Ditch the Dog, Drive the Car

Scientists show that running an SUV is greener than keeping a dog.

Everyone thinks that the classic SUV is just a gas guzzling waste of energy and a major contributing factor to climate change. Scientists, however, beg to differ and point the finger at other areas of our lives that can cost the environment even more.

Following a publication of a book called 'Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living’ the New Scientist magazine published an article discussing their claims.

The graphic in the magazine explains how a large dog can be require more energy to feed than it takes to build an run a standard SUV for 10,000 miles per year.

Using the Toyota Land Cruiser as an example they measured it using standard production of energy per agricultural hectares of land. To feed a dog on a diet of grain and meat products the dog will require animals to be grazed and crops grown.

Animal farming is actually an incredibly inefficient use of agricultural land and requires a lot of energy for the meat you and I (and the dog) eat.

When you compare the energy needed for the Toyota the amount of land that could yield the equivalent amount is significantly less, making it less costly than the dog.

Some suggest that the calculations are inaccurate and the data is purely based on energy consumption and does not take into account the carbon emissions a car might produce. The methane produced by a cow however, is far more polluting than CO2.

E. Dooley

18/11/2009