be discarded.
 
Use birth control
Spaying and neutering your dog might sound inhumane, but it’s the eco-conscious thing to do. “Reducing the overpopulation of dogs is crucial,” Harris says. If your dog alone creates a impact bigger than an SUV, just think what its accidental litter of puppies could do!
 
Choose safe flea and tick treatments
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), some flea control products pose a cancer risk to children up to 1,000 times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s acceptable limits. Keep these chemicals off little fingers and your pet’s fur by talking to your vet about safer treatments or by choosing from the NRDC’s list of safer flea control choices.
 
You can also make natural solutions at home. In her book, Harris suggests creating a DIY flea wash. Start with a base of castile soap and add 10 drops of lavender, five drops of eucalyptus, five drops of rosemary and five drops of cajuput oil.
 
Consider other pets
We’re not suggesting you part ways with your pooch right now, but if you don’t have a dog yet or are considering a second pet, you might want to think outside the dog box. According to the Vales, a goldfish is equal to the impact of just two cell phones; two hamsters or four canaries can be compared to a plasma TV; and a cat is only as bad as a Smart Car. Even smaller dogs are better than big dogs.
 
Change your own habits
Just like you can buy carbon credits when you take a long-haul flight, you can try to balance out your dog’s impact by making some changes of your own. If you don’t want to give up Fido, maybe you should give up meat or your car instead. Of course, smaller changes or buying carbon credits can help, too. 

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 60
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
anonymous
Guest Mar 20 2010 at 4:33 PM

You really believe that dogs can impact the environment? We humans couldn't change the global environment if we tried, even really hard. How about you do something for the planet and not reproduce. The arrogance of these wackos is astounding.

|
anonymous
marcie Mar 21 2010 at 10:20 PM

you are correct - people really need to cut down on having kids, however there's not much chance of that...people are by far the carbon foot print, how about the black bears &grizzly bears how are therir carbon footprint. Maybe we should need all life?, this author is rediculous - I love your answer!! above!!

|
anonymous
Jessica Mar 20 2010 at 2:52 PM
Alright, I consider myself a neutral in the whole climate change/global warming insanity. Is the climate changing? yes. Are humans causing it? No fricking clue. Should we try and reduce our impact on the environment? Yes - if we want to survive we need to have oxygen releasing plants and sustainable food. The point pets can create an environmental impact is a worthwhile one, especially for those people who care about such things. I tend to consider all animals, including humans a part of the environment
.... More
- an envirnoment which needs a sustainable balance point. Regardless, hyperbole has it's place in advertising, not in actual discourse. To quote - "According to the Vales’ research, a medium-sized dog has twice the impact of driving the luxury SUV 10,000 miles" Is not the same as quote - "Bottom line: Our pooches cost the Earth more than a Toyota Land Cruiser" Unless one totally discounts the impact of making the vehicle in the first place, and then scraps it after 20,000 miles (I know folks who will sell a car after 20,000. No one that would scrap a car with that little milage unless it was in a very nasty accident). Some good ideas in the article, but please, check your math.
|
anonymous
Jonny Realistic Mar 20 2010 at 1:18 PM
Eating is something we mammals have to do. It's the energy that powers our bodies and minds. In nature, animals eat to survive. Some eat only meat, others only fruits & veggies, some eat both. Don't think that just because you don't eat meat you're saving the planet. Animals and plants are both sustainable as long as we pace our consumption and don't deplete what's available. It's responsible consumption. The point of this article is not to offend dog owners but to look at the carbon footprint
.... More
of what owning a pet actually is. When considering being a pet owner you look at the cost of ownership in money and time to care for your pet. Most people don't consider the impact on what having a dog means for the environment. It's not knocking the emotional support of man's best friend, but rather revealing a part of ownership most don't even think of. So don't get offended. And don't think because you're a vegetarian or vegan that you're better than a carnivore or omnivore. You still use the life force of the plants; their energy. And yes, plants have feelings too. It's not cruel to eat an animal or a plant; it's part of life. It's nature. An Living life with ecological consciousness is what this article is about.
|
anonymous
HKS Mar 20 2010 at 12:58 PM

Your friken' sick! Leave the dogs alone you eco maniacs, get some common sense and you will see better the global warming hoax. You lame heart broken liberals.

|
anonymous
Stan Apr 29 2010 at 5:51 PM
Screw hoaxes!!! you can keep your fancy blue state "Moon landing" and "HOLOCAUST" too! We all know those Blue-staters are lying to us! after all, when has a republican president lied! it's all Obama's fault!! I'm so fucking sick of a. people calling global warming a hoax, and b. people bringing "my flags red, blue flags are stupid" arguments into an issue that has little (or should have little) to do with party politics. I;m not saying you have to believe in it, but don't act like it was some hoax
.... More
invented for political reasons
|
anonymous
Guest Apr 16 2010 at 3:17 PM

Yeaah! I hate them broken heart liberals! I'm glad we don't have none of them down here in the South. Now we can ignore our global impact on the environment and get back to our backwards living, regressive politics, and incest.

|
anonymous
Gary Mar 20 2010 at 8:46 AM
Comments like this will make a non environmental person never want to become environmental. How does someone like this get a space for this crap. Goes to show that anyone can develop a blog. Sad part is I actually read it. Congrats on being a whack job and degrading other true environmental causes. Don't tackle serious issues, let's talk about downgrading our dogs. Are you suggesting that we should just take the larger dogs and shoot them to help save Mother Earth? That sounds sane, let's
.... More
do that. What an idiot.
|
anonymous
proud dog owner Mar 20 2010 at 1:42 AM

Humans are the problem...if stupid people didnt reproduce there would be no need for environmentalism peroid.Screw you Julie Knapp.Don't waste our time with your annoying opinons.

|
anonymous
Ashley Mar 20 2010 at 12:18 AM
Are you kidding me? Your research dollars should have been spent on finding cures for cancer, and alternate energy sources, not to write an insanely ridiculous article comparing MAN'S BEST FRIEND to a gas guzzling environmental disaster. I'm utterly appalled that anyone would publish this article. Please, do the world a favor and NEVER compare precious life to an object. Do yourself a favor and get rid of SUVs, stop eating meat, stop eating pasteurized dairy products, and also... let's talk about
.... More
how spaying and neutering is NOT inhumane. It's a wonderful thing. Breeders should be punished for what they do, adopt a stray. I'm a vegan and VERY adamant about animal rights, and this article is BY FAR one of the most disgusting pieces of literature I've ever laid my eyes on. Breeders should stop. Mass production of meat and dairy should stop. AND people like you who compare animals to cars, should also stop while you're ahead and shut up. Also, think about not getting a dog? You are pathetic. Dogs bring such joy to humans... Dogs deserve loving humans to give the love back to them. Anyone who follows this article and agrees is JUST as disgusting.
|
anonymous
Jack Mullen Mar 19 2010 at 10:45 PM

Dogs are omnivores not carnivores. Cats are carnivores. what an ignorant article.

|
anonymous
steve Mar 19 2010 at 9:21 PM

This eco-bull is for the birds. The same people I see buying all the "earth friendly" stuff are the same ones who consume much more than the average person....

|
anonymous
Dan Hdez Mar 19 2010 at 6:45 PM

Incredibily stupid! It's like saying this guy is bad for the environment because publishing his book costs us a billion trees which translates to 1 rain forest.

|
anonymous
Laura S. Mar 19 2010 at 6:13 PM
not the greatest tagline. I find it interesting that their credentials as professors of architecture are touted so freely. Architecture? Being great at architecture makes them experts in environmental science and economy? Anyway. I'll probably read through the book at the library, the reviews make it sound interesting though a bit dull and with too many random figures thrown in for good measure. Still though, their premise on dogs seems overblown. Another take on that I found here: http://
.... More
daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2009/11/02/dogs-vs-cars
|
anonymous
Andrew Locke Mar 19 2010 at 5:22 PM
This has to be the most ignorant research that I have ever seen! Dogs do not compare to gas operated vehicles! Here's an idea that these researchers could use. Instead of using the money I am paying in taxes to study the enviromental impact of a dog, you could be studying alternative forms of energy. Maybe even something like..... I don't know a cure for cancer. Ah, I don't know it's just a thought there are many more things to study than what kind of enviromental impact of a dog. I mean, honestly,
.... More
they only live thirteen years and that's a minority, most are run over by cars or shot. I mean come on give the guys a break. Well that's all I have to say for now. I'm going to go before I start to ramble.
|
anonymous
Stan Apr 29 2010 at 5:53 PM

don't fault their research until you've made your own.

|
anonymous
Ryan Mar 19 2010 at 4:45 PM
Its sad that the opinion of most here is that the article is ridiculous. Focus on every aspect of your life in terms of enviromental impact. This will change our culture for the better no matter what you believe. Be kind to others and have respect for your land. We all have a lot to learn about how to live, so please dont disregard positive inflluence from others. The author made it clear that having a dog is not a crime against our planet, but another aspect of life that has an impact on
.... More
it. Thanks for supporting the revolution! Peace.
|
anonymous
ScorpioGirl Mar 19 2010 at 5:27 PM
Truthfully, we should all eat as little meat as possible and think about how the meat gets on our tables. The raising of animals for meat is very harmful to the environment. You can take everything to its logical extreme conclusion - everything we do affects the environment, so if you follow this train of thought, we should have fewer children as well - especially if those children eat meat. There are too many homesless dogs of all sizes - they do need to be taken care of, and anyone who wants to
.... More
adopt one is doing the world good, not hurting the environment.
|
anonymous
HoodooMan13 Mar 19 2010 at 2:43 PM
Well, it's finally happened. Chicken Little has passed by, screaming at us that the world's going to end, and are we running to get away from it? Yes, in very small and dimwitted circles. Are dogs hurting the environment, we ask, as if the environment were something that could even BE hurt. People, please, please, please, please, please think, REALLY think about what that phrase means. "Hurting" the environment. Any takers? No? All right. How about this: the environment cannot be hurt. It
.... More
is not a living, breathing organism, does not even RESEMBLE a living, breathing organism, and therefore cannot be hurt. It can change, and I suppose it's slightly possible that we humans (who have only been house-guests on the planet for a very short while, mind you) could change it. A little. Maybe enough to make life a little tougher, but probably not. The planet was here a long time before we came along, and it will likely be here a long time after we - and our dogs, goldfish, plasma TV screens, Smart Cars, and asinine carbon credits - are dust in the wind. Will there be more carbon in the atmosphere when we shuffle off? Probably, but that doesn't bother the planet any. Bear in mind that OXYGEN is a relatively new dominant gas on this planet...oh, wait...I sort of doubt that anyone who had the sniveling temerity to write such a piece of trash (litter for the common intellect of the foulest-smelling sort) did much if any research, so never mind. People, keep your dogs. Feed them and love them and be loved by them. Grab onto a little bit of happiness, and spread it around by being good to your fellow man. If we concentrated on doing these things even half as hard as we concentrate on "not hurting the environment", I think a lot of other problems would solve themselves, and a lot of things that we like to perceive as problematic because we like to be scared (the environment, don'tcha know) would dissipate like a fart in a large room. You'll forgive the metaphor which I found too apt to not use. P.S. Carbon credits? Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Words fail me.
|
anonymous
elliot Mar 19 2010 at 4:00 PM
....."words fail you" ? Hardly , it's your thinking that is failing you. Or maybe I should be more specific and say "your arrogance" since you clearly fancy yourself as someone with a superior intellect.Yes , you can quibble about semantics to attack something that obviously is source of aggravation to you. Or somethings, at least two : peoples beliefs about the environment we live in & their unbearable ignorance. If you truly don't believe that human behavior can make an impact on our environment
.... More
that is significant, relative to our experience of it, than you have one or multiple agendas that are stopping you from thinking clearly .Between population growth & modern technologies we have gotten to the point where we can make an impact on our environment that can effect & does effect our quality of life & the quality of life for other living beings. We are even effecting the environment enough to make it entirely UNINHABITABLE for some whole species. If that is not a significant enough effect than what would be for you ? Is only the entire planet being permanently altered & uninhabitable to all current life significant enough to generate concern for you.? Does the word "hurt" concern you so much that you don't have the ability to think clear after hearing or reading it? Is it acceptable to you to think it is possible that we could damage the environment ? Or are you too busy trying to be the smartest person in the room, so you need to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of years, and researching what someone else's research says the latest research tells us. It also doesn't take a "rocket scientist" , or a quantum physicist to tell you that people think in terms that are relative to their own scale of existence. If the air quality is so bad where you live, like Los Angeles lets say, that they need to issue health advisories about breathing it, then I think it is acceptable for people to think we have "hurt" the environment. We have damaged it relative to something so incredibly basic as it's ability to sustain a healthy mammal. Why don't you research how many centuries we didn't need to worry if something as basic as how we get from point A to point B was going to have some consistent side effect, like car exhaust does,that would deteriorate something as basic as the air we breath.
|
anonymous
Guest Mar 17 2010 at 8:49 PM

Keep your dogs! Ditch your SUVs. Sorry folks but this is just ridiculous.

|
anonymous
poop in a bag Mar 16 2010 at 6:50 PM

What good does a biodegradable bag do if your putting that bag into a larger trash can bag?

|
anonymous
Craig Jones Mar 15 2010 at 7:12 PM

I'm stunned that this article didn't direct people to the many commercial suppliers of vegetarian dog food. It doesn't cost a whole lot more. Just google "Vegetarian dog food".

And it's a heluvalot healthier for your dog than standard meat-based dogfood, which often contains toxic preservatives and low quality meats which the meat producers wouldn't serve to a human.

|
anonymous
roya Mar 27 2010 at 2:56 PM
Yes, dogs DO eat meat, and it's actually very healthy for them! Dogs' digestive system have the proper enzymes to break down raw meat without making them sick. In fact, grain-based foods are HORRIBLE for dogs! There ARE foods out there that are fruit&veggie based, like SOJOS, but they also have meat formulas too, because it's GOOD for the dogs. If you ARE going to get a veggie meal for your dog, BE SURE that it doesn't have a high grain content (or any grain for that matter) - grains in general
.... More
give a lot of dogs allergies which can make them itchy and/or discolor their fur. Be informed!! Don't just listen to your vet -- a lot of the food they sell, like Eukanuba, is "#1 vet recommended" because they make commission off of it!! Go to "dogfoodanalysis.com" for a third-party analysis of what kind of stuff is in YOUR dogs food!
|
anonymous
Bustopher Mar 15 2010 at 5:37 PM
A foundation of sustainability should be eating species appropriate foods. When I look in my dog's mouth I see the teeth of a carnivore. And he had a ton of health problems due to Inflammatory Bowel Disease until I discontinued all drugs and gave him real raw meat and bones purchased from my local stores and farmer's markets. I was so astonished by his healing it changed the way I feed myself and I eat raw milk, meat from pastured animals, eggs from pastured chickens, and make every effort to
.... More
eat real food from local sources. Some of you may say to get rid of the dog as he serves no purpose besides companionship. But that is the point. I have known since I was 8 years old that I would never be happy without pets; especially a pet dog. For some people happiness means travel, vacations, theater, art, parties, a corner bar, coffee shop. For me life is not complete without a dog. And it has been so with mankind for thousands of years all over the world. What has changed in recent times is the industrialization of our food supply with so many eating fake foods. We eat low fat diets and get fat. Diet Dictocrats have demonized saturated fat from animal sources and then we suffer from diets deficient in fat soluble vitamins. And the garbage from human food processing is made into dog food and we are told that it is "complete and balanced." In fact it results in sick dogs. Table scraps are better if only the table contains real food.
|

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Log in or register to post comments

EDITORS' PICKS

tease AnoNuevo

line

tease cars

line

tease fitness story

Advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement