Tax the dog!

[Pezzaturra]

Finally the truth is coming out :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220...inganimalsfood

I have been saying all along that the dog owners should be heavily taxed to reduce the number of these useless animals.

 

[Crane's]

Originally Posted by Pezzaturra

Finally the truth is coming out :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220...inganimalsfood

I have been saying all along that the dog owners should be heavily taxed to reduce the number of these useless animals.

GFY

 

[crazyquik]

First they came for the gas-guzzlers, and I did not speak out—because I did not have a gas-guzzler;
Then they came for the coal, and I did not speak out—because I did not heat with coal;
Then they came for the dogs, and I did not speak out—because I did not have a dog;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Everyone thinks a clean Earth is the best idea since sliced bread; until an environmentalist comes after something you love (or your livelihood) and tells you you can't do it anymore. Should 70 lb dogs carry a ~$1500 tax from the government, roughly the same as sports cars that get 20mpg?

 

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Pezzaturra

I have been saying all along that the dog owners should be heavily taxed to reduce the number of these useless animals.

Further illustrating that the depths of your idiocy have no bounds.

 

[stewartu]

Originally Posted by Pezzaturra

Finally the truth is coming out :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220...inganimalsfood

I have been saying all along that the dog owners should be heavily taxed to reduce the number of these useless animals.



This should be interesting to watch. Dog lovers should have fun here!!

 

[jc138]

This made the rounds a couple months ago, and seems like complete rubbish. I've not read the book, but the only way I could get their numbers to work was to avoid intermediate steps when converting the amount of energy produced by area of land when I worked out the impact of the car.

In other words, the average year cost in energy of car, when factoring construction costs, equals say 55.1 gigajoules (10K KMs on a Toyata Landcruiser, which is remarkably fuel efficient btw). One hectacre of land produces 135 GJ, therefore you get about 2.5 cars per ha.

But when they did a dog they did not say that it uses about x GJs and therefore 135/x = dogs per hectacre. Instead they said that a hectacre produces Y amount of grain. A cow eats Z amount of grain. A dog eats C cows, therefore a dog uses C/(Y/Z) hectacres of land.

This is dodgy, since each intermediate step costs some energy not imparted down the line. (For example, not all of the cow is eaten by dogs, so we lose some energy right there.)

A more fair, although still very questionable, way to go about it might be to compare the amount of grain used for dog with the amount that could be used when producing ethanol. This has all sorts of pitfalls, e.g. http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1911 (which interestingly states that filling an SUV requires 660 pounds of corn, or enough to feed to people for an entire year).

 

[stewartu]

Originally Posted by jc138

This made the rounds a couple months ago, and seems like complete rubbish. I've not read the book, but the only way I could get their numbers to work was to avoid intermediate steps when converting the amount of energy produced by area of land when I worked out the impact of the car.

In other words, the average year cost in energy of car, when factoring construction costs, equals say 55.1 gigajoules (10K KMs on a Toyata Landcruiser, which is remarkably fuel efficient btw). One hectacre of land produces 135 GJ, therefore you get about 2.5 cars per ha.

But when they did a dog they did not say that it uses about x GJs and therefore 135/x = dogs per hectacre. Instead they said that a hectacre produces Y amount of grain. A cow eats Z amount of grain. A dog eats C cows, therefore a dog uses C/(Y/Z) hectacres of land.

This is dodgy, since each intermediate step costs some energy not imparted down the line. (For example, not all of the cow is eaten by dogs, so we lose some energy right there.)

A more fair, although still very questionable, way to go about it might be to compare the amount of grain used for dog with the amount that could be used when producing ethanol. This has all sorts of pitfalls, e.g. http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1911 (which interestingly states that filling an SUV requires 660 pounds of corn, or enough to feed to people for an entire year).


You've obviously given this some thought. Why?

 

[Joffrey]

Originally Posted by Pezzaturra

Finally the truth is coming out :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220...inganimalsfood

I have been saying all along that the dog owners should be heavily taxed to reduce the number of these useless animals.

I don't mind taxing them.

 

[tor]

Originally Posted by Jodum5

I don't mind taxing them.
Yeah, maybe it'll prevent those 100 cats 1 old crazy shut-in situations where some old kook dies covered in **** and sickly cats. Otherwise, I think it's time to start feeding dogs and cats our own edible leftovers, if possible. I mean the leftovers that aren't ok for other people to eat, of course.

 

[stewartu]

Hungry homeless...

shelters full of unwanted cats and dogs...

Obvious solution.

 

[jc138]

Originally Posted by stewartu

You've obviously given this some thought. Why?
Sort of a perfect storm:

1. I like counter-intuitive results, provided they are accurate.
2. The problem of calculating environmental impact for various things and activities stikes me as interesting.
3. Some conservative econ blogger who winds me up made a similar, although unsupported by any sort of analysis, statement about six months ago.

 

[stewartu]

Originally Posted by jc138

Sort of a perfect storm:

1. I like counter-intuitive results, provided they are accurate.
2. The problem of calculating environmental impact for various things and activities stikes me as interesting.
3. Some conservative econ blogger who winds me up made a similar, although unsupported by any sort of analysis, statement about six months ago.


I applaud you for keeping people honest. My crap detector goes off frequently but I rarely have the energy to argue, knowing that most people can't sort fact from fiction.

 

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Crane's

GFY

Originally Posted by crazyquik

First they came for the gas-guzzlers, and I did not speak out"”because I did not have a gas-guzzler;
Then they came for the coal, and I did not speak out"”because I did not heat with coal;
Then they came for the dogs, and I did not speak out"”because I did not have a dog;
Then they came for me"”and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Everyone thinks a clean Earth is the best idea since sliced bread; until an environmentalist comes after something you love (or your livelihood) and tells you you can't do it anymore. Should 70 lb dogs carry a ~$1500 tax from the government, roughly the same as sports cars that get 20mpg?

Originally Posted by Douglas

Further illustrating that the depths of your idiocy have no bounds.

+1 to all of the above.

 

[Pezzaturra]

Originally Posted by jc138

Sort of a perfect storm:

1. I like counter-intuitive results, provided they are accurate.
2. The problem of calculating environmental impact for various things and activities stikes me as interesting.
3. Some conservative econ blogger who winds me up made a similar, although unsupported by any sort of analysis, statement about six months ago.

I see very clear calculation in this case. Dogs held by people who are not farmers are useless much more so than cars, for obvious reasons.

Aside form environmental impact and general nuisance and sheer idiocy of keeping a dog in a city, keeping these useless animals captive while subjecting them to torture is simply immoral.

 

[csulli13]

Originally Posted by Pezzaturra

Dogs held by people who are not farmers are useless much more so than cars, for obvious reasons.

I know some blind people who are going to be unhappy once you're in charge. Lucky for you, they won't be able to find you anymore.