Remember this qimulvak? He's been getting a ruff shake. People are barking up a storm about how he's a bad boy for having such a big carbon pawprint. The twitter version of the story is that medium sized dogs have bigger carbon emissions than a typical SUV. I linked an ABC version, but there are other agencies who reported on the story, too. I was somewhat sceptical when I read the story, but I figured most dogs up here are safe. Aside from the urbanites and their dogs, most dogs I know around here are heavily supplemented with fish and meat. Some eat nothing but locally harvested fish. The paw print on that is minuscule - just the oil burnt in getting out there to jig.
But most people I know bought into it without much critical review - even I gave some of the claims a pass, because they shook well with what I knew about the effects of agriculture on carbon emissions. Well, it turns out the numbers were much more worse-case than they probably realistically are. Clark Williams-Derry, a director for the Spotlight Institute, a pro-green environmental think-tank, spends some ink on explaining how the footprint of SUVs really is that bad, and how Landrovers are, in fact, worse than Rover.
Read the whole article. It's very well written, and entertaining (with even more dog puns than my post). But if you're too lazy, the big flaws are here:
- They underestimate how much driving people do.
- They underestimate how much oil is involved in car production and maintinance.
- They assume dogs get high quality meat and cereal, when dogs get trimmings meat in most dog chow.
So sleep easy, dog-outside-the-Turtle-Club. You're not worse than my truck.