Apparently, there is no sacrifice we shouldn’t make at the altar of Gaia. The global warming alarmists and green movement fanatics will never be satisfied, no matter what is done to placate them. Now, they even want us to give up having pets in our homes, on the grounds that it is “bad for the environment”. We should only have dogs and cats if we are prepared to — get this — eat them.

Do you consider yourself a “green” person? Y’know, using canvas shopping bags, compact flourescent lightbulbs, etc.? Well apparently, that’s not good enough! Those actions are “largely cosmetic,” New Zealand architecture professor Brenda Vale tells Celsias.com.

In “Time to Eat the Dog?: A Real Guide to Sustainable Living,” Brenda and her husband Robert Vale, architects who concentrate on sustainable living, propose an unsavory idea: if you are going to keep pets, make sure they are edible so as to reduce the carbon footprint of the animals you keep.

For the less environmentally-literate, a “carbon footprint” is the amount of greenhouse gases we produce while driving, flying, eating, etc., which contribute to climate change, or global warming. “Sustainable living” refers to efforts to reduce consumption of natural resources and the production of greenhouse gases by “altering methods of transportation, energy consumption and diet.”

“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda tells The Dominion Post. Studying the amount of land and energy it takes to make the dog food your pet eats every year, the Vales found that a dog’s carbon pawprint was twice that of a Toyota Land Cruiser being driven 6,213 miles a year. A cat’s eco pawprint was “slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf,” and keeping two hamsters is the same as owning a plasma TV.

Are the Vales suggesting we eat our cats and dogs? Not exactly, they say, admitting that the title of their book was a “shock tactic.” “We are not advocating eating anyone’s pet cat or dog, [but] there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment,” Brenda Vale tells The Dominion Post.

Not surprisingly, the Vales do not own any dogs or cats.

You would think that eco-maniacs would be all for owning pets. But of course, it increases your carbon footprint, which could lead to the now-disproved theory of global warming. Who cares if its junk science or not? Global warming has turned into nothing more than a ridiculous cult, which makes increasingly more idiotic demands on us to keep the world from warming. What do these “experts” plan on doing about the carbon footprint caused by wild dogs and cats? How about wolves and lions? How about other animals, like cows and elephants? Should we kill and eat all of them, too? Of course, they would say no, but if we need to lower the carbon footprint, then wouldn’t it only make logical sense to get rid of all of them, too? We need to save the planet, don’t we?

It makes no logical sense, I know, but it just goes to show how ludicrous the entire argument is. These large breed dogs, for example, would still exist even if no one owned them.

And of course, the fact that owning a dog or a cat is good for your health is irrelevant, too. Owning a pet has been known to have all kinds of health benefits: stress and blood pressure reduction, for example. It also has a remarkable effect on mental well-being. Pet owners are known to live longer, after all. And there is, quite frankly, nothing like the love and companionship you can get from a dog or a cat.

Matt and I have a rottweiler puppy named Ripley, one of the breeds of dog that is such a strain on the environment. We love him so much. He’s seven months old and 71 pounds. I doubt you could find a better dog out there — and we certainly won’t be eating him anytime soon, for chrissakes.