Okay, first off pets we can eat would not be pets. The word is livestock, and we have that already. Second, the Vales based the comparisons on vehicles doing a very fucking modest 10,000 km per year. That's barely 6,000 miles, or less than half my average annual mileage was in the UK. What other figures needed to be viewed through a filter of massive fucking optimism (or pessimism for all we know) to get the answer that Mr Whiskers' carbon pawprint (fuck, I can't believe I've even typed that) is a little larger than a VW Golf and Fido's is much greater than a Toyota Land Cruiser. Third, as pointed out be a commenter on another blog (might have been WUWT), if the Vales are actually right an alternative view would be that personal transport is no big deal because the carbon footprint is less than that of a small domestic animal. This has been blogged extensively elsewhere, so I don't need to add more on this pair of know-it-all, authoritarian, happiness haters except to note that they're rather off message saying we can have edible pets when a renowned authority says we should have no meat at all.
Nick Stern - or Lord or Baron or whatever if you absolutely must - is banging the same drum but for two legged carnivores rather than our four legged friends. No doubt he's giving Paul McCartney wet dreams. Look, fucknuckles, if you seriously think people are going to start asking about the 'carbon content' - which, since everything we eat is some form of carbon based life, is a scientifically illiterate term - of their food in increasing numbers when believing in warble gloaming is now on a par with believing in ghosts and 13.5 billion year old invisible friends, you need your head looked at. You've based all your work on a presumption and if that turns out to be incorrect everything you've worked on and said on the issue is invalidated, not to mention the damage you may be doing to the farming industry may come back to bite you in the balls. I would take your pontificating far more seriously, or at least with a pinch more respect, if you had the stones to say this loud and proud yourself. The dishonesty in warble gloaming science - refusal to release data so results can't possibly be independently verified, ignoring of contrary evidence, failure to be open about the uncertainties and keeping quiet about work based on assumptions - is part of what turned me from a believer into a sceptic.
I really am getting fucking tired of hearing this shit over the past thirty or so years, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I was taken in by the predictions and assertions when I was a kid but three fucking decades on they still haven't changed the music. We mustn't have meat or meat eating pets because cows fart and burp
UPDATE: Usually I don't go a bundle on Wikipedia vandalism but every now and again there's something appropriate to the moment.
* Yes, some species are endangered but obviously nobody would eat those except possibly to annoy people like Nick Stern.
** That'd be be penguins and flying fish, obviously.