• 3 minutes 2nd Annual Great Oil Price Prediction Challenge of 2019
  • 6 minutes "Leaked" request by some Democrats that they were asking Nancy to coordinate censure instead of impeachment.
  • 11 minutes Trump's China Strategy: Death By a Thousand Paper Cuts
  • 14 minutes Democrats through impeachment process helped Trump go out of China deal conundrum. Now Trump can safely postpone deal till after November 2020 elections
  • 2 hours Shale Oil Fiasco
  • 8 hours USA v China. Which is 'best'?
  • 3 hours Everything you think you know about economics is WRONG!
  • 8 hours Wallstreet's "acid test" for Democrat Presidential candidate to receive their financial support . . . Support "Carried Interest"
  • 4 hours My interview on PDVSA Petrocaribe and corruption
  • 18 hours Wonders of US Shale: US Shale Benefits: The U.S. leads global petroleum and natural gas production with record growth in 2018
  • 9 hours Quotes from the Widowmaker
  • 1 day True Confessions of a Billionaire
  • 8 hours Global Debt Worries. How Will This End?
  • 15 hours Petroleum Industry Domain Names
Alt Text

Oil Up On OPEC Optimism

While broader financial markets struggle…

Alt Text

The World’s 10 Biggest Polluters

As carbon dioxide emissions become…

Irina Slav

Irina Slav

Irina is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

More Info

Premium Content

Australian Pet Owners Could Face Controversial Carbon Tax

A former Australian energy and resources minister has proposed a carbon tax for pets—an idea that is as rational as it will no doubt be controversial.

“They might be furry and they might be cute, but they do have a carbon footprint and an environmental cost,” former minister Theo Theophanus told Australian 3AW693.

“Everybody wants us to address the climate issue, but they don’t want to address it personally and in their own use of resources on the planet,” he added, saying a carbon tax on pets could raise between US$68 and US$103 million (A$100-150 million).

While Theophanus’s proposal would certainly sound heartless to anyone who has ever owned a pet, he does have a point. Like people, cats and dogs—and other pets as well—also have a carbon pawprint.

Back in 2017, a study revealed that cats and dogs are responsible for as much as a quarter of the emissions produced by animal agriculture. That’s 64 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent that accompanies the production of pet food. This is about the same amount driving 13 million cars would produce.

What’s more, researchers stipulated that the larger the animal, the larger its carbon pawprint, meaning bigger dogs cause more emissions than smaller breeds and cats. Still, the researchers also noted that there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that dog ownership is any worse for the environment than other, pet-free lifestyle choices.

"Further research in this area would be beneficial before making environmental recommendations about dog ownership to the public," they said at the time. "Still, we would suggest with some confidence that a smaller dog is likely to have a smaller carbon footprint than a larger dog."

This is because cats and dogs eat meat, and the process of bringing this meat to the can is associated with a lot of emissions, from the clearing of land to raise livestock, which sometimes involves excessive deforestation, to raising the livestock, and to processing the meat. A kilo of pork takes 24 kilos of CO2 and a kilo of beef takes as much as 1,000 kilos of CO2. Certainly food for thought for pet owners.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage



Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News
Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play