Heck with that! Your dog is WORSE!
MUCH worse!
So claimed CBSNews.com Monday in a piece hysterically titled, "Just Blame the Dog for Environment's Ills":
So apparently Rover whizzing on the carpet isn't the worst thing he does. Not by a long shot. He's also killing the planet.
Maybe that's a little harsh. But, at the very least, he's not helping matters.
That's according to a study titled Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living, which finds that dogs have a greater eco-footprint than gas-guzzling SUVs.Robert and Brenda Vale, two sustainable-living researchers from New Zealand, authored the study, which was reviewed in the New Scientist. Their conclusions are based on the amount of resources expended to feed household pets - in a medium-sized dog's case it takes slightly more than 2 acres of land to produce the roughly 360 pounds of meat and 210 pounds of grain they consume each year.
In contrast, less than half that amount of land would be required to produce the energy to power an SUV driven a modest 10,000 miles a year, according to the study.
Missing from this CBS piece was the harsher point of this study: after you kill your dog, you should eat it.
Which raises a question that has plagued conservatives for decades: if environmentalists really believe mammals are responsible for all planetary ills, why are there any environmentalists?
Think about it.
