So, apparently, dogs are significantly more damaging to the planet than SUVs. I’ve never been much of a fan of dogs since I was bitten by one when I did my paper round as a teenager. Still, cats ‘carbon “pawprint”‘ aren’t that much better either.

But, get this, according to the research:

Growing and manufacturing the 164kg of meat and 95kg of cereals a border collie or cocker spaniel eats every year takes about 0.84 gha. (“Global hectare” (gha) is the amount of land it takes to support a given activity.)

A bigger dog such as a German shepherd consumes even more – its pawprint is more like 1.1 gha.

By their reckoning, that is more than the environmental footprint of the average Indian person, who uses just 0.8 gha of resources.

Those with fish as pets may be happier to hear that “the most carbon efficient pet is a goldfish. Its tiny “finprint” requires just 0.00034 gha.”

So it is Time to Eat the Dog? as one new book asks or is it time to bring the pet to a service at church, which according this news report is a rising phenomena. (No jokes about the church ‘going to the dogs’ please.)

Add into this discussion the claim that:

“The British give more to animal charities than to charities for the disabled. One donkey sanctuary in Devon has higher income than all the main charities fighting abuse against women combined.”

So, I don’t know whether to be happy that something is challenging for the British what is nigh-on an idol where “Pets at Home – where pets come first” seems to provide the cathedrals. Or, whether instead to be troubled by that fact that it is being challenged by a form of environmentalism that is often profoundly anti-human.

On the other hand I don’t know whether to be happy that some churches are reaching out by whatever means, even if with questionable motives. Or, whether to be troubled by the fact that they seems to be buttressing and even endorsing people’s idols. And don’t even get me started on the whole ‘my pet is my baby / child’, ‘don’t want kids but we’ll have pets instead’ thing. Argh!

Okay, so I will say this. Christians need to be clear about what Francis Schaeffer illustrates this way:

The personal-infinite God of the Bible is the Creator of all else. God created things, and he created them out of nothing. Therefore everything else is finite, everything else is creature. He alone is the infinite Creator. This can be set out as follows:

He created man [sic], the animals, the flowers and the machine. On the side of infinity, man is as separated from God as is the machine. But, says the Bible, when you come on to the side of man’s personality, you have something quite different. The chasm is at a different point:

So man, being made in the image of God, was made to have a personal relationship with him. Man’s relationship is upward and not merely downward. If you are dealing with twentieth century people, this becomes a very crucial difference. Modern man sees his relationship downward to the animal and to the machine. The Bible rejects this view of the man who is. On the side of personality you are related to God. You are not infinite but finite; nevertheless, you are truly personal; you are created in the image of the personal God who exists.
p 34-36, Escape from Reason, Francis Schaeffer

This really should make a difference both to how we think about the plant and stewardship and our relationship with other creatures, both humans and animals, plants and machines (one example being set out in the eight points raised here). But on the note, for now, ’nuff said.