Hot Dogs, Cat Casserole and Tortoise in the Hole

Via Counting Cats and Mr E, the latest bit of eco-lunacy.

The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.

Such is the desperation of these people that they will clutch at any straw to convince us that their religion really is true. I don’t have a carbon footprint and my cats don’t have carbon pawprints – there is no such thing, unless we walk through some coal dust. We have an impact on our environment, but it has nothing to do with footprints, carbon or otherwise. The carbon footprint is a watermelon construct and I refuse to enable this piece of bollocks.

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.

I see. So what, precisely do this pair of rampant lunatics think we should do with our cats and dogs? Trade them in? And, farming and pet ownership are two entirely different things.

Since moving to rural France, I have been considering keeping hens. I haven’t had time to build a hen house yet, but it’s there on my list of things to do. We will harvest the eggs. But, like many people who keep animals, I cannot face the slaughter of something I’ve raised. I can’t do it and that’s that. Call me a hypocrite if you must, but that’s the truth of it. I will no more eat my hens than I will eat my cats or tortoises.

“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said.

“A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact … is comparable.”

Well actually, I don’t worry about having an SUV one jot. I have never wanted one, but if I did, I’d buy it without worrying about the environmental impact. Consequently, I do not worry about the environmental impact of the cats. Frankly, living where we do, they help to keep the vermin down, thereby earning their keep. That is why the symbiotic relationship between cats and people started in the first place. I don’t keep a dog, but if I wanted to, I would and I wouldn’t worry for one fleeting second about the environmental impact.

I suspect that most people who keep such animals feel similarly. Indeed, such is the hysterical idiocy in this piece, it can only harm the environmentalists’ case, which can only be a good thing. So, I guess, bring it on.

Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming.

This bloke has about as much credibility as Richard Heene, frankly. The climate changes. It always has changed. There is much we do not understand about its complexity. The idea, therefore, that not keeping cats and dogs will have an effect on this is, frankly laughable.

If the greenies think that I will be turning out the cats and tortoises, they can take a hike.

——————————-

Update: The Telegraph has picked the story up. There is a quote from Robert Vale.

He explained that sustainability issues require us to make choices which are “as difficult as eating your dog”.

Nope.

Mr Vale added: “Once you see where cats and dogs fit in your overall balance of things, you might decide to have the cat but not also to have the two cars and the three bathrooms and be a meat-eater yourself.”

No, I won’t. Although I don’t have three bathrooms – if I did, I would keep them and the cats and I will continue to eat meat and we will continue to have the two cars and motorcycle. Vale can go fuck himself, frankly.