You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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).
I suspect there is a lot of truth in that. I remember a program many years ago where people from different lifestyles came together in some kind of eco-off. One woman was very preachy about her green lifestyle when they did the calculations a student came out far greener than her as they never drove anywhere, didn't really go on holiday and lived on tins of beans.
I remember a program many years ago where people from different lifestyles came together in some kind of eco-off.
I did some work for a family who lived in a 5M+ mansion near Henley, daddy worth 200M+. Hubby was really into green issues and supported electric cars so much that he bought 3 of them, and he regularly attended big environment events in the UK, Europe and US - flying first class of course. They also had a green assessment done of the house and were disappointed to find that even after making changes their kitchen/dining/living area (glazed on 3 sides) was using about as much energy as the average house, probably because it was about the size of the average house.
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).
And how you spend it.
Again to me this comes back to the light green / dark green split. People want to be reassured that they are doing their bit and a lot of effort goes in to convincing people they can still consume but by doing this and that is makes it all OK. Greenwashing.
Not that many people are really realistic about the environmental costs of their lifestyle and / or care enough to do anything significant about it.
The only real answer to the climate crisis is we all need to consume less - a lot less. I guess many / most of you would find the compromises I make very hard - but even what I do is not enough.
Its interesting how the dog owners on here refuse to accdept they create a huge environmental cost
I think it was implicit in my post that I accepted having dogs had an environmental impact but in case I wasn't clear - I fully accept that having dogs has an environmental impact. Sorry everyone. 😉
This sounds like a job for 'more or less'.
It is interesting just how hard it is to work out the environmental cost of anything. For instance the sentence:
flying first class of course
at first glance seems indulgent, but then I started to think..
...if the objective is to spend the most money with the least environmental impact. Flying first class is pretty good at that: for around 10x the cost you get say 3x the cabin space of economy.
...On the other hand by travelling first class, there would be additional environmental costs such as provision of the first-class lounge, more cabin staff per passenger, and more general "propping-up-the airline industry" costs. which aren't accounted for simply by the size of seat.
... and of course if the objective is instead to get as many people from A to B with the least impact, flying first-class spectacularly fails on that count. But then it begs the question why do they need to get from A to B in the first place?.
...and I ended up back where I started: how much you spend probably makes far more difference than how you spend it.
Anyway, if nothing else, "saving the planet" has been a good self justification for my lack of career/financial ambition.
Anyway, if nothing else, “saving the planet” has been a good self justification for my lack of career/financial ambition.
Its a great catch all for a whole load of things like being cheap or avoiding fashion.
Anyway, if nothing else, “saving the planet” has been a good self justification for my lack of career/financial ambition.
Its a great catch all for a whole load of things like being cheap or avoiding fashion.
Works for me 🙂
Less than kids. I have no kids so I'm still ahead on the eviro stakes.
Its interesting how the dog owners on here refuse to accdept they create a huge environmental cost
"Huge" is the point of contention...for every dog you see being shuttled around in the back of a Chelsea Tractor, there will be others which aren't. I have no idea what that ratio is but maybe there's another scientific survey out there which has studied this?
(And yes, my dog is sometimes taken on walks which don't start at the house. Is that, individually, "huge"? I'm sceptical but on a worldwide scale, of course it is, just like most other activities scaled up, like taking kids to school or sports days, or people going to work, or people taking part in most/a lot of leisure activities...)
“Huge”
Is a relative term, huge compared to what? one dog v's a 4.8 litre car?
I don't know where you guys live but round where I am people tend to walk their dogs predominantly from their front door. I know 99% of my dog's walks don't involve a drive anywhere
You could say that 90% of things we do in life have a 'huge'impact on the environment when you scale them up. I bet the amount of co2 generated ferrying little jonny to his after school football lessons is fairly substantial when you multiply it by many millions. Maybe we should start a thread entitled 'the environmental cost of kids after school clubs'
Pet ownership is pretty far down the list of things I'd give a shit about when it comes to damaging the planet.
Markgraylish - its mainly in the food they eat that the environmental costs of pets arise and HUge is a poor word perhaps - significant? Its a lot bigger than folk think. Various figures in this thread and lots of examples of people refusing to accept this
It's just another reason to rehome a dog rather than get one from a breeder. If you get a dog from a non-kill shelter then it has obviously got to be fed by someone so it may as well be you doing the feeding.
I know a vegan who won't get another dog after her dogs go because she doesn't like feeding them meat (more for animal welfare reasons than environmental) but it would make more sense to me to either get a rescue dog or try them on a vegan diet.
An insect based diet is another option.
Mine gets raw meat. It does come in plastic packaging but the meat itself is that which humans wouldn't eat. The venison has a lot of bone and I'm guessing is the head or lower legs.
She also gets bones from the butchers. They don't charge me. I asked why and they said they have to send them up to Glasgow (60 miles away) to get incinerated so she does her bit for the environment by chomping on those. Some I simmer for 12 hours or so though and give her the liquid so that's not so environmentally friendly.
I don't have kids though and that's got to be the worst thing you can do for the planet.
Now I have an electric car can I have 3 dogs?
As I’ve bought a new bike in 11 years can I have 4 dogs?
Wait I have a log burner, I’m off to get Jake destroyed.
Hold on he was a re-home so he doesn’t count.
Well the rehome argument makes sense to me, perhaps not to everybody!
I have 2 kids though so I’m worse than hitler.
Not if you rehome them.
Or you could get them destroyed instead of the dog.
mainly in the food they eat that the environmental costs of pets arise
Genuine question but I assumed dog food was made of the shit that wasn't fit for human consumption and comprised of meat that would otherwise have been thrown out?
Yay, let's kill all the animals so that humans can continue to rape the planet for a bit longer before making it uninhabitable.
Genuine question but I assumed dog food was made of the shit that wasn’t fit for human consumption and comprised of meat that would otherwise have been thrown out?
https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2020/area-twice-size-of-uk-needed-to-feed-worlds-pets
https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2020/area-twice-size-of-uk-needed-to-feed-worlds-pets/blockquote >Crikey...Mr balloo the cat and Isla the dog are going on a diet of home grown veg and my leftovers after reading that..
Genuine question but I assumed dog food was made of the shit that wasn’t fit for human consumption and comprised of meat that would otherwise have been thrown out?
He had a great big lump of venison this evening. Looked as good a quality as anything I've seen in shops. I'm veggie mind you so cant do a taste test.
The bags the dog food comes in get used to keep the garden free from the food by-products. It's the circle of life!
Two rescue cats and three pedigree cats here, all indoor (with an outdoor run so don't sh1t in gardens).
The litter is all wood by products, but it's the cat food. The buggers will only ear Felix As goog as it looks, or occasionally whiskas in the plastic pouches. We've enough cats to demolish a tin in one sitting if the manufacturers did the good stuff in tins.
Tell that to the people suffering the brunt of the environmental impacts
Ok I’m a killer tell me more !
To all the folks not having kids or pets for the good of the environment, who are you doing it for?
HUge is a poor word perhaps – significant? Its a lot bigger than folk think. Various figures in this thread and lots of examples of people refusing to accept this
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but just about any activity when scaled up to the current human population is gonna have a huge/significant "effect" no matter what you are actually measuring. Of course, that doesn't preclude individuals from making a difference.
For the record, my dog has just polished off a kangaroo tail treat and I don't live in Australia so I'll be first up against the wall when the environmental activists find me 🙂
However, I still remain sceptical about that "worse than a Toyota Land Cruiser" energy consumption quote. Just compare the amount of energy consumed conceiving a dog and nurturing it, compared to the energy cost of building one Land Cruiser (never mind the energy used to mine, process and deliver the raw materials to the factory (more energy to build) plus deliver it to market and the support infrastructure required to support it during the cars useful life plus the energy required to dispose/recycle it).
Can someone copy and paste the entire New Scientist text?
The comparison with a 4x4 goes back many years, I don't know how old that article is. Remember, as with any environmental impact assessment, many assumptions are made and average figures used so if the average dog eats a large can of meat every day but you feed your dog carrots, you're at the bottom end of the scale. A 4x4 is quite an offensive comparison, but used for that reason no doubt to help realise that pets have an impact, of course they do. Any living thing has an impact on the planet.
Can someone copy and paste the entire New Scientist text?
I did post a link to some peer reviews of the study:
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/6/467/5486563
You can easily check the figures for cars. Yes there will be a few assumptions but they seem broadly correct to me.
For me the key thing is that you can do something about it and significantly reduce the eco footprint of a pet.
@doomanic
I didn't have kids for a variety of reasons but the belief that there are far too many people on this planet and I shouldn't add to their numbers was one of them. It's just my belief obviously and other people have to do what feels right for them.
Overall I'm glad I didn't have kids and definitely think it was the best decision for me. That's not to say I don't get a little wistful at times thinking about other choices I could have made. But if I had my time again, I would make the same decision about not having kids myself. Almost everything else, I'd make a different decision! I might have chosen to adopt if circumstances had allowed.
As for who I am doing it for, well me obviously, but also in an attempt to free up a bit of space on this planet for other animals.
As for who I am doing it for, well me obviously, but also in an attempt to free up a bit of space on this planet for other animals.
Thanks for making for my dog.
@Drac
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what your problem is but you clearly have one. My guess would be immaturity.
To all the folks not having kids or pets for the good of the environment, who are you doing it for?
That is a great question.
I have gone past caring in the last few years as the environmental crisis is going to happen anyway as pretty much every country in the world has left it too late and any goals are way too far out.
I am not bothered about future generations and people that don't even exist yet, they will just have to deal with whatever they have just the same as I have to deal with whatever I have in my lifetime.
Everyone is now just pissing around the edges as to fix the problems in any meaningful way would mean such major changes that it is never going to happen.
So get as many dogs and cats as you want.
Sorry, I’m not quite sure what your problem is but you clearly have one. My guess would be immaturity.
My guess would be you missed the humour.
No problem.
I don't think the typo helped 🙂
... unless it was intended, and it is a very surreal joke
I am not bothered about future generations and people that don’t even exist yet, t
I think this has to be the most honest answer I've ever read on stw! You'll get absolutely flamed for it however I'm sure...
I must say I don't go out my way to care much for the environment simply because I'm very confident my carbon footprint is far smaller than average. Work from home, no kids, fly max once a year, barely drive. I'm sure I could do more but i genuinely can't be assed when i see those around me shafting the planet far more than I ever will.
To all the folks not having kids or pets for the good of the environment, who are you doing it for?
Because its the right thing to do? Its only part of my reasons anyway
Why is it the “right thing to do” though and for who is it right for?
This planet has experienced extinction level events before and survived, the only difference now is that one of the species affected is sentient. That that species is the one hastening that event is immaterial, it will happen, it’s only a matter of when.
@tjagain Agree with you if you are talking about breeding either pets or humans but adopting surely has to be the best thing to do if you are able/want to.
Re not caring about future generations, how about we don't make those future generations? Not only have humans beings done extreme damage to this planet and its other inhabitants but many of us are really struggling with our mental health. You've only got to look at some of the threads on this site to know that. I think many people's lives are about managing their mental health problems. It is why some of us ride or rode bikes. It could be argued that many of us would have been better off not existing in the first place. If I could go back and have the choice to exist or not, I'd choose not. I know that sounds really sad and self pitying but it's how I honestly feel.
Telling people not to have kids always seems like a bit of a cop out to me, like an excuse for the current generations not to have to fix their unsustainable lifestyles.
Implicit in the idea that "kids are bad for the environment" is the assumption that people won't change, the next generation will the same.
But as a race, humans do change over generations. We've already seen young people are leading the fight against climate change and holding protests. It's the older generations who don't want to lose their cars and other luxuries.
Anyway, people are already having less kids (1.4 - 1.6 per couple in most developed countries)
PS: Sorry your feeling down The Pilot. It's temporary, things change. But you can't see this if you are in a state of despair, as you only remember the bad bits of your life, one of the downsides of our associative memory recall I guess.
@HoratioHufnagel
Thanks. There's a big part of me that thinks I should just stop feeling so sorry for myself and go and do something. Struggle to find the motivation. I do enjoy walking the dog and playing squeaky toy with her so that's something I suppose. Hopefully moving house and going somewhere a bit less dreary than SW Scotland soon too which will help.
I did post a link to some peer reviews of the study:
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/69/6/467/5486563
/blockquote>That study was published 10 years after the article in New Scientist however it does refer to the 2009 study:
Using the square meters (m2) of land needed to generate the previously converted dry grams into whole chicken or grains present in the product (taking into account specific water content), they obtained an EPP of 0.27 hectares (ha) for an average medium-size dog (0.18 for small dogs and 0.36 for large dogs). They compared this to a dog having a completely omnivorous human diet and obtained an EPP of 0.48 ha per year. For cats, they used the same methodology to calculate the footprint of a 1-year supply of dry cat food and obtained 0.3 ha per year. Vale and Vale also assessed the footprint of the packaging but concluded that it was too small an amount to be significant. For tinned cat food, they assumed 80% moisture and converted the protein content into its raw meat equivalent. Assuming a cat is fed one 400-gram tin daily for a year, they calculated a paw print of 0.84 ha per year for beef, 0.13 ha per year for all other livestock meats, and 0.54 ha per year for fish meat.
But wait, that wasn't what was printed in New Scientist!
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.
So where that figure comes from is anyones guess but until someone prints the actual article I have to assume either a typo or deliberate misrepresentation.
One interesting point though:
An interesting finding from Rushforth and Moreau (2013) is that using lean meat in dog food was better—in terms of environmental impacts—than using offal, because its protein content more easily satisfies a dog's protein requirements.
The main point in that study would appear to be that over feeding and over nourishment is a significant factor that needs addressed. I have no problem with that at all, if we cut back on excesses everywhere we could cut a significant amount emissions. I realise there is sod all chance of that though what with our consumerist society.
We’ve already seen young people are leading the fight against climate change and holding protests. It’s the older generations who don’t want to lose their cars and other luxuries.
That's great until the young people are the older generation who then have their cars, houses and other luxuries and protesting about stuff goes out of the window and they put their tick against the tory candidate. Typically happens before they get to 50.
I've been (cynically) using the environment argument with my wife all through lockdown to avoid getting a dog.
One way to lessen the impact of dog food is to switch them to a vegetarian diet. Unlike cats, they're omnivores and can happily thrive without meat. There's a fallacy that dogs are just tame wolves so they need meat.
A 27-year-old Indian man plans to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent.
Mumbai businessman Raphael Samuel told the BBC that it's wrong to bring children into the world because they then have to put up with lifelong suffering.
Mr Samuel, of course, understands that our consent can't be sought before we are born, but insists that "it was not our decision to be born".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-47154287
On the general concept of owning pets.
The other thread talking about shock collars kinda rams this point home also.
@grum
I saw that about the Indian man. It helped me make sense of what I'd been thinking for a long time.
As for owning pets, I totally agree. I wish she was still the wolf her ancestors were and she had space to live a natural life. But in the world we've created then I think it's right to adopt dogs. Mine came from Romania and was adopted by someone else first. They were told she was 14. She is actually nearer to four. She was just very run down. She seems happy, I do my very best by her but, if I'm honest, I still wish she was a wolf. And me an ape.
Our attitude to pets was crystalized for me the other day. I was talking to a fellow dog walker who said his 12-year-old terrier was suffering from arthritis. I asked him if he gave him any supplements. He said no. I suggested salmon oil. He said: "He'll be eating better than me."
Based on the interaction with my cat amongst others vs. the ‘humanity’ on display at the moment, I’d probably ban humans first TBH.
Also, be much kinder to the environment if everyone had one pet instead of a child. Adults would be better rested and less grumpy too.
Really don’t like children
I think getting rescue/rehomed dogs is totally legit, I think anyone who is supporting the pet breeding industry needs to have a think about whether they are really an animal lover.
Because its the right thing to do? I
That’s a very big claim.
So the kids argument...
Shall I and all my kids’ colleagues’ parents go back in time and un have the kids? If we do, who is going to look after is when we have COVID and who is going to give us chemotherapy if we get lymphoma? If we turn the kids tap off, the last of us to grow old will be in a bit of trouble.
Obviously population has an impact but surely the main issue is how we live not that we live.
I personally wouldn’t take environment impact into account in any way in my decision to have a pet. I’ve got a cat, would not give the environment impact one single thought. Very far down my list.