This guy is destroying Earth!
Which has a larger ecological footprint, a large dog or an SUV? According to Robert and Brenda Vale, Fido has a Hummer of an eco-footprint:
In "Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living," authors Robert and Brenda Vale argue that resources required to feed a dog — including the amount of land needed to feed the animals that go into its food — give it about twice the eco-footprint of, say, building and fueling a Toyota Land Cruiser. Noting that a cat's pawprint was roughly equivalent to a Volkswagen Golf's, "New Scientist" asked an environmentalist at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, U.K., to independently calculate animals' environmental impact, and reported that "his figures tallied almost exactly." The study apparently didn't take into account the emissions of either the SUV or the dogs.
The unstated assumption in this sort of analysis is that there is a better use of that land and its resources than feeding a dog or building a car.
I am a vegetarian with 2 dogs and 1 car (a honda civic hybrid).
An SUV is good at announcing to everyone in its line of sight that you are insecure and feel the need to validate yourself by buying stuff. Just buy a Tesla if you feel the need to purchase more inches, chicks dig green.
My data indicates that Fundamentalist Enviros, like Robert and Brenda Vale, produce a carbon foot print the size of a General Electric Locomotive.
Given the gravity of their carbon foot print and the destabilizing effect created on a global scale, it would be environmentally responsible if they would step off into an active volcano as soon as humanly possible.
I am quite sure Al Gore would be honored to attach a memorial plague to his Gulf Stream 400 in their remembrance.