Monday, 12 November 2012

Don't Read This Fi!

Actually, Fi (of Four Paws and Whiskers) almost certainly knows more about the book Time to Eat the Dog (written by Robert and Brenda Vale of Wellington University here in New Zealand) than I do.  It would seem that the book has not received universal acclaim for a number of reasons.  However it's given lots of people a bone on which to chew and people like the motoring press have had a ball as demonstrated by the following article from the Auto Express:


I thought that I'd share it with you.

19 comments:

  1. Very interesting! It reminds me of what I read in the ZEIT some time ago. They compared local produce with imported food, such as apples, and found that, by keeping the local produce in store so that it is available for much longer than its natural growing and harvesting period, more carbon footprint is generated than by having apples shipped across the ocean all the way from, say, Chile or NZ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meike I don't think there's an easy or straightforward answer to any of the ecological problems we face. One way and another everyone will have a view and every vested interest will fight its corner.

      Delete
  2. Don't these folks have anything better to do??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are earning a crust Virginia and they may even believe in what they are doing whilst earning it.

      Delete
  3. I'm glad you did....Anybody done a study of politicians and their carbon footprint?
    A brilliant post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Adrian. Politicians certainly have bigger carbon footprints than most of us.

      Delete
  4. WIth two dogs, four cats AND an SUV I am definitely unsustainable...
    and today I read this
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/7940386/Carbon-footprint-study-examines-solo-mums
    Might have to stop doing housework too!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh my gosh Fi. It made me wonder where single retirees living in two countries with two homes (which need cleaning!) come on the scale of things. Not very favourably I wager.

      Delete
  5. That's fine, I'll get rid of the car and keep the dog.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In fact, I'll sabotage my neighbour's Jeep as well, and cancel out the dog's carbon paw-print altogether.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that might be going just a tad too far.

      Delete
  7. I'm feeling very eco-friendly after reading this (having neither car nor pet). Now what was it again Mark Twain said about statistics...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your question led me to Google Twain and his quote. Is this the one you meant?

      "Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
      ~Mark Twain~
      I think that I could give up my car more easily than my cats.

      Delete
    2. Yes Monica you are probably pretty eco-friendly compared with many of us. I expect you would Norma but I imagine that would cause you more inconvenience than enough given the likely distance you are likely to be from shops.

      Delete
    3. Yes Norma, that is the famous quote I was thinking of. Too tired last night to hunt it down to its proper source...

      Delete
  8. Or not.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

    Good old Wiki.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hmm. Very interesting article. I've not replaced cat nor dog because of my traveling to and from Miranda...

    The only problem with the article is that it seems to imply that the car or dog or cat has it's 'own' carbon footprint. It doesn't of course. It's US that have it, by owning them..

    ReplyDelete