Your pets cause global warming so eat them

Maybe it's me but I wonder what PETA is going to say about a recent article by AFP on how pets are the next global warming (or are they using the new 'climate change' slogan) problem that needs to be solved?

Don't believe me?

"The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car."

So this theory, backed up by John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute, indicates that dogs, and cats, are more dangerous to the environment than cars. Of course hamsters and even goldfish were not left out of the analysis. In each case it was found that a pet is an additional burden to the planet.

What's the solution proposed? PETA and animal lovers will really get a kick out of this.

"But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale."

Taking this "solution" to its logical end, it means that ANY pet is only worth having if you eventually eat them. And I'm not reaching on that conclusion. Mr. Vale wrote a book on his conclusion titled Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living. Do you get his point?

I admit that I have never believed in global warming. Nor global cooling a couple of decades before that. Nor the latest trend/fad of climate change (a true act of verbal idiocy - the climate is constantly changing and has been since before man existed).

But I would never condone the views that Vale and potentially other eco-fanatics will inevitably present. Pets, of all kinds, are not meals. They are members of families and valuable companions.

Perhaps it is just me, but I feel that a pet is far more important than some questionable science that is politically based and factually proven to have been manipulated and promoted for self-interests.

Where are the animal lovers? Where is PETA, a group that has no problem attacking virtually every group they consider even marginally against animal rights? I mean they went after the Pet Shop Boys just because of the band's name, and I have yet to see anything about this - which I feel is far more serious in its implications.

I may not agree with all the tactics and thoughts of PETA, but I respect the fact they have strong convictions. I love dogs, and I really fear the thinking Vale and others have for this political fantasy dressed as science. PETA and pet lovers need to say something. Because in a world of "Change you can believe in" I guarantee that at some point Al Gore will get in his private jet and tell some political group across the world that pet levels need to be reduced worldwide and it will help feed the hungry too.

Don't believe me, but already the Government has said that CO2, our exhaled breaths, are a danger to the planet. Which means the Government will want to regulate that CO2, and if a pet is more "deadly" than a SUV or car... well you can imagine what happens next.