No, it's not Fido, it's still the SUV
My father and I had some great debates over the holiday break, about just about everything imaginable. I thereby introduced him to the concept of "calling bullshit." I do this when someone tries to sneak by some outrageously implausible claim that can almost certainly be proven demonstrably false with a quick Google search. This saves me the trouble of having to employ Socratic debate against the patently nonsensical. It's not quite the same thing as refuting something that educated people already know to be false, like the claim that the Founding Fathers inserted the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance. (Palin, Sarah) Rather, this occurs when someone throws out some obscure "fact" that you've never heard used before, but common sense tells you could not possible be true, not matter how much the other person insists that it is.
In this case, the outlandish claim was that a pet cat or pet dog had a bigger carbon footprint than an SUV. Really? It turns out that our fleet of Hummers isn't melting the icecaps? It's really been little Rover the whole time? (And he chewed up my slippers! The little bastard!) That didn't pass the smell test. But he saw it on the Internet, and Lord knows if it's on the Internet then it must be true. So I looked into so no one else had to.
All the “evidence” for the idea that pets same the same carbon footprint as an SUV comes from a book written by two New Zealanders, Robert and Brenda Vale, called “Time to Eat the Dog, the Real Guide to Sustainable Living.” [No actual dogs were eaten during the course of my research.] The way this story got breathlessly hyped across the Internet reads like yet another case study in Failures in Journalism. Even mainstream news outlets like ABCNews.com linked to the story with headlines like “Pet Dogs More Damaging to the Environment Than SUVs” instead of “Two Cranks Promote Controversial Theory.” I won’t even get into the way this story was shamelessly flogged in right-wing media outlets.
The Vales are described on Wikipedia as “architects, writers, pioneer researchers, and experts in the field of sustainable housing.” You’ll notice that they’re not described as being either climatologists specifically or even scientists generally. That important fact was missing from all of the articles I read. Also, they measure “carbon footprint” in hectares, which is not the proper unit of measurement. Carbon footprint is measured in tons of carbon dioxide emissions. What the Vales seem to be measuring is something called “ecological footprint” which is different, much less used, and much less useful. Again, none of this was mentioned in the articles I read because no scientists were quoted for perspective. The rebuttals came exclusively from people arguing how swell pets are [not that I’m knocking that]. The journalistic fail here was truly epic.
Now, there’s no question that pets produce some carbon footprint. But how big is that footprint? More reputable sources estimate the carbon footprint of a pet cat at half a ton of carbon per year. Dogs produce more, but with a much wider variance because dogs vary so widely in their sizes and weights. But even with cats, carbon footprint can vary because there are things pet owners can do to minimize their pets’ footprint. (And getting more pet owners to do those things would certainly have a positive benefit on climate change.) But let’s take half a ton as a starting point. How much is that compared to, say, a car?
Well, a car really only acquires a carbon footprint once you start to drive it, so there is no such thing as “the carbon footprint of an SUV.” It all depends on how much you drive. Let’s say a person drives 1000 miles a month, which is actually unrealistically low for most drivers. A typical 4WD SUV (about 15 mpg) at that level of use produces about 9.5 tons of carbon a year, compared to about 3.5 for a car that gets 40 mpg. Assuming that most people need some kind of car, the marginal cost of the SUV is six tons a year, well more than either one cat, one dog, or one of each. And at 2000 miles a month, which is more typical, that becomes more like a 12-ton difference.
None of this changes the fact that carbon needs to be effectively priced so people can see the ecological impact of their consumption choices and adjust as they see fit—keeping the things they really value and cutting the things that they value less. So, yeah, a pet has a “paw print,” but—especially when it’s well managed—it turns not to be very big or expensive. And pets certainly shouldn’t be the scapegoat right-wing media uses to enable American gas guzzling, assuaging our consciences by fooling us into thinking that petroleum isn’t a major factor in carbon pollution.
Bullshit successfully called and sustained.
In this case, the outlandish claim was that a pet cat or pet dog had a bigger carbon footprint than an SUV. Really? It turns out that our fleet of Hummers isn't melting the icecaps? It's really been little Rover the whole time? (And he chewed up my slippers! The little bastard!) That didn't pass the smell test. But he saw it on the Internet, and Lord knows if it's on the Internet then it must be true. So I looked into so no one else had to.
All the “evidence” for the idea that pets same the same carbon footprint as an SUV comes from a book written by two New Zealanders, Robert and Brenda Vale, called “Time to Eat the Dog, the Real Guide to Sustainable Living.” [No actual dogs were eaten during the course of my research.] The way this story got breathlessly hyped across the Internet reads like yet another case study in Failures in Journalism. Even mainstream news outlets like ABCNews.com linked to the story with headlines like “Pet Dogs More Damaging to the Environment Than SUVs” instead of “Two Cranks Promote Controversial Theory.” I won’t even get into the way this story was shamelessly flogged in right-wing media outlets.
The Vales are described on Wikipedia as “architects, writers, pioneer researchers, and experts in the field of sustainable housing.” You’ll notice that they’re not described as being either climatologists specifically or even scientists generally. That important fact was missing from all of the articles I read. Also, they measure “carbon footprint” in hectares, which is not the proper unit of measurement. Carbon footprint is measured in tons of carbon dioxide emissions. What the Vales seem to be measuring is something called “ecological footprint” which is different, much less used, and much less useful. Again, none of this was mentioned in the articles I read because no scientists were quoted for perspective. The rebuttals came exclusively from people arguing how swell pets are [not that I’m knocking that]. The journalistic fail here was truly epic.
Now, there’s no question that pets produce some carbon footprint. But how big is that footprint? More reputable sources estimate the carbon footprint of a pet cat at half a ton of carbon per year. Dogs produce more, but with a much wider variance because dogs vary so widely in their sizes and weights. But even with cats, carbon footprint can vary because there are things pet owners can do to minimize their pets’ footprint. (And getting more pet owners to do those things would certainly have a positive benefit on climate change.) But let’s take half a ton as a starting point. How much is that compared to, say, a car?
Well, a car really only acquires a carbon footprint once you start to drive it, so there is no such thing as “the carbon footprint of an SUV.” It all depends on how much you drive. Let’s say a person drives 1000 miles a month, which is actually unrealistically low for most drivers. A typical 4WD SUV (about 15 mpg) at that level of use produces about 9.5 tons of carbon a year, compared to about 3.5 for a car that gets 40 mpg. Assuming that most people need some kind of car, the marginal cost of the SUV is six tons a year, well more than either one cat, one dog, or one of each. And at 2000 miles a month, which is more typical, that becomes more like a 12-ton difference.
None of this changes the fact that carbon needs to be effectively priced so people can see the ecological impact of their consumption choices and adjust as they see fit—keeping the things they really value and cutting the things that they value less. So, yeah, a pet has a “paw print,” but—especially when it’s well managed—it turns not to be very big or expensive. And pets certainly shouldn’t be the scapegoat right-wing media uses to enable American gas guzzling, assuaging our consciences by fooling us into thinking that petroleum isn’t a major factor in carbon pollution.
Bullshit successfully called and sustained.
posted by Ithakid | 11:38 AM
|
0 comments
