Around the globe, people are concerned about their carbon footprint. What about the carbon footprints of their pets?
Pet ownership is much higher in Western countries. Around 40% of US homes own at least one pet dog, as opposed to 6% of Chinese households.
The gap is narrowing fast as pet ownership and demand for food in developing countries continue to grow. Dog ownership in India is increasing at double-digit rates each year, while the number of dog owners in Vietnam and Thailand increased by 50% between 2004 and 2007.
When you consider that the amount of land required to produce energy and resources for a large canine is the same as a four-wheeled Land Rover, a medium dog would be the equivalent of a VW Golf. Brenda and Robert Vale are the authors of the provocatively named Time to Eat the Dog. They make many sensible observations, including that “we face real problems when everyone has a large car, a large house, a large family, and a huge dog.” They also point out that in many Western countries, pets have a larger environmental footprint than people in developing countries.
Affluence in pets is a growing problem. Joe Nicora
The increasing number of pets and their wealth is important, but so is the increase in the population. There are a wide range of products, services and ideas that encourage pet owners to humanize their pets. Dog houses come with reverse-cycle AC, flat screen TVs and DVDs that cater to different animal tastes. Online stores and large pet warehouses sell energy-intensive products for pets, including electric blankets and pet treadmills.
Pet owners who decide “what’s best for me, is also good for my dog” are creating an industry that is large and powerful with a lot of emissions. Pet care in the United States is a $50 billion dollar industry that has almost doubled over the past decade. This is a microcosm of the same issue that occurs with humans, as developed countries become more wealthy.
The trend toward “luxury pet food” is at the core of this decadence. And the biggest beneficiaries of it are the four companies that control 80% or the largest part of the pet care market – the international pet food industry.
Pet faeces are reportedly 4% of the waste that is disposed of in some cities. This means a lot of pet food must be produced. It takes hundreds of millions of tonnes of grain and meat to make the food, plus vast amounts of energy – mainly from fossil fuels. The food must then be tinned and bagged before being transported around the world.
What companies are encouraging us to humanize our pets by providing them with luxury pet food products? Nestle, Mars, and Procter & Gamble are the top pet food producers. These companies want us to think that their pet care business is climate-friendly. But the truth is, it’s just a bunch of spin.
Look at Mars, which produces Pedigree and Whiskas. They have stated that their mission is “to make a difference to people and planet through our performance.” This indicates a strong focus on the environment.
Mars has used green energy to produce its pet food in isolated but well-publicized examples, like wind turbines located next to a Mars Pet Care factory in Yorkshire. Mars claims to have the “first sustainable facility for pet food production in the world.” The company cites emissions reductions due to energy efficiency, packaging, and recycling improvements. Its website also features photos of solar panels installed at the Mars Chocolate headquarters in New Jersey.
The company claims that its operations produce around 15 million tonnes per year of greenhouse gas pollution. This is about 4% lower than 2007.
It has even bigger plans for the future. A “Sustainable in a Generation” (SiG) program. The company claims to be “committed” to reaching zero fossil-fuel energy use and zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2040. It may make you squint, but the timeline is impressive – until it’s read in full.
The company is only obligated to reduce its direct emissions. Mars’ carbon footprint is largely a result of its supply chain. This accounts for 87%. It admits “sourcing our raw material leads to greater impacts” than factories and offices – something that many companies ignore – and plans to “develop similar robust programs for every element of our supply chain.” The company is still unable to do this. Still, it will continue to be a nonsensical company that wants to reduce its emissions to zero, as long as they exclude the emissions associated with producing rice, beef and meat, dairy products, corn, wheat, and other elements of its value chain.
It is clear that Mars, Nestle, and other “Big Pet Care ” corporations are rapidly expanding into developing nations and enthusiastically promoting “luxury pet food” brands meant to “humanize”.
