[Closed] Environmental cost of pet ownership

Panic buying in the pet food aisles in 3....2.....1.....

What about all the poop, my God how much can a Labrador produce!!

On a packaging note, we buy his food in 20kg sacks that last a fair while and then use the sacks for gardening duties before the contents are tipped into the recycle bin and the sacks re-used.

Perhaps the issue here isn't the ownership of pets but they way food manufacturers choose to package and present food.

My dog food comes in a 12kg sack which is 100% recyclable but, more often than not, I will use it as a waste bag or gardening sack. This lasts for about 6 - 8 weeks.
I suspect the issue here is precious owners who buy individually wrapped meals for Tinkerbell.

I also reduce plastic use by doing away with poo bags and leaving her poo's wherever they land*

*joking

I have a cat and a dog. The amount of packaging I throw out from their food is a miniscule fraction of what I throw out for myself.

Pet ownership has bugger all impact the environment

It was discussed. A few years back someone wrote a book claiming that a dog had a bigger carbon footprint than an SUV. The numbers were disputed, but it's clear that a large dog will have a significant impact on the environment, due to both its inputs and outputs - even without all the driving to nice places to take it for a walk.

Pet ownership has bugger all impact the environment

Not so. all that food they eat has to be produced and transported. Every kilo of meat requires 10 kgs of plans at least ( ok varies but thats the accepted figure). Thats a lot of food going to feed our pets while people go hungry.

It seems 10 -20 dogs or cats is equal to one car in pollution terms

So enjoy your pets by all means but like with everything else remember the environmental costs of your choices

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-56328860/blockquote >

Hmm, Aside from chicken 'jerky' treats, Supermarkets don't sell decent pet food to my knowledge - it's over packaged, over processed shite. The pet equivelent of this, maybe they should ban ready meals whilst they are at it.

 

I have a cat and a dog. The amount of packaging I throw out from their food is a miniscule fraction of what I throw out for myself.

The environmental impacts come from the contents, not so much the packaging. It's the same for your food.

My cat has destroyed the local vole population (we live at the side of a big field) and has had a few birds - although we try to get them off her before she kills them.
Natural born killer sadly.

Pet ownership has bugger all impact the environment

Aside from cats decimating the small creature wildlife ecosystem you mean?

Cats should be banned. Dogs are awesome.

Same as others - always buy our dog food in 15kg bags. And she also gets left over food from us (well the healthy bits like chicken and rice. And carrots. She loves carrots).

What about all the poop

biodegradable TBF

Yes to cats.
No to dogs.
No to banning ready meals.
The world can implode as far as I'm concerned in 30 years or so.
I guess as I don't have kids, the next generation of lil consumers, that makes me super enviro friendly.

biodegradable TBF

Also toxic.

The second worst thing, for the environment, is to have a car. The first is to have children. Pets are quite a way down the list...

biodegradable TBF

Also toxic.

Depends what you feed them I guess, what goes in comes out.

This is 4% chicken :0

Every pet has at least one owner, they’ll produce more packaging and more damage to the environment that the pet does. While yes we need to do more to help the environment pets is fairly low down. As mentioned the manufactures need to take responsibility for what they use.

Jake gets a pouch or tin on special occasions the next being his 13th birthday next week.

For any cat/dog owners who think that their pet doesn't have an impact on the environment might want to read this article and maybe have a rethink
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/opinion/pets-uk-ownership-cats-dogs-carbon-environmental-impact-b1249610.html

This is 4% chicken :0

Adult dog chunks with chicken?! Is this what they meant by capitalism eating itself?

I'm guessing the meat content of pet food is waste product that is unfit or undesirable for humans. Not that it would make pet ownership environmentally friendly on that basis alone.

Adult dog chunks with chicken?! Is this what they meant by capitalism eating itself?

😀 also, Tesco chunks in jelly ?!

SO the other 96% of the tin, is doggs, jelly and chunks of tesco?

Brilliant labling 🙁

While yes we need to do more to help the environment pets is fairly low down.

It really isn't. Read the links above

A 2019 study reported that the average Dutch dog’s carbon emissions just for food were up to 1.4 tonnes and cats were up to 0.25 tonnes. This is nearly double the annual electricity carbon emissions for the average UK household just for dog food and about a third of household electricity emissions for the average cat’s food.

Edit - see those LED lamps you fitted? Save a tiny amount compared to the cost of a dog ( pollution / CO2 terms)

Pretty much any human activity has an environmental cost and as the owner of two dogs I accept that. I've no kids though and the mental health benefits to me of the dogs have been huge.

A 2019 study reported that the average Dutch dog’s carbon emissions just for food were up to 1.4 tonnes and cats were up to 0.25 tonnes. This is nearly double the annual electricity carbon emissions for the average UK household just for dog food and about a third of household electricity emissions for the average cat’s food.

I find that difficult to belive as the meat content for most pet cheap pet food is just the crap left over that humans don't want to buy/eat? so whilst I don't condone supermarket pet food, surely there's an economical benefit there as the abattoir waste isn't going to waste as such, it's just minced up into cheap cat/dog food?

In the tesco dog food tin example:

Meat and Animal Derivatives (44%, including 4% Chicken)

I guess the rest is water and gelatin.

The second worst thing, for the environment, is to have a car. The first is to have children. Pets are quite a way down the list…

Medium sized dog about twice as bad a rather thirsty Toyota Land cruiser according to the New Scientist

Needs a sign in but the salient stat is copied below

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427313-200-cute-fluffy-and-horribly-greedy/?ignored=irrelevant

it takes 0.84 hectares [2.07 acres] of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. In contrast, running a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000km a year, requires 0.41 hectares.

4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000km a year, requires 0.41 hectares.

How may hectares for the diesel to fuel it? and how many oil products for all the plastic interiors? How's that measured in hectares?!?

Not to mention the filthy polluting exhast fumes from a 4.6l Chelsea tractor, that taken into account?

I simply can't belive a mid size dog, say a collie or a retriver, is worse for the environment than that.

Aside from cats decimating the small creature wildlife ecosystem you mean?

Cats should be banned. Dogs are awesome.

Yeah i was going to use the word decimate, then realised that would be an underestimate. Maybe time to get a bell.

How may hectares for the diesel to fuel it?

That's included. That's why it's says 10000km/year. It goes on to say a western pet dog has a bigger footprint than the average Vietnamese person. A cat is about the same a VW Golf

As mentioned the mental health/social benefits of dog ownership far outweighs any environmental impact !

Some of the assumptions in that Independent article were quite astonishing.

It states 50% of adults own a pet and it then goes on to discuss mainly cats and their impact on wildlife and a bit about dogs and their food. Which is rather misleading. I'm not 100% sure how much wildlife my dog has killed, but I think it's none at all so far, but he's only 10 so there's still time, I suspect a rabbit or a horse kills even less.

I don't know any dog owners who feed their dog one can/none recyclable packet per day. Most buy bulk, and the bags are recyclable (and so are cans).

What relevance is the % of meat compared to a human diet? My dog doesn't have 3 meals a day, or a coffee and cake for elevensies.

How is fish used for pet food any crueller? Being dragged out of the sea in a net or on a hook and asphyxiating can't be any worse just because you're heading for pet food.

I'm not saying there's not an impact, but if we're going to discuss it let's start with some actual facts.

Given that New Scientist magazine is now owned by the same people that own the Daily Mail, I might take that with a pinch of salt.

Quite a shame, really.. I uesd to buy a copy when traveling for someting interesting to read.

The second worst thing, for the environment, is to have a car. The first is to have children. Pets are quite a way down the list…

Citation needed.

Guinea pigs for the win, we grow a lot of their food, one of our neighbours gives us a bag of veg waste most days, bedding is recycled news paper and natural products (hay) and they eat their own poo, cant get more recycling than that.

I don’t know what my dogs been eating, but there’s a significant localised environmental cost frequently vacating him this evening. The air is so thick with it I think I can almost see it.

I guiltily help make 10k tons of difficult to recycle oil based materials a year that are in constant demand. My furchild as opposed to actually children is way down my list of environmental concerns.

The environmental impact of children is far worse. Children should be banned before pets

My 14 year old 3.0 tdi will cause more damage to the environment then my multiple pets ever will 🙂

Its interesting how the dog owners on here refuse to accdept they create a huge environmental cost.

Dare i say typical entitled dog owners?

* runs away and hides*

It really isn’t. Read the links above

There’s very dodgy statistics in there.

Dare I say it’s a typical pet haters and self proclaimed environmentalists wet dream.

The hidden environmental cost of dogs is the huge number of owners that drive them to walks. Lockdown has exposed this for me. Roads round here rammed with fido limousines as dog owners are incapable of walking them from front door.My cat laughs at the lazy tossers whilst chewing on a Wren.

touche Drac !

[strong]nickjb[/strong] wrote:

That’s included. That’s why it’s says 10000km/year. It goes on to say a western pet dog has a bigger footprint than the average Vietnamese person. A cat is about the same a VW Golf

Biodiesel is mainly made from oil seed rape oil.
Rape yields on average 3 tonnes to the hectare.
0.4 hectares gives 1200 kg of rape seed
oil extracted from the seed is 40% by mass so we get 480 litres of rape oil
conversion of rape oil to biodiesel is 97% efficient given 465 l of biodiesel
if the truck is doing 10000 km a year and the 0.4 hectares is only being used to produce fuel then it will have to be capable of qa fuel consumption of 4.65 l/100 km or about 51 mpg
The example of a Land Cruiser being able to be constructed and fuelled from 0.4 ha is therefore pretty far fetched!

As mentioned the mental health/social benefits of dog ownership far outweighs any environmental impact

Benefits are for you, environmental impact is on everyone. Sounds about right.

One worrying impacts of dog ownership is bird disturbance on beaches and dunes. In winter letting dogs run off leads across the beach at low tide will set birds up causing them to stop feeding and waste energy. This has a measurable negative impact on overwintering and on passage waders like plover and sanderling.

In nesting season dogs can a exacerbate human disturbance of potential nesting birds above the strand line, in dunes and on spits, etc.

As mentioned the mental health/social benefits of dog ownership far outweighs any environmental impact

Tell that to the people suffering the brunt of the environmental impacts

touche Drac !

😉

You nearly had me DezB. 😂

That’s included. That’s why it’s says 10000km/year. It goes on to say a western pet dog has a bigger footprint than the average Vietnamese person. A cat is about the same a VW Golf

I’m pretty sure it’s frowned upon to keep Vietnamese as pets.

I pledge to make my pets carbon neutral by 2035, as they'll probably be dead. After which I'll get my fix from petting zoos.

My 14 year old 3.0 tdi will cause more damage to the environment then my multiple pets ever will

If your pets are goldfish then maybe. If they are dogs and cats then probably not. Unless "3.0 tdi" is the name of your kid

A reasonably balanced article here suggests a significant but perhaps sometimes overstated impact...

"The CO₂e for dog and cat feed is about 1 – 2 % of the countries’ total CO₂e production, but equals about 10 % (for a cat) to 20% (for a dog) of the CO₂e for feeding their owner. The contribution of feed for dogs and cats on the overall production of greenhouse gases may be overestimated in the public discussion, but cannot be neglected if food consumption is considered."

The hidden environmental cost of dogs is the huge number of owners that drive them to walks.

And cyclists who drive to ride, people who drive to walk themselves (yes people do that even if they don't have dogs - the hills wont come to you), people who drive to work, drive to the supermarket, scuba divers who drive to dive, sailors who drive to sail. What's you're point? People do shit and that shit tends not to be right outside their front door. So what's new? You telling me you don't go anywhere to do anything and lock yourself in your house? or that you don't do anything at all that impacts the environment?

Last summer during lockdown we experienced one of the best summers in recent years, people would normally have been out and about anyway...the reality is they were all confined to their local area so you were bound to see more people walking dogs.

On the environmental impact of a dog vs a car. A medium sized dog consumes about 1000 calories a day. A Toyota Landcruiser doing 7k miles a year consumes about 23,700 calories a day. The dog, assuming an average life of 13 years, 4.7 million calories over its lifetime. The Toyota over a 15 year lifespan (probably underestimating it) 130 million calories. I don't think equating the impact to a patch of land is a very representative indication of the environmental impact of anything. Especially as most Land Cruisers I see tend not to be very well maintained and kicking out clouds of black smoke and all manner of horrible toxic substances.

Also that patch of land that has been allocated to the dog is sustainable...it is harvested year after year and keeps on producing and providing beneficial environmental impact. But once you've taken that lump of iron ore out of that mine to make your car, that hole in the ground is useless forever more. And if you need more you need to go and pull up a tree and dig another dirty great hole in the ground. So not sustainable.

Who'd have thought that after that Top gear episode when they went to the North Pole and Clarkson was criticised by all those people for damaging a pristine environment they should have been criticising Hammond instead who got their via dog sled.

On the environmental impact of a dog vs a car. A medium sized dog consumes about 1000 calories a day. A Toyota Landcruiser doing 7k miles a year consumes about 23,700 calories a day. The dog, assuming an average life of 13 years, 4.7 million calories over its lifetime. The Toyota over a 15 year lifespan (probably underestimating it) 130 million calories. I don’t think

Basic mistake - 10 kg of plant to make 1kg of meat so your estimates for the dog are miles out. You also do not include the CO2 cost of transporting and processing the food.

I am not against pets but its one area where folk are so willfully blind. Just be aware of the environmental costs of your lifestyle.

it takes 0.84 hectares [2.07 acres] of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed. In contrast, running a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing and drive it 10,000km a year, requires 0.41 hectares.

Taking everything else out the equation that's utter shite. As pointed out that doesn't even cover the fuel, never mind the embedded energy and manufacture of the car. Also, it was written 12 years ago so whoever wrote it probably knew nobody would bother checking. If anyone wants a citation on that I have a textbook downstairs with common bioenergy crop energy densities in it, published well after that article.

The other big assumption here is the meat content. Dogs on dry food probably eat far less meat than we do. The cheap ones (and a lot of the expensive ones) are full of grain, you have to really search for decent stuff (we went with Millies Wolfheart which stopped the room clearing stench overnight) Can only guess what the hell is in a tin of chappie. Like others we buy in bulk, 24kg at a time, lasts about a month or so.

I have no doubt he has an environmental impact, not least his shit which, if landfilled (which it is) decomposes anearobically forming methane which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Why can we not just put it in garden waste and send it to an AD plant? Because rules.

I can't be arsed subscribing to New Scientist (particularly as the article is over 11 years old) but does that link detail how they measure (or convert) Toyota Land Cruiser total lifetime energy consumption in hectares, instead of more obvious (accepted?) units of measurement (e g. Kilojoules)? And the same for dogs (or cats)?

I'd then be interested to know what their methodology is for determining how much of that energy was generated using clean/renewable versus dirty methods...

Plus does it take into account whatever carbon offsets all the parties in the supply chain use?

As a dog owner, I'm under no illusion that there is zero-enviromental cost but I'll consider getting rid of my mutt and replacing him with a big SUV if it really does reduce my carbon footprint! 😉

Unsurprisingly people don't like being told that their pets/wood burners/bitcoins/hobbies are bad for the environment. I'm sure we all have a blind spot somewhere and have no trouble doing the mental gymnastics to justify it.

Realistically, existing has an impact on the environment. If you live and breathe, you consume. So there's an obvious answer, my branded zero impact koolaid will be available shortly, payment in gold bullion only.

I’m sure we all have a blind spot somewhere and have no trouble doing the mental gymnastics to justify it.

Dont be so judgemental many of us think this through properly and make choices to mitigate our impact, TJ by spending less internet time arguing about everything. And like last year I can make sure we choose the green option for our 2 week ski holiday, we went to whistler because of the hydroelectric projects that power the resort.

If anyone is interested in the science this is quite interesting. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/6/467/5486563

It has some peer reviews of the study quoted in the New Scientist article. Also some comparisons of methods for reducing a pet's environmental footprint

And cyclists who drive to ride, people who drive to walk themselves (yes people do that even if they don’t have dogs – the hills wont come to you), people who drive to work, drive to the supermarket, scuba divers who drive to dive, sailors who drive to sail. What’s you’re point?

My point is that all of these journeys have an impact but many dog owners do it daily as part of routine.

ps. your

My next pet will be an electronic replica. No vet bills, power it down when you go on holiday, no ruined furniture, no piss on the carpet etc. Hopefully boffins are working on it now.

Davros - how about a pet rock?

My next pet will be an electronic replica. No vet bills, power it down when you go on holiday, no ruined furniture, no piss on the carpet etc. Hopefully boffins are working on it now.

Tamagotchi

having children has to be far more damaging than my little white panther

And like last year I can make sure we choose the green option for our 2 week ski holiday, we went to whistler because of the hydroelectric projects that power the resort.

This is a troll right?

having children has to be far more damaging than my little white panther

Is your little panther going to pay tax or work in the NHS or develop vaccines?

This is a troll right?

I took it as parody agreeing with the point I was making.

I have 4 cats, 2 dogs and 4 chickens. I must be a one man environment killer.

I have however not been in a plane for 20+ years and I drive about 2,000 miles a year (using a car that does over 60mpg). I also haven't eaten meat for almost 40 years.
I think I have offset my pet ownership and it is certainly not something I will be worrying about.

Do you have a child kerley? 😉

all I want is for people to be aware and realistic about the choices they make.

I took it as parody agreeing with the point I was making.

Aha yes, whooooosh!

I've not read the article and I can't be arsed to either as you can always find a study somewhere to justify one position or another.

What I do know is that my pets will have far less of an impact on the environment over their lifetime than someones kids ever will. Comments like 'dog walkers cause pollution by driving them for walks' are just daft. If you weren't taking your dog for a walk you'd be driving somewhere else to do something else. Think about how many trips in cars are made due to any leisure activity, especially if you have children.

I'm also struggling to believe for a second that my cat is more polluting than a 4x4 tbh...

this has made me think a bit. i make our dog food from deer i get from a local culler. so one bullet, and about 10 miles of diesel for the chap, the last one was about 50kg larder weight so should last a while. i do use vac pac bags though, maybe you can get reusable ones? i do walk to the park, or drive locally to walk him also. get through a lot of poo bags which are apparently biodegradeable, i wonder if there is a greener option? and of course he farts which can peel the paint of the walls....

Comments like ‘dog walkers cause pollution by driving them for walks’ are just daft. If you weren’t taking your dog for a walk you’d be driving somewhere else to do something else. Think about how many trips in cars are made due to any leisure activity, especially if you have children.

No they are not daft. You do not have to drive everywhere FFS. You have legs, there are buses and trains. You have become conditioned to think you cannot move further than 100 yards without mechanical assistance. Just make better choices where you can. I'm not advocating a blanket ban on driving anywhere. I just wish that the attitude you display above was not the majority view. I have two children and the vast majority of leisure activities when they were growing up involved a walk or bike ride from our house. I accept that inner city flat dwellers may not be so lucky. But I see so so many Chelsea tractors rammed with kids/dogs that are clearly not from a tower block.

this has made me think a bit.

I think this is the key for me. I like dogs and have no issues with pet ownership in principle. The key is to be aware that there is an environmental factor but also that you can do something about it.

The environmental impact of children is far worse. Children should be banned before pets

Couldn't agree more. Disposable nappies/washing non disposable ones just for a start.
Why anyone would want 3-4 kids nowadays is beyond me & how they afford them is another mystery, but still there's always food banks & free school meals. I digress.....

I really do not like children anymore.

Why would anyone trust children, they are here to replace you.

I just wish that the attitude you display above was not the majority view. I have two children and the vast majority of leisure activities when they were growing up involved a walk or bike ride from our house. I accept that inner city flat dwellers may not be so lucky. But I see so so many Chelsea tractors rammed with kids/dogs that are clearly not from a tower block.

Ok..Well firstly I very rarely drive to take my dog for a walk. Infact i drive less than a 1000 miles a year in total for any purpose so im perfecty aware you dont need to drive everywhere. So my attitude is just fine thanks. Plenty of folks do like to jump in the car and get into country however, and if it wasn't for dog walking it would be for some other purpose. Fact of life I'm afraid.

When it comes to the environment, I really cant take the judgmental overtones of anyone with children seriously. Just by having kids you have done far more to damage the environment than I ever will I'm afraid.

Just by having kids you have done far more to damage the environment than I ever will I’m afraid.

Yeah but someone wanted to have sex with me, just saying 😉

Yeah but someone wanted to have sex with me, just saying 😉

You are bragging on the internet you were occasionally allowed to have sex with your wife?

🤣 let's get back to the real issue. What e-dog for trail riding? Specialized spaniel?

I am beginning to think that by far the biggest influence on carbon footprint is how much you earn (or at least how much you spend). Whether the money goes on cats, dogs, SUVs, flights, coffee... is of secondary importance - it is just rearranging the furniture.

So if you do find yourself in the unenviable position of earning too much - buy quality over quantity and stick the rest in the pension and retire young.