Homes

If you want to have pets, cats or dogs, then have them. I have a collie dog, and a truer friend is hard to find, believe you me.
Dogs are always true, humans are not always, its as simple as that

I’m guessing it effects it becuase, the calculator assumes you feed the cat meat that you buy in cans/packs that is processed then delivered to supermarkets in trucks.

However if you love owning a cat, don’t feel guilty, please. I’m sure that the relaxation you get from cuddling/stroking him/her, means that you can be relaxed enough to remember to do something else that does reduce your footprint. ( Pretty sure that statistics show that pet owners are healthier too so you are saving NHS resources as well).

Hi, speaking personally, I do have far too many ‘pets’ as part of my smallholding system, but I try to make sure that all have some practical contribution to make as well as giving us lots of joy.eg the chickens provide eggs & meat and more chickens to sell, clear the veg garden, manage the compost system, and heat the greenhouse. The two horses convert our grass into the wonderful piles of poo that feed our veg growing areas and allow us to be self sufficient in veg, and one of them is also learning how to pull our fuel timber out of the wood. The dogs give us an early warning system for welcome and not so welcome visitors & keep the chickens safe from foxes. OK they don’t do anything much more useful than that now we now longer have sheep or cattle to move around, but there’s nothing like a cuddle with a loving woolly friend to make the world feel like a good place.
I think a major part of caring for the world starts with learning to love both the planet and all those who share it. If your cat or other pet is a starting point for this, then I don’t think that can be too bad a thing, why not just make a more stringent choice in another area too compensate?
Just keep your eye on your overall footprint and don’t stop making responsible choices about how you live. Take control, you can choose to make a difference!

I would have thought having pets would be better for the environment because we are protecting our animals from abuse and giving them a loving home!

I’m not sure this point makes sense at all, because it’s based on the assumption that pets are a luxury/commodity that humans make ‘use’ of, while instead often pets are adopted for compassion.

Bottom line, whether the ‘pet’ is in our care or in the care of the thousands of shelters across the western world, they still have to eat, be kept warm and be inoculated with vaccines and offered protection from parasites (with pesticides, i.e. Frontline, etc…). In fact, the building and running of such indispensible shelters is definitely more carbon expensive than fitting an animal in our already running living arrangements, sharing with them our own water, warmth and resources. Imagine how much electricity all shelters put together must consume! If every animal was adopted, and shelters could be closed down, that would be quite a staggering saving from our worldwide carbon bill.

So by not caring for a pet we are NOT reducing carbon production, but merely shifting it onto someone else, which in the end makes no difference as far as the globe is concerned.
Also, dogs can be fed vegan diets.

So if nobody ‘owned’ pets in order to reduce their carbon footprint, surely a desirable outcome from the environmental point of view of this questionnaire, then millions of innocent animals would suffer in shelters and face a premature death.
This implies that the WWF supports the elimination of the ‘pet’ from our society, which I find a bit of a harsh policy.

It follows that to erase the ‘pet carbon print’ not only from our own personal bill, but from everybody’s, all companion animals should be eliminated from earth. And who are we to decide that a whole living, breathing species (or a few of them!) who is here just as we are, enjoying life, should be eliminated because they pollute?

If pets are deemed to make such a mark on global warming, I wonder why a question about how many children one has is not included in the questionnaire: surely humans, of whatever size, pollute far more than any animal ever could! Think of the nappies, toys, milk bottles, dummies, food, water, toiletries, clothing, prams, shoes, travel to and from schools and activities, furniture and warmth they require, in just one year of life!
A bit hypocritical, really, to make a point about pets and not about children, but surely a more sustainable one from a PR point of view!

It would make more sense to advocate the neutering for existing companion animals and to promote adoptions from shelters than to condemn caring for ‘pets’ as environmentally unsound. Someone has got to do it! Kudos to you if you have the kindness of doing so.

My dog is such an important part of my life and the one area where I will not compromise. We have always kept dogs in my family and throughout my life to have `a faithful friend’ has been such a wonderful part, they show such unconditional loyalty and love and gives you a sense of responsibility, which I feel improves your own feelings of responsibility and respect towards other people and the environment.

We go on many walks in the countryside which improves your well being and confirms how we need to respect those beautiful areas and stop exploiting them.

If it does have an impact on the environment, than pet owners need to look at how they can improve their behaviour in other areas. Also adopting pets from organisations such as dogs trust is a much better way to keep pets. That’s where I got mine from and now have a gorgeous natured, loving mutt who is a fantasic companion and reminds me of our responsibility to all species on this planet!

I suppose the point would be that everything has an impact. Dog and cat food has to be transported to supermarkets the same as human food, plus when you walk your dog, do you put it into the car and then drive out to the countryside or choose to just walk out of your front door. Obviously when at home they share the same conditions you do, unless you have a specially heated dog house!

food and whatnot…..................i want a bat XD

Hmmm, I don’t think that WWF are implying that we shouldn’t have pets, only that everything we do, buy, own, etc… may have an impact and that we should try to make adjustments where we can. We wouldn’t be without our loving, adorable, loyal best friend for anything in the world. We got her from a rescue home and she gets us out and about more, walking to places that we used to drive to!!! So there’s a saving right there.

A little note to those doggy owners who live around the River Wey in Godalming / Farncombe (just near Panda House) and who think that putting their dog poo in a plastic bag and leaving that bag in the grass or hanging from a tree is better than leaving the poo on the ground where at least it will break down – you should be ashamed of yourselves – for god’s sake take some pride in your environment!!! We are lucky enough to live in one of the most beautiful parts of the country and I’d like it to stay that way.
Thanks – your’s a little disgruntled
Farncombe, Surrey

(This reply has been reported and is pending moderation.)