Of course i couldn't help but to read this nonsense. According to the article,
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.And thus we have this climate change idiocy reaching it's final conclusion: Even animals, the very definition of nature, are "bad for the environment."
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.
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.
These morons have truly outdone themselves this time. I'm no scientist, but it seems to me that if the metrics that are applied to determine what is allegedly 'harmful' to the environment show that the environment is harmful to itself, then perhaps the metrics are wrong! Hello?! Idiot alert!
If there's one story that has really sealed the deal that all this carbon-emission-footprint hoopla is nothing but a but a buch of CRAP (pun intended), this is it.