Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Eat a Dog, Save the Earth
Ihmotepp
Member Posts: 14,495
Uh oh. Unless you are a hypocrite, looks like you have to put the family dog to sleep before you can criticize people that drive and SUV.
What will PETA think about this?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569124,00.html
The Values noted that a medium dog consumes 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily in its recommended 300-gram portion of dried dog food. They then determined that Fido wolfs down about 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals per year.
It takes 43.3 square meters of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year — far more for beef and lamb — and 13.4 square meters to generate a kilogram of cereals. So that gives him a footprint of 0.84 hectares. For a big dog such as a German shepherd, the figure is 1.1 hectares.
Meanwhile, a Toyota Land Cruiser driven a modest 10,000 kilometers a year, uses 55.1 gigajoules, which includes the energy required both to fuel and to build it. One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of energy per year, so the Land Cruiser's eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares — less than half that of a medium-sized dog.
Comments
Average American drives about 40k KM per year. Still I am open with including dog as game meat. It would help decrease the stray dog population.
People are still, by far, the most inefficient animal on the planet, so we should start there.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Some people have more than one dog.
Some people have more than one dog.
Many Americans have more than one car too.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Some people have more than one dog.
Many Americans have more than one car too.
But you can't drive two cars at the same time. That would be a good trick!
Some people have more than one dog.
Many Americans have more than one car too.
But you can't drive two cars at the same time. That would be a good trick!
The U.S. military is working on that.
Some people have more than one dog.
Many Americans have more than one car too.
But you can't drive two cars at the same time. That would be a good trick!
The U.S. military is working on that.
The U.S tax paying citizen you mean? Afterall the military belongs to them, they pay for it.
That is true, as long as population growth is rampant, it will continue to get worse.
And you should be the first to go...
But on a serious note, who has the right to determine who lives or dies under population control? Bah
And you should be the first to go...
But on a serious note, who has the right to determine who lives or dies under population control? Bah
Population control is easy. When you have a first world country, people do it on their own.
All first world countries have either negative population, stagnant population, or very minimal growth.
It is only countries that are poverty stricken where you see large population growth.
The poverty in all cases stems from corrupt governments.
If you want to control population, you don't have to kill anyone. you simply destroy corrupt governments, and encourage functioning democracies. In all cases this leads to smaller population growth.
But for now, we must cap and trade cats and dogs.
Those with cats and dogs must pay a global warming tax, since their pets are contributing to global warming. This money will be given to those that do not have pets, since they are saving energy.
And if we are going to cap and trade Co2 emissions, there should be a tax on population per square foot.
Those countries with more people per square foot cause more Co2. The people breathe out co2, and they pave over areas that could adsorb co2.
So a country like India or China should be made to pay a population tax as well.
Democracies mean nothing to people who didn't fight for it themselves.
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Either you are being sarcastic, or you are <<edited to be nice in the pansy off-topic forum>>.
Either you are being sarcastic, or you are <<edited to be nice in the pansy off-topic forum>>.
What? It's the standard cap and trade rational.
If you have a pet, you are contributing to global warming. To save the planet, we must cap pets, and trade the credits. If you own a pet you must pay a carbon tax, and the tax should be given to those that don't own pets.
It's exactly the same as if you drive a car, you have to pay a carbon tax and pay people that don't drive cars.
Either you are being sarcastic, or you are <<edited to be nice in the pansy off-topic forum>>.
What? It's the standard cap and trade rational.
I am speaking of the cap and tax in general. It's a pathetic piece of shit.
And your getting this from a book. Written in New Zealand no less. LOL
What this really illustrates is how Fox has had become like the Daily show and other entertainment media in order to survive. Talk about throwing red meat to the dog. LOL
This isn't a serious debate forum, but if you do debate you have to attack the credibility of the idea, not the source.
You need to show that dogs and cats do not contribute to global warming, not that the story came from Fox.
Showing the story came from Fox only shows that well, the story came from Fox.
Showing that cats and dogs do not contribute to global warming would actually ad something to the debate.
If for example you provide me with evidence fo GLobal Warming you got from Moveon.org, I need to attack the evidence, not the fact that it came from Move On.
It's either true or not, regardless of where it came from.
There are millions of dogs and cats, they breathe out Co2 and fart methane, and they eat food that requires energy to be produced.
I think it's going to be hard for you to show they don't contribute to global warming.
This isn't a serious debate forum, but if you do debate you have to attack the credibility of the idea, not the source.
You need to show that dogs and cats do not contribute to global warming, not that the story came from Fox.
Showing the story came from Fox only shows that well, the story came from Fox.
Showing that cats and dogs do not contribute to global warming would actually ad something to the debate.
If for example you provide me with evidence fo GLobal Warming you got from Moveon.org, I need to attack the evidence, not the fact that it came from Move On.
It's either true or not, regardless of where it came from.
There are millions of dogs and cats, they breathe out Co2 and fart methane, and they eat food that requires energy to be produced.
I think it's going to be hard for you to show they don't contribute to global warming.
Well your right this isn't a serious debate, but you can't seperate the credibility of the source from the idea. I agree that it would be hard to prove that dogs or cats have anything to do with global warming. This is probably why your evidence came from a book published by a New Zealand couple and not anything credible. And I wasn't attacking Fox but the mainstream media and it's move from hard news too entertainment.
a comment on the book from Amazon: "My other half has a PhD in mathematics, and after reading the introduction to this book, he abandoned it and declared that he was unconvinced that the authors had any real understanding of statistics."
Didn't mean to get all serious on ya!
This isn't a serious debate forum, but if you do debate you have to attack the credibility of the idea, not the source.
You need to show that dogs and cats do not contribute to global warming, not that the story came from Fox.
Showing the story came from Fox only shows that well, the story came from Fox.
Showing that cats and dogs do not contribute to global warming would actually ad something to the debate.
If for example you provide me with evidence fo GLobal Warming you got from Moveon.org, I need to attack the evidence, not the fact that it came from Move On.
It's either true or not, regardless of where it came from.
There are millions of dogs and cats, they breathe out Co2 and fart methane, and they eat food that requires energy to be produced.
I think it's going to be hard for you to show they don't contribute to global warming.
Well your right this isn't a serious debate, but you can't seperate the credibility of the source from the idea. I agree that it would be hard to prove that dogs or cats have anything to do with global warming. This is probably why your evidence came from a book published by a New Zealand couple and not anything credible. And I wasn't attacking Fox but the mainstream media and it's move from hard news too entertainment.
a comment on the book from Amazon: "My other half has a PhD in mathematics, and after reading the introduction to this book, he abandoned it and declared that he was unconvinced that the authors had any realy understanding of statistics."
Didn't mean to get all serious on ya!
There is no longer such a thing as "main stream" media.
What's that supposed to mean? We get our news from CBS, CNN, FoX, MSNBC, blogs, youtube videos, radio, twitter, face book, newspapers, magazines from the Economist to the GLOBE, Yahoo news, Google news, and lots of others.
Which ones are "main stream"? They're all just media.
And yes, the truth is hte truth no matter where it comes from.
If an idiot taht never read a book, neverr went to school, says the earth revolves around the sun, it's still true.
If a PhD says the Sun revolves around the earth that doesn't make it true.
Something is true or not, regardless of the source.
Yes, but you are ignoring the sources, including the gentleman who started this whole global warming fad, who have proof there is no man-made or man-contributed global warming. Hell, they do not even call it global warming, it is now called "climate change" since there have been steady drops in temperature as proof "global warming" does not exist. It's simply a way for governments to attempt to add additional control to and squeeze more money out of individuals.
I swear, you "climate change" nuts are just as loony as religious fanatics. This IS your religion.
This isn't a serious debate forum, but if you do debate you have to attack the credibility of the idea, not the source.
You need to show that dogs and cats do not contribute to global warming, not that the story came from Fox.
Showing the story came from Fox only shows that well, the story came from Fox.
Showing that cats and dogs do not contribute to global warming would actually ad something to the debate.
If for example you provide me with evidence fo GLobal Warming you got from Moveon.org, I need to attack the evidence, not the fact that it came from Move On.
It's either true or not, regardless of where it came from.
There are millions of dogs and cats, they breathe out Co2 and fart methane, and they eat food that requires energy to be produced.
I think it's going to be hard for you to show they don't contribute to global warming.
Well your right this isn't a serious debate, but you can't seperate the credibility of the source from the idea. I agree that it would be hard to prove that dogs or cats have anything to do with global warming. This is probably why your evidence came from a book published by a New Zealand couple and not anything credible. And I wasn't attacking Fox but the mainstream media and it's move from hard news too entertainment.
a comment on the book from Amazon: "My other half has a PhD in mathematics, and after reading the introduction to this book, he abandoned it and declared that he was unconvinced that the authors had any realy understanding of statistics."
Didn't mean to get all serious on ya!
There is no longer such a thing as "main stream" media.
What's that supposed to mean? We get our news from CBS, CNN, FoX, MSNBC, blogs, youtube videos, radio, twitter, face book, newspapers, magazines from the Economist to the GLOBE, Yahoo news, Google news, and lots of others.
Which ones are "main stream"? They're all just media.
And yes, the truth is hte truth no matter where it comes from.
If an idiot taht never read a book, neverr went to school, says the earth revolves around the sun, it's still true.
If a PhD says the Sun revolves around the earth that doesn't make it true.
Something is true or not, regardless of the source.
Well this explains why you think we should have a cap and trade tax on dogs and cats LOL
Maybe you should think about upgrading you sources. Then you wouldn't feel the need to attack things you don't understand with Sarcasm and innuendo.
This isn't a serious debate forum, but if you do debate you have to attack the credibility of the idea, not the source.
You need to show that dogs and cats do not contribute to global warming, not that the story came from Fox.
Showing the story came from Fox only shows that well, the story came from Fox.
Showing that cats and dogs do not contribute to global warming would actually ad something to the debate.
If for example you provide me with evidence fo GLobal Warming you got from Moveon.org, I need to attack the evidence, not the fact that it came from Move On.
It's either true or not, regardless of where it came from.
There are millions of dogs and cats, they breathe out Co2 and fart methane, and they eat food that requires energy to be produced.
I think it's going to be hard for you to show they don't contribute to global warming.
Well your right this isn't a serious debate, but you can't seperate the credibility of the source from the idea. I agree that it would be hard to prove that dogs or cats have anything to do with global warming. This is probably why your evidence came from a book published by a New Zealand couple and not anything credible. And I wasn't attacking Fox but the mainstream media and it's move from hard news too entertainment.
a comment on the book from Amazon: "My other half has a PhD in mathematics, and after reading the introduction to this book, he abandoned it and declared that he was unconvinced that the authors had any realy understanding of statistics."
Didn't mean to get all serious on ya!
There is no longer such a thing as "main stream" media.
What's that supposed to mean? We get our news from CBS, CNN, FoX, MSNBC, blogs, youtube videos, radio, twitter, face book, newspapers, magazines from the Economist to the GLOBE, Yahoo news, Google news, and lots of others.
Which ones are "main stream"? They're all just media.
And yes, the truth is hte truth no matter where it comes from.
If an idiot taht never read a book, neverr went to school, says the earth revolves around the sun, it's still true.
If a PhD says the Sun revolves around the earth that doesn't make it true.
Something is true or not, regardless of the source.
Well this explains why you think we should have a cap and trade tax on dogs and cats LOL
Maybe you should think about upgrading you sources. Then you wouldn't feel the need to attack things you don't understand with Sarcasm and innuendo.
The point is to show how ludicrous the idea of cap and trade is.
The people that want to ride bikes are happy to "cap and trade" and tax the people that drive an SUV.
But then when they find out their pets cause global warming, what will be the response to capping and trading there?
Oh no! That's a terrible idea!
It's always the same. Tax those other people, not me, regardless of whether it does any good or not.
Of course cap and trade does nothing except transfer wealth and allow corrupt officials and business men to become billionaires skimming the cream off the top, while the poor suffer even more.
If you want to actually do something positive, build nuclear plants, windmills, and solar generators as fast as you can and don't stop.
Guess what "cap and trade" money will be used for? Bridges to no where, studies on polar bears, flying people like Al gore to conferences, and god only knows what other government waste and abuse. They certainly won't be spending the money building windmills, solar plants, and nuclear energy. That would make to much sense.
hell, I'll sign on to cap and trade if EVERY penny is use to build nuclear plants .
Ahh. I thought you behind it. My mistake.
turns out the maths is pretty bad.
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/bad-professors-bad-the-truth-about-eat-the-dog/
The math is irrelevant.
Dogs and cats eat meat. They are not Vegans. If you keep a dog or cat, it has to be fed meat. Meat requires energy to produce. That energy causes global warming.
If you're not a hypocrite, you can't tell someone to not drive an SUV while you keep a cat or dog.
Your pet is killing the planet. What about all those Indians that need to have another 100 million babies? They will produce Co2 and in order to make room for them without killing the planet with global warming, you must euthanize your pets.
can do same thing with beavers they kill trees