Is a dog's carbon footprint larger than an SUV's? This myth questions whether there are more resources consumed by having a dog or by having an SUV. The myth came from couple Robert and Brenda Vale in New Zealand, that did numerous tests and wrote a book called Time to Eat the Dog, the Real Guide to Sustainable life. This, so far, is the only major study on the subject and most people take the information presented as fact. This myth exists because people have read this book and now people wonder if it really is true or not.
The myth is based on how much resources either the dog or the SUV uses. When the myth states 'carbon footprint', that means how much greenhouse gasses are let off by the object itself or by the stuff that it takes to take care of the object. This involves the land, energy, time, and other resources that it takes to make and run the SUV or feed and take care of the dog. This includes land for growing food (that will in turn be put into the dog's actual food), the dog's waste, the resources it takes, and other emissions it lets off. And for the SUV it includes the factory, its emissions, the gas, its resources. and the emissions of the SUV.
From what I have researched, the myth is confirmed. When the Seattle Times reported on the subject, they claimed they had asked several environmentalists about the myth and the environmentalist's calculations matched almost exactly the calculations of Robert and Brenda Vale. In addition to the Seattle Times, ABC News published an article, where they asked even more people about the myth, and they also found it to be true. So, believe it or not, our pets have a larger carbon footprint than the SUV sitting out in the driveway!
