An article titled “Your dog’s carbon footprint is twice that of SUV” (Oct 28), has me appalled not only at the literal implications of the suggestion that we should eat dogs, but also the politics behind comparing the carbon footprint of dogs with SUVs. It is nothing but a blatant defense of consumerism and a convenient way of taking away the responsibility of humans for the ecological crisis. It ratifies destructive consumerism by showing that we are not the only sources of carbon emissions in the biological world. When the developed countries are not ready to even acknowledge the climate threat, this provides an excuse to further ignore it. Why are we forgetting that it is not the dog that creates imbalance in the ecosystem and lives out of harmony with nature? We have no right to take away its right to exist for a problem that we humans have created ourselves. The dog does what it does to simply survive. Are the writers of this book (same title, by New Zealand architects, Brenda and Robert Vale, researchers from Wellington's Victoria University) implying that life is secondary to material luxuries? By their own logic, if the solution is to eat the dog to reduce its carbon footprint, shouldn’t humans be subject to the same? If we shouldn't keep pets (they even compared the carbon footprint of a goldfish to 2 cellphones!!), what right do we have to have children?
I find this article a motivation to believe literally what Swift suggested in his "Modest Proposal" - eat children to reduce poverty. He might have been bitterly sarcastic, but times show we are coming to a point when it might not be so. We will not stop our greed even if we have to eat every single edible thing on this planet.
In other "discussions", opinions vary. I found some worth mentioning:
From here: "So if you want to save the environment, skip the Prius and just eat Fido for dinner." (Sensitive, eh?)
"This is less about mulling over Fidoburgers, than having you feel better about your gas-guzzler."
And a very interesting discussion thread running here. Snippets:
Person 1: "Dogs are very cool. Some meathead in a designer hummer is not."
Person 2: "The point is they want one and you don't or they can afford one and you can't."
Person 1: "Any of you SUV rocket scientists read the article? The same ecological impact as driving 10,000 km (6,213 miles) a year in a 4.6 liter Land Cruiser.
A) 6,000 miles isn't diddly on the average SUV
B) BUILDING the unnecessary SUV puts the carbon footprint up there with all the dogs in new jersey.
C) for whoever it was back there, I could easily afford an SUV, nice big, new one as a matter of fact, but I drive the 93 Camry that I bought new used and intend to put a good 200,000 miles on it before it gives up the ghost.
I have no problem with SUVs for a decent reason. you need to drive a big Suburban because you are contractor, makes perfect sense. you want to be one of these Escalade driving accountants I see around town, who can't even parallel park the thing, stop running the planet into the ground for your ego and stop clogging up the highway with your lousy driving in a big machine.
Show me a farmer in a beat up Ford Ranger, hey I salute him. Show me some moron downtown at the bar in his immaculate Navigator with out a scratch on it, I don't give a damn how much its sales manager "wants" it, its an eco-crime.
Person 3: See, that used to be the beauty of the USA...you can have your opinion...hell, you can even express your opinion. But, if *I* wanted to buy what *I* wanted to buy...so fricking what?!
Person 1: "Yep, its true. Any idiot who wants to can crap up the planet here."
Gee, this thread has potential. Go read it for yourself. And do share your views too.



