If Layla the dog looks a little bit guilty in the photo that accompanies this blog entry, it could be because we’ve been talking about Julie Knapp’s article “Make your dog more hybrid, less SUV” at Mother Nature Network.com.

According to Knapp’s article, a recent book by Robert and Brenda Vale called “Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living” reveals that “dogs are worse for the environment than SUVs.” This claim is based on several factors, including a dog’s diet, some of the chemicals we use to care for our dogs, overpopulation and dog waste disposal. Knapp’s article suggests that “if you don’t have a dog yet or are considering a second pet, you might want to think outside the dog box. According to the Vales, a goldfish is equal to the impact of just two cell phones; two hamsters or four canaries can be compared to a plasma TV; and a cat is only as bad as a Smart Car. Even smaller dogs are better than big dogs.”

I have conferred with Layla, and she refuses to even accept the premise of this article, let alone its conclusion. Everyone knows that Smart Cars are bad enough on their own — where is a dog supposed to ride in one of those things, anyway? — and who ever heard of a goldfish with a cellphone?

If you’re like me, you are constantly making choices based on resources and impact, but comparing an SUV with a dog is a fairly useless distinction, one that demonizes both dogs and SUVs without shedding any real light on the subject. Comparing apples to apples is more useful. When you need an SUV, you need an SUV. I agree that it’s prudent to get the smallest, most efficient SUV for the job.

But when you start messing with my dog, you’re going to get bit.

Photo © Jason Fogelson

Is your dog worse for the environment than your SUV? originally appeared on About.com SUVs on Monday, March 22nd, 2010 at 19:42:26.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

View full post on About.com SUVs