Is Economics Just Contrarianism Mixed With Right-Wing Ideology?
Monday February 11, 2008
Some days, I swear it is. Someone should give awards for the most contrarian-for-the-sake-of-being-contrarian statement made by a professional economist - we could call the awards Landsburgs!
Anyhow, today's Landsburg goes to Arnold Kling who argues that pet dogs are more damaging to the environment than SUVs!
A Ford Excursion gets about 15 miles to the gallon. If the average person drives 12000 miles a year, then the Excursion consumes about 800 gallons of gasoline per annum.
Our labrador retriever, Robbie Burns, will eat practically anything, including loose change. If we let him eat whatever he wanted, he would just eat whatever he found on the ground, which would likely be a net environmental benefit. But we try to be responsible pet owners.
Robbie gets 2 cups of kibble each day. That is 730 cups of kibble a year, or 46 gallons of kibble a year.
Are there really less resources in 800 gallons of gasoline than 46 gallons of kibble? Gasoline costs roughly $3.00 a gallon whereas a decent quality dog food is around 40 cents a cup - or $6.40 a gallon. So the yearly gasoline bill is around $2400 whereas the yearly dog food bill is around $300. That suggests to me that there are more "resources" involved in producing the gasoline. It is still possible that there are more resources in the dog food, relative to the gasoline, but given all the evidence that seems to me to be a pretty bold claim to make.
Also consider all the resources that go into producing the Excursion, relative to the resources that go into producing a dog!
But Kling is missing the point entirely. The issue isn't the amount of resources being consumed, it is the externalities. Car exhaust produces a toxic stew of emissions, including the following:
Since we're responisble pet owners that pooper scoop, Robbie Burns is relatively emissions free. Except, of course, when we let him eat random objects he finds on the ground.
Anyhow, today's Landsburg goes to Arnold Kling who argues that pet dogs are more damaging to the environment than SUVs!
Which do you think takes a bigger toll on the environment, owning a dog, or owning an SUV? My bet would be on the dog. I'm thinking of all of the resources that go into dog food.Lets put some numbers on this debate.
You could argue that children also consume a lot of resources, but that is different. A dog does not have the potential to discover a cure for cancer. A dog is not going to provide for you in your old age.
I personally have nothing against dogs. But it does seem to me that environmentalism inevitably points toward a policy of extermination of pet dogs. Unless environmentalism is simply hatred of industry.
A Ford Excursion gets about 15 miles to the gallon. If the average person drives 12000 miles a year, then the Excursion consumes about 800 gallons of gasoline per annum.
Our labrador retriever, Robbie Burns, will eat practically anything, including loose change. If we let him eat whatever he wanted, he would just eat whatever he found on the ground, which would likely be a net environmental benefit. But we try to be responsible pet owners.
Robbie gets 2 cups of kibble each day. That is 730 cups of kibble a year, or 46 gallons of kibble a year.
Are there really less resources in 800 gallons of gasoline than 46 gallons of kibble? Gasoline costs roughly $3.00 a gallon whereas a decent quality dog food is around 40 cents a cup - or $6.40 a gallon. So the yearly gasoline bill is around $2400 whereas the yearly dog food bill is around $300. That suggests to me that there are more "resources" involved in producing the gasoline. It is still possible that there are more resources in the dog food, relative to the gasoline, but given all the evidence that seems to me to be a pretty bold claim to make.
Also consider all the resources that go into producing the Excursion, relative to the resources that go into producing a dog!
But Kling is missing the point entirely. The issue isn't the amount of resources being consumed, it is the externalities. Car exhaust produces a toxic stew of emissions, including the following:
- Carbon Monoxide
- Nitrogen dioxide
- Sulphur dioxide
- Suspended particles including PM-10, particles less than 10 microns in size.
- Benzene
- Formaldehyde
- Polycyclic hydrocarbons
Since we're responisble pet owners that pooper scoop, Robbie Burns is relatively emissions free. Except, of course, when we let him eat random objects he finds on the ground.
Comments
Here here! I would also add that, as I know from personal experience from a certain black labrador, dogs are so non-discriminatory eaters that they actually may be benefitting the environment by eating the unmentionables out of my cat’s litter box on occasion that I leave the door ajar
. Dogs are the placostumus for the home.
I’d agree on a higher-level with Kling that, while both dogs and SUVs pollute, one serves some necessity while the other is a luxury.
Jeremy’s comment may have some merit, but I think he’s walking along the slippery slope of “wants vs needs”.