Cat versus dogs: Which one makes the most sustainable animal?

Like numerous households my kids have actually been lobbying for an animal.

Read this story in te reo Māori and English here. / Pānuitia tēnei i te reo Māori me te reo Pākehā ki konei.

Our family can’t concur. One child is consumed with cats and the other would crave a dog (or a sloth if that was a choice).

Which one has the most affordable ecological effect?

While numbers differ, worldwide research studies determining the ecological effect of family pets all settle on one point. Our animal buddies have a considerable environmental footprint.

If all the world’s cats and dogs were the population of one nation they would rank 5th worldwide for meat intake, one study found.

An average-sized dog has a carbon footprint of 770 kg annually, according to Mike Berner-Lee’s book The Carbon Footprint of Everything.

That’s a comparable to a return flight from Auckland to Wellington and a night in a hotel.

Compare that with a Great Dane, which has a tremendous yearly footprint of 2,500kg. That’s equivalent to a flight in between Auckland and Perth.

Meanwhile, a typical cat is accountable for 310kg of carbon each year. That gets us pull back a one-way flight in between Auckland and Wellington.

Size does matter

To put it just, the bigger your animal and the more meat it gobbles, the larger its carbon paw print. A rottweiler will constantly require more food than a pint-sized Pomeranian. The typical cat will have a smaller sized footprint than the typical dog.

Try this handy calculator to discover the most likely carbon footprint of your pooch.

It’s not simply carbon

When we discuss sustainability, carbon is just one of the elements. Cats can have a smaller sized carbon footprint than dogs, however have a significant effect on our native types. However dogs can trigger issues too.

Regardless of how well they are fed, they eliminate all type of native wildlife, consisting of birds, lizards, wētā and other bugs.

Forest and Bird ask accountable cat owners to get their family pets de-sexed, put a bell on them and keep them within in the evening.

No more family pets?

Does this mean we should reveal Doggo and Whiskers the door? No! Pets bring quantifiable advantages to our physical and psychological health.

People who own family pets have less tension, much better sleep, more exercise, less cardiovascular disease, lower rates of anxiety, and increased self-confidence.

Here are some things we can do to keep their carbon footprint down:

Consider a smaller sized breed – if picking a dog.

Buy sustainably sourced food. The biggest impact comes from the meat in our pet’s diet. Could we cut it out or feed them less? While some dogs can reside on a well balanced vegan diet plan according to UK animal charity Blue Cross, it’s a no-no for cats.

Switch from wet to dry food. A research study comparing more than 900 cat and dog foods, from store-bought packs to homemade meals discovered dry foods had the most affordable effect. Consider the pet-food product packaging to select the very best choice.

Buy locally-made animal food. This is most likely to be made with energy from eco-friendly sources and eliminates overseas transportation emissions. New Zealand beef and lamb likewise have a lower carbon footprint than globally-sourced meat.

Consider options – such as chicken or insect-based pet food (it’s presently still expensive though).

Don’t overfeed them. Don’t buy ‘premium cuts’ that are suitabled for human intake for your family pets.

Deal with their waste ecologically. Use naturally degradable cat litter, compostable dog poo bags, and if you can, established a separate compost for pet waste.

While investigating this post, I found research studies comparing the carbon footprint of a dog to that of a kid. The dog wins by miles!

I’m still unsure if our family is all set for an animal. But we’re keeping the kids.

Read more: This or that: What’s more sustainable – red wine in a can or a bottle?