When I stumbled across the Dogs Have Bigger Carbon Footprint Than SUVs? article on Current, I couldn't help but post it on my dad's  facebook page (he is after all, a veterinarian). Turns out he had a lot to say on the matter, so I asked him to write a guest post on for us.

Guest blogger Dr. Larry Lamb (aka my dad) is a practicing veterinarian who shares a passion for caring for pets and the environment. He writes the newspaper column and blog, Pets and People.

We live in a time when there is a sincere concern for the health of our family, our pets and our planet due to what is called the greenhouse affect.  The greenhouse affect is defined as a concern that the carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere is a cause for global warming.  One of the ways of determining how much greenhouse gas we add to the environment is determined by what is called a “carbon footprint” and it is measured by the amount of carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere.

When we heat our house and drive our cars we produce carbon dioxide (CO2).  In fact, even the food we produce, consume and throw away has an affect on our carbon footprint. When we consider the relationship between pets and people there has been some research done and opinions expressed about the affect pets have on the environment and in this article I will express my opinion about the impact pets have on the environment we live in.

If we analyze the “Carbon Paw Print”  of domestic pets, different conclusions can be ascertained. Recently, there has been a book published based on this subject titled, Time  to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, by Robert and Brenda Vale, two researchers from Victoria University in New Zealand. They compare the ecological footprints of owning pets compared to other life style choices. Scientific studies often serve as a benefit and are important in discovering new ways to improve our health.  However, we  must be wary of studies which are sponsored by corporations or scientists who champion a point of view.

The Vale’s research was based on analyzing the common ingredients in most pets foods and then determining how much land was required to produce this food. Their conclusions were that the amount of energy and land required to produce this food created a negative impact on the environment based on carbon emissions. They then compared this to owning a SUV and other ways we contribute CO2 to our environment.

It is possible to prove a point scientifically and draw a flawed conclusion from the research and then oversimplify the findings in order to create controversy in order to sell books. There have been many examples of this and an inquirering mind will have to seek several resources before believing everything that is printed.

To understand the relationship of pets and people and sustainability, let’s briefly review the history of domestic pets. Consider that in ancient times, animals became camp followers.  They consumed the waste products of native peoples. In the case of felines, they consumed vermin as they do today.  Eventually, they became companions to human populations and people  shared their food with their pets.

As we study history we gain insight and the expression “nothing new under the sun” seems appropriate. `A research study which delineates the energy consumption of pet food does not take into account the fact that most of the ingredients in common pet foods are indeed recycled products that would have been disposed of anyway.  This would create a cost and the energy consumed to dispose of this food  could contribute to the greenhouse affect anyway.  Dog foods contain meat by-products.  Just as the native peoples fed the early domestic pets their waste products, we do the same today.  Humans will not eat most meat by-products.

Another factor we should consider is the actual reduction in the total carbon footprint of families that are childless or have fewer children because pets can be a substitute for larger families. Producing a basketball team that has to be fed, sheltered and educated has a larger impact on the environment than a golden retriever.

Pets contribute to the health of their owners. Many studies have concluded that pet ownership contributes to our happiness and longevity.  Stress and loneliness have a great impact on our sense of well being and happiness. Pets are key factors in good health and happiness and a reduction of stress ranks right behind diet and exercise as an important components in a healthy lifestyle.  We should also consider the carbon footprint of our health care system. Less illness equates to fewer resources being dedicated to healthcare.  We waste less in the materials, manpower and the maintenance of our healthcare facilities required to treat illness caused by the stress that is often alleviated by pet ownership.

Their are ways we can be responsible about our environment that are related to pets. We can support products that utilize eco-freindly packaging and we can educate ourselves about the viability of utilizing foods that are an excellent source of nutrition but disposed of as waste.

As a veterinarian, I see the benefit that pet ownership brings to the lives of people on a daily basis. I also care about the environment our children will inherit.

Meanwhile, you might find this piece by Max and Jason on animal rescue and a strange case of animal hoarding:

Related Posts

The Internet's Best Animal Sex (video)

Animal Planet or Porno? (video)

Animals CAN tell right from wrong