Don't eat the dog, heat the planet
By
Rory Ryan-hcpress@cinci.rr.com
“The debate is over,” Little Al Gore told us a few years ago. Global warming is here. Never mind that Al Junior and his moneychangers refused to debate the matter and never mind that this little old third rock from the sun is actually cooling. Minor details.
Global warming, when it failed to materialize, soon became “climate change.” And, again, the debate that never happened was, once again, over.
For those gentle readers who do not appreciate satire, it is my best advice to move on to Page 5 or any other page in today’s Highland County Press. Trust me, you’ll be much happier, because this little cold-weather gem will be spiced up with satire. And sarcasm.
For a brief refresher in elementary grammar, “satire” is the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. in a literary composition.
Today’s column will be filled with enough satire to sink Donald Trump’s yacht, because I am in a satirical mood.
Why?
Glad you asked.
While doing an online search for good prices on firewood the other day when it was 9 degrees above zero, I accidentally stumbled upon the Web site, treehugger.com.
The treehugger site had a story from the Vancouver Sun which said, in essence, the family dog causes more harm to the planet than the family SUV. Who knew?
According to authors Robert and Brenda Vale in “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living,” man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, the Sun reported. Other animals on the planet, both quadrupeds and the two-legged variety, don’t fare any better.
And the bigger the dog, the bigger the environmental offense. But don’t take my word for it.
“The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analyzed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 360 pounds of meat {and another couple of hundred pounds of cereal} a year. Combine the land required to generate its food and a medium-sized dog has an annual footprint of 2.07 acres — around twice area required by a 4x4 driving 6,200 miles a year, including energy to build the car,” the Sun reported.
As near as I can tell, the Vales do have some pedigree and scredibility. That’s good. Because this whole global warming/climate change horse crap has none. (Please note satire/sarcasm usage.)
Professor Brenda Vale and Doctor Robert Vale are architects, writers, pioneer researchers, and experts in the field of sustainable housing, and studied at the University of Cambridge, according to Wikipedia and other Web sites.
Treehugger, rather the Sun, continues: “To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same. “Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat,” Barrett said.
“Other animals aren’t much better for the environment, the Vales say. “Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.”
Sure, blame global warming on the innocent goldfish. Never mind that this time five years ago, our family goldfish froze to death during the Ice Storm of 2004. Go ahead, put global warming on the fins of the fish. Carp(e) diem. (See above, satire.)
As for me, after reading the excerpts of “Time to Eat the Dog...,” I have now resolved to devote what’s left of my life to leaving the biggest, largest, longest, deepest, widest flippin’ carbon footprint known to man. (Again, please note satire usage. Ahh, who am I kidding? I mean it, this time.)
As Americans, real Americans, it is our duty to leave the biggest carbon footprint we can. After all, we must give our children and our grandchildren something to aspire to, right? John Wayne surely left a big ol’ size 14 carbon footprint, didn’t he? What about Shaquille O’Neal? Now, there’s a carbon footprint worth its Nikes.
America is the nation of George Washington, Daniel Boone, Simon Kenton, George Rogers Clark, Davy Crockett, Audie Murphy, Gen. George Patton, Ted Williams and Johnny Unitas. Somehow, I can’t imagine any of them giving a damn about their carbon footprints. And neither do I.
A lot of my friends have both dogs and SUVs. In some cases, I’m not sure which they love more. And you know what? I really don’t care. This old planet has been here longer than all of us and it will survive all of us. I guarantee it.
As Yale economics professor William Nordhaus so succinctly puts it in his Copenhagen address on carbon footprints and cap and trade: “The cap-and-trade system under the Kyoto Protocol actually extends participation through the clean development mechanism (CDM). I fear that the emissions reductions from CDM will prove to be minimal. There is no way of verifying that the projects in fact reduced emissions in the host countries, yet CDM has been a major source of accounting emissions reductions.” (Huh?)
The professor also points out: Output plus income from permit sales equals investment and consumption plus energy costs: (4) QJ(t) + tauJ(t)[ECJ(t) - piJ(t)] = CJ(t) + IJ(t) + pEJ(t) ECJ(t) + pB(t) BJ(t); Per capita consumption (5) cJ(t) = CJ(t)/LJ(t); Capital accumulation (6) KJ(t) = (1-deltaK)KJ(t-1) + IJ(t-1); Retail price of carbon-energy (7) pEJ(t)= q(t) + markupEJ(t)+tauJ(t); Cumulative world extraction of carbon-energy (8) CumC(t) =CumC(t-1) + EC(t); Energy supply (9a) q(t) = xi1 + xi2[CumC(t)/CumC*]xi3 (9b) EJ(t) = ECJ(t) + BJ(t).
Now who can argue with that? (Aside from, perhaps, George Carver and Jon Davidson.)
And if the Little Al disciples don’t like it, they can kiss my carbon-footprint-making donkey and his barking dogs. Right now, all I know is this: I am cold. My office is cold. My house is cold. It is cold outside. Even Jim Inhofe and Al Gore are cold, except Al’s too contrary to admit that he’s cold.
Here’s to global warming. We hardly knew ye. Cheers.
Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.[[In-content Ad]]
Global warming, when it failed to materialize, soon became “climate change.” And, again, the debate that never happened was, once again, over.
For those gentle readers who do not appreciate satire, it is my best advice to move on to Page 5 or any other page in today’s Highland County Press. Trust me, you’ll be much happier, because this little cold-weather gem will be spiced up with satire. And sarcasm.
For a brief refresher in elementary grammar, “satire” is the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. in a literary composition.
Today’s column will be filled with enough satire to sink Donald Trump’s yacht, because I am in a satirical mood.
Why?
Glad you asked.
While doing an online search for good prices on firewood the other day when it was 9 degrees above zero, I accidentally stumbled upon the Web site, treehugger.com.
The treehugger site had a story from the Vancouver Sun which said, in essence, the family dog causes more harm to the planet than the family SUV. Who knew?
According to authors Robert and Brenda Vale in “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living,” man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, the Sun reported. Other animals on the planet, both quadrupeds and the two-legged variety, don’t fare any better.
And the bigger the dog, the bigger the environmental offense. But don’t take my word for it.
“The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analyzed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 360 pounds of meat {and another couple of hundred pounds of cereal} a year. Combine the land required to generate its food and a medium-sized dog has an annual footprint of 2.07 acres — around twice area required by a 4x4 driving 6,200 miles a year, including energy to build the car,” the Sun reported.
As near as I can tell, the Vales do have some pedigree and scredibility. That’s good. Because this whole global warming/climate change horse crap has none. (Please note satire/sarcasm usage.)
Professor Brenda Vale and Doctor Robert Vale are architects, writers, pioneer researchers, and experts in the field of sustainable housing, and studied at the University of Cambridge, according to Wikipedia and other Web sites.
Treehugger, rather the Sun, continues: “To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same. “Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat,” Barrett said.
“Other animals aren’t much better for the environment, the Vales say. “Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.”
Sure, blame global warming on the innocent goldfish. Never mind that this time five years ago, our family goldfish froze to death during the Ice Storm of 2004. Go ahead, put global warming on the fins of the fish. Carp(e) diem. (See above, satire.)
As for me, after reading the excerpts of “Time to Eat the Dog...,” I have now resolved to devote what’s left of my life to leaving the biggest, largest, longest, deepest, widest flippin’ carbon footprint known to man. (Again, please note satire usage. Ahh, who am I kidding? I mean it, this time.)
As Americans, real Americans, it is our duty to leave the biggest carbon footprint we can. After all, we must give our children and our grandchildren something to aspire to, right? John Wayne surely left a big ol’ size 14 carbon footprint, didn’t he? What about Shaquille O’Neal? Now, there’s a carbon footprint worth its Nikes.
America is the nation of George Washington, Daniel Boone, Simon Kenton, George Rogers Clark, Davy Crockett, Audie Murphy, Gen. George Patton, Ted Williams and Johnny Unitas. Somehow, I can’t imagine any of them giving a damn about their carbon footprints. And neither do I.
A lot of my friends have both dogs and SUVs. In some cases, I’m not sure which they love more. And you know what? I really don’t care. This old planet has been here longer than all of us and it will survive all of us. I guarantee it.
As Yale economics professor William Nordhaus so succinctly puts it in his Copenhagen address on carbon footprints and cap and trade: “The cap-and-trade system under the Kyoto Protocol actually extends participation through the clean development mechanism (CDM). I fear that the emissions reductions from CDM will prove to be minimal. There is no way of verifying that the projects in fact reduced emissions in the host countries, yet CDM has been a major source of accounting emissions reductions.” (Huh?)
The professor also points out: Output plus income from permit sales equals investment and consumption plus energy costs: (4) QJ(t) + tauJ(t)[ECJ(t) - piJ(t)] = CJ(t) + IJ(t) + pEJ(t) ECJ(t) + pB(t) BJ(t); Per capita consumption (5) cJ(t) = CJ(t)/LJ(t); Capital accumulation (6) KJ(t) = (1-deltaK)KJ(t-1) + IJ(t-1); Retail price of carbon-energy (7) pEJ(t)= q(t) + markupEJ(t)+tauJ(t); Cumulative world extraction of carbon-energy (8) CumC(t) =CumC(t-1) + EC(t); Energy supply (9a) q(t) = xi1 + xi2[CumC(t)/CumC*]xi3 (9b) EJ(t) = ECJ(t) + BJ(t).
Now who can argue with that? (Aside from, perhaps, George Carver and Jon Davidson.)
And if the Little Al disciples don’t like it, they can kiss my carbon-footprint-making donkey and his barking dogs. Right now, all I know is this: I am cold. My office is cold. My house is cold. It is cold outside. Even Jim Inhofe and Al Gore are cold, except Al’s too contrary to admit that he’s cold.
Here’s to global warming. We hardly knew ye. Cheers.
Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.[[In-content Ad]]