So tere\’s a new book out called \”Time to Eat the Dog\”.
The logic of which is that pets have CO2 emissions from the food they eat therefore perhaps we should cut down on hte number of pets we have in order to reduce emissions.
That logical error is illustrated by that tiger: we have no use for tigers: we don\’t eat them (well, certain odd Chinese medicines aside), we don\’t use them in any manner in fact except to look at them and go \”Wow!\”. They are, in fact, therefore pets. But an adult tiger eats some 2,200 kg of meat a year, 13 times more than that Collie. The environmental impact of a collie is thus 13 times as much: like driving a Land Cruiser 78,000 miles a year. So, if we follow the logic of this book then we\’ve got to follow the logic that, if we are in favor of the continued existence of tigers then we must add that carbon emission number to our own when calculating whether our lifestyle is truly sustainable.
So, err, shouldn\’t we be cutting down on hte amount of wildlife then as well, in order to make our lifestyles truly sustainable?