What do you think?
Rate this book
Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living
The world and its resources are finite, yet we are seemingly locked into a system based on growth of population, growth of income and growth of consumption. This title attempts to uncover what sustainability really means.
384 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
March 22, 2018
'A bit disjointed, over-elaborate, and vague, but you do appear to be heading in the right direction', or perhaps not.
The title of my review was inspired by a comment my physics teacher made on a piece of schoolwork of mine. When reading this book, I could not help but be reminded of my old teacher's kind but critical words, and wonder if the Vales truly deserved the same leniency the twelve-year-old version of myself had been shown.
In concept, Robert and Brenda Vale's "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" is very interesting. Written for a layman, but with detail that might interest someone more technically minded, it reduces complex number-crunching of various doom and gloom scenarios (summarised in the opening chapter) to the very approachable concept of relating all matters of sustainability to the amount of productive land required to allow an activity, or the production of a tangible good to take place. As such, even the most passionate Conservative Party member would be able to see what is sustainable and what the budget for our lifestyle will and will not permit. If we accept the premise that fossil fuels are a finite resource (as we would expect of the implied reader of a book on sustainable living), then everything we can consume or possess requires a set area of productive land in order to be able to harvest the crop or mineral, process that crop or mineral, and provide the energy for the process, until we have a total for the end product.
As such, if we accept the 1.8 ha 'fair earthshare' this book suggests we can all enjoy with our current population, this gives us our budget for the year. A budget that our current 'developed' lifestyles do not live within.
For this book to be of any use whatever, though, it needs substantial credibility. And here is where the book fails. Although the endnotes span numerous pages, a large proportion are from websites. While most of the websites would appear to be of the reasonably heavyweight variety, there are times when a figure referenced is of such importance that it needs support and a single endnote is not really sufficient. For example, the 'fair earthshare figure' of 1.8 ha, central to the premise of the book, is referenced to 'the National Trust for Ireland and many other bodies' and to a National Trust for Ireland webpage that no longer exists. It is disappointing to find that a figure of this importance is not further justified.
Other assumptions are made. P.45 holds the claim that '[i]f food accounts for roughly a quarter of the total current footprint of a Cardiff resident, we can assume that the food part of a fair earthshare would also be around a quarter of the total'. As every engineer knows, one must assume nothing and question everything, and I would certainly question the above assumption. Put simply, there is no justification given either for the assumption that if we reduced our earthshare, that food would continue to account for the same proportion of it as at present, nor, if we are discussing a lifestyle for the world, is there any need to take Cardiff as a model. If further consideration has gone into these assumptions, "Time to Eat the Dog?" does not share this with its readers.
Then we have the slipshod thinking of the next sentence but one which begins to discuss the footprint per kilogramme of food on the mistaken assumption that the amount of food we require can be accounted for by weight rather than by calories. It must be obvious, to make a rather reductive analogy myself, that a person living on lettuce would require a much greater weight of food than the same person living on roast beef and beer, so to compare the footprint per given weight of food alone is not really very helpful.
P.40 tells us that 'the diet of even a prosperous peasant would be fairly monotonous' and that 'meat was expensive and was generally eaten on special occasions[....] The typical daily diet comprised [...] 8ox of meat, fish or cheese [....]' Quite why, if meat was eaten (only?) on special occasions, it is then listed in the daily diet of a peasant, and why Vale and Vale assume that we can quantify the amount of food we are likely to need by weight is never explained. I expect this is just poor revision and editing.
Were this book published under the wartime economy measures, and a slim volume of 100 pages or so, one might forgive the lack of explanation and be more willing to trust that the authors have done their homework. However, the book makes little effort to be concise as if there were no word limit in sight. We are told that the Imperial system of measures 'dates back to the long-lost British Empire on which the sun was never going to set' though 'the only people who use it are the Americans' even though Vale and Vale go on, not to settle on one or the other, but a mixture of Imperial and S.I. units, switching from one to the other in a way that I, though bilingual, find confusing. When quoting Imperial sources, this book sometimes begins a sentence by putting the Imperial units, followed by the metric in brackets. Then, having read half a sentence in Imperial, I find that the comparison to the former figure is given in metric only, forcing me to go back and re-read the sentence in metric, or to attempt a hasty conversion.
The reader is also treated to snatches of biographical information such as the fact that the Vales once owned a Morris Minor and a cat called Iggy. If there was a need to be concise, such information could easily be cut.
P.239 finally loses the book all respect in my eyes. In a long rambling passage, we are told that a 'happy lone hamster' eats 2.7kg of hamster food per year, based on the fact that although the density of hamster food is not known because the Vales obviously thought it unnecessary to purchase and weigh some, they have estimated its density based on the density of cornflakes weighed to the nearest ounce because their kitchen scales are not metric, though they accept that oats are closer in density to hamster food but 'there were not enough in the kitchen cupboard to weigh'.
A simple set of balance scales could be accurate to the nearest eighth of an ounce. Had I written the above when I was 12, my physics teacher would have rebuked my lack of initiative, and, coming from the Vales, it does nothing to gain them my respect.
Having been a follower of Brenda and Robert Vale since reading their excellent (if dated) "The Self-Sufficient House" and the interesting "The New Autonomous House", I had high hopes of anything written by the (by now) mature and experienced couple who are now research fellows at the Victoria University of Wellington. Instead I find that the book lacks in basic respect for the reader who may well have paid the full £14.95 only to find that the writers could not be bothered to weigh hamster food or even to buy and weigh some oats that they would have ultimately eaten anyway. I am somewhat more irritated that some of the tax money I dutifully paid to HMRC has gone towards the purchase of a library copy instead of, perhaps, a hospital cleaner who actually works for a living and (hopefully) takes a pride in his or her work that the Vales (and their publishers) do not.
Much as I would like to highlight the good points regarding "Time to Eat the Dog?", I unfortunately no longer have any confidence in the academic diligence of its writers, and so, zero condidence that the information contained in its 384 pages (all printed in China - sustainably?) is correct. As such, although "Time to Eat the Dog?" is conceptually brilliant, it gains the green movement no respect whatsoever (I hope very much that the Vales will be duly ostracised from it) and, if we are to rely on the likes of the Vales to guide us through the next few years, we will probably all end up (if alive at all) hungry and cold. On that day, some books may be too precious to want to light the fire with, but this book may then, finally, be of use.
The title of my review was inspired by a comment my physics teacher made on a piece of schoolwork of mine. When reading this book, I could not help but be reminded of my old teacher's kind but critical words, and wonder if the Vales truly deserved the same leniency the twelve-year-old version of myself had been shown.
In concept, Robert and Brenda Vale's "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" is very interesting. Written for a layman, but with detail that might interest someone more technically minded, it reduces complex number-crunching of various doom and gloom scenarios (summarised in the opening chapter) to the very approachable concept of relating all matters of sustainability to the amount of productive land required to allow an activity, or the production of a tangible good to take place. As such, even the most passionate Conservative Party member would be able to see what is sustainable and what the budget for our lifestyle will and will not permit. If we accept the premise that fossil fuels are a finite resource (as we would expect of the implied reader of a book on sustainable living), then everything we can consume or possess requires a set area of productive land in order to be able to harvest the crop or mineral, process that crop or mineral, and provide the energy for the process, until we have a total for the end product.
As such, if we accept the 1.8 ha 'fair earthshare' this book suggests we can all enjoy with our current population, this gives us our budget for the year. A budget that our current 'developed' lifestyles do not live within.
For this book to be of any use whatever, though, it needs substantial credibility. And here is where the book fails. Although the endnotes span numerous pages, a large proportion are from websites. While most of the websites would appear to be of the reasonably heavyweight variety, there are times when a figure referenced is of such importance that it needs support and a single endnote is not really sufficient. For example, the 'fair earthshare figure' of 1.8 ha, central to the premise of the book, is referenced to 'the National Trust for Ireland and many other bodies' and to a National Trust for Ireland webpage that no longer exists. It is disappointing to find that a figure of this importance is not further justified.
Other assumptions are made. P.45 holds the claim that '[i]f food accounts for roughly a quarter of the total current footprint of a Cardiff resident, we can assume that the food part of a fair earthshare would also be around a quarter of the total'. As every engineer knows, one must assume nothing and question everything, and I would certainly question the above assumption. Put simply, there is no justification given either for the assumption that if we reduced our earthshare, that food would continue to account for the same proportion of it as at present, nor, if we are discussing a lifestyle for the world, is there any need to take Cardiff as a model. If further consideration has gone into these assumptions, "Time to Eat the Dog?" does not share this with its readers.
Then we have the slipshod thinking of the next sentence but one which begins to discuss the footprint per kilogramme of food on the mistaken assumption that the amount of food we require can be accounted for by weight rather than by calories. It must be obvious, to make a rather reductive analogy myself, that a person living on lettuce would require a much greater weight of food than the same person living on roast beef and beer, so to compare the footprint per given weight of food alone is not really very helpful.
P.40 tells us that 'the diet of even a prosperous peasant would be fairly monotonous' and that 'meat was expensive and was generally eaten on special occasions[....] The typical daily diet comprised [...] 8ox of meat, fish or cheese [....]' Quite why, if meat was eaten (only?) on special occasions, it is then listed in the daily diet of a peasant, and why Vale and Vale assume that we can quantify the amount of food we are likely to need by weight is never explained. I expect this is just poor revision and editing.
Were this book published under the wartime economy measures, and a slim volume of 100 pages or so, one might forgive the lack of explanation and be more willing to trust that the authors have done their homework. However, the book makes little effort to be concise as if there were no word limit in sight. We are told that the Imperial system of measures 'dates back to the long-lost British Empire on which the sun was never going to set' though 'the only people who use it are the Americans' even though Vale and Vale go on, not to settle on one or the other, but a mixture of Imperial and S.I. units, switching from one to the other in a way that I, though bilingual, find confusing. When quoting Imperial sources, this book sometimes begins a sentence by putting the Imperial units, followed by the metric in brackets. Then, having read half a sentence in Imperial, I find that the comparison to the former figure is given in metric only, forcing me to go back and re-read the sentence in metric, or to attempt a hasty conversion.
The reader is also treated to snatches of biographical information such as the fact that the Vales once owned a Morris Minor and a cat called Iggy. If there was a need to be concise, such information could easily be cut.
P.239 finally loses the book all respect in my eyes. In a long rambling passage, we are told that a 'happy lone hamster' eats 2.7kg of hamster food per year, based on the fact that although the density of hamster food is not known because the Vales obviously thought it unnecessary to purchase and weigh some, they have estimated its density based on the density of cornflakes weighed to the nearest ounce because their kitchen scales are not metric, though they accept that oats are closer in density to hamster food but 'there were not enough in the kitchen cupboard to weigh'.
A simple set of balance scales could be accurate to the nearest eighth of an ounce. Had I written the above when I was 12, my physics teacher would have rebuked my lack of initiative, and, coming from the Vales, it does nothing to gain them my respect.
Having been a follower of Brenda and Robert Vale since reading their excellent (if dated) "The Self-Sufficient House" and the interesting "The New Autonomous House", I had high hopes of anything written by the (by now) mature and experienced couple who are now research fellows at the Victoria University of Wellington. Instead I find that the book lacks in basic respect for the reader who may well have paid the full £14.95 only to find that the writers could not be bothered to weigh hamster food or even to buy and weigh some oats that they would have ultimately eaten anyway. I am somewhat more irritated that some of the tax money I dutifully paid to HMRC has gone towards the purchase of a library copy instead of, perhaps, a hospital cleaner who actually works for a living and (hopefully) takes a pride in his or her work that the Vales (and their publishers) do not.
Much as I would like to highlight the good points regarding "Time to Eat the Dog?", I unfortunately no longer have any confidence in the academic diligence of its writers, and so, zero condidence that the information contained in its 384 pages (all printed in China - sustainably?) is correct. As such, although "Time to Eat the Dog?" is conceptually brilliant, it gains the green movement no respect whatsoever (I hope very much that the Vales will be duly ostracised from it) and, if we are to rely on the likes of the Vales to guide us through the next few years, we will probably all end up (if alive at all) hungry and cold. On that day, some books may be too precious to want to light the fire with, but this book may then, finally, be of use.
November 16, 2016
I started reading this book in search of tips on actually how can we live more sustainable. More sustainable from the environmental perspective. This book is great on providing analysis of our day to day choices but actually does not provide anything revolutionary. On the other hand, what evolutionary ideas am I looking for? Unfortunately, in this current overpopulated world the most sustainable living is no living. But lets come back to the book.
Interesting calculations, good tables for comparison and I think can be a good tool used for your reference. However, after reading such books I always try to question myself - how many things will I remember in a day? In a week? In a year? That smaller is always better? That cotton clothes are not that environmentally friendly as I was hoping them to be? Yes, I will remember some of the bottom lines, but I will not remember the big numbers.
For me, this book lacks more interactive approach. Maybe it could propose calculations of your own footprint in different sectors (and I mean "fill in calculations" and not "read between the lines" calculations), maybe more comparisons which would stay in people minds for longer...
Overall it's a good, informative book of "proofs" and a good read for people who love numbers.
Interesting calculations, good tables for comparison and I think can be a good tool used for your reference. However, after reading such books I always try to question myself - how many things will I remember in a day? In a week? In a year? That smaller is always better? That cotton clothes are not that environmentally friendly as I was hoping them to be? Yes, I will remember some of the bottom lines, but I will not remember the big numbers.
For me, this book lacks more interactive approach. Maybe it could propose calculations of your own footprint in different sectors (and I mean "fill in calculations" and not "read between the lines" calculations), maybe more comparisons which would stay in people minds for longer...
Overall it's a good, informative book of "proofs" and a good read for people who love numbers.
Read
May 15, 2012Really liked it. Sometimes the stats got a bit boring and I found myself skimming them in places. But really good to have them to back up the argument if you need it. I really liked the fact that each chapter finished with a summary of what you should do/try to change. Means you have a shortlist of things to give to people who what to improve their footprint but can't be bothered reading the whole book.
July 4, 2010
Very uneven book. Some tips are good and easy to implement, but some ideas are either too extreme (eg. not to flash the toilet regularly) or unrealistic (do not get divorced until you have found a new partner).
October 21, 2019
Die Idee des Buches ist sehr gut: Quantifizierung des ökologischen Fußabdrucks aller Dinge, die wir so regelmäßig tun. Das Ziel soll es sein seinen "fair Earth share", also Gesamtfläche der Erde/Anzahl der Weltbevölkerung einzuhalten.
Die Methodik ist sehr ausgereift und die Handlungsempfehlungen nachvollziehbar.
Auf Dauer wird es nur sehr langweilig. In dem Fall hätten die Tabellen gereicht mit exemplarischen Rechnungen statt dem exakt gleichen Storytelling wie in jedem einzelnen Kapitel zuvor.
Die Methodik ist sehr ausgereift und die Handlungsempfehlungen nachvollziehbar.
Auf Dauer wird es nur sehr langweilig. In dem Fall hätten die Tabellen gereicht mit exemplarischen Rechnungen statt dem exakt gleichen Storytelling wie in jedem einzelnen Kapitel zuvor.
May 15, 2017
I don't normally review books, especially if I've something negative to say, but after meeting Brenda, she affirmed that she was in fact, clinically insane. It's clear that she has no concept of reality, and definitely needs to get in touch with the real world. Going into depth wit what is wrong with her analysis of becoming more sustainable people would not fit in the 20,000 character limit Goodreads provides.
April 4, 2022
! How perverted does a people have to be to even publish such an idea? Robert and Brenda Vale look like mental very sick persons: Satanists disguised as philanthropists spread such crazy theories. God will judge them all!
September 16, 2019
I have no idea how they made this book so, so boring.
March 11, 2020
I am from the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus was my president. I didn't know that he is so "famous".
July 15, 2009
A tedious, dry read which wants to reduce the entire concept of sustainability to the nuts and bolts of carbon production/reduction which is a long way from the core principles; sustainability is far more muddied and grey than this black and white list-book seems to suggest.
For the first few dips, it’s intermittently fascinating but eventually very repetitive! It reads more like a doctoral thesis than a book intended for mass/popular consumption, it's certainly not what the cover blurb would suggest which is a nuts and bolts, how-to guide to everyday sustainability.
As a reference book, I would think it could be a useful carbon-figures guide for academics. As a general-reader guide, I found it annoying and lacking. Not what it claims on the tin.
For the first few dips, it’s intermittently fascinating but eventually very repetitive! It reads more like a doctoral thesis than a book intended for mass/popular consumption, it's certainly not what the cover blurb would suggest which is a nuts and bolts, how-to guide to everyday sustainability.
As a reference book, I would think it could be a useful carbon-figures guide for academics. As a general-reader guide, I found it annoying and lacking. Not what it claims on the tin.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews