One of the most liberal neighborhoods in America, zip code 10024, is where I live. It’s full of people who carry cloth shopping bags, swear by fluorescent light bulbs, and think that George Bush is evil for not signing on to the Kyoto Protocol.

The neighborhood also ranks high in the nation in the number of pet food deliveries. The highest is the adjoining zip code, 10023. Parents and children now compete for space on the sidewalks and in the parks of the Upper West Side with the owners of medium- and large-sized dogs or, increasingly, of multiple small dogs. I wonder if these pet owners have calculated their dog’s carbon paw print.

By this I mean the canine variation on “carbon footprint,” a concept invented by environmentalists for measuring our energy consumption and, hence, our damage to the environment. The more energy we consume, so it is claimed, the more carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere and, ergo, the more damage to the thermal equilibrium.

When we are not being told to hang out our laundry to dry, we are encouraged to visit Web sites where we can calculate our personal carbon footprint, based on household fuel use and travel. On the larger scale of things, the so-called Carbon Trust in Great Britain is trying to force companies to publish the size of the carbon footprint required to bring their products to market.

It is only by submitting to such behavior-modifying protocols, say the environmentalists, that the polar bears, the rain forest, and the earth itself can be saved. As with most seemingly well-intentioned but trendy projects, one can’t help feeling that a great deal of obfuscation and hypocrisy is at work.

I’m not talking about Laurie David, living on Seinfeld royalties while traveling on her private Gulfstream jet to save the planet, or Al Gore, spending $30,000 a year on electricity for his 20-room house with a pool, but about my pet-rich neighbors on the Upper West Side.

According to the Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition, a moderately active 80-pound dog requires 1,955 calories a day — the energy requirement of a 120-pound woman. A lactating dog of that weight requires between 3,900 and 7,800 calories daily.

Smaller dogs of, say, 20 pounds consume energy disproportionate to their weight compared to large dogs. Translated, that means two miniature poodles consume more than a German shepherd on the small side. So, when calculating one’s carbon footprint, dog owners should add an extra individual, or two or three, to their household size.

While it is true that some of the carbon dioxide released into the environment as a result of the metabolism of pet food is renewable, the energetics required to produce this food fare — the factories, the delivery trucks, the metal for the cans — are often nonrenewable or renewable more in principle than in practice.

“Tin” cans, for instance, made of iron, require about half a pound of carbon, in the form of coke, per pound to manufacture. After use they go to the city dump, where they may or may not be recycled. Even the best metal-recycling systems recover only a fraction of the metal, while using huge amounts of nonrenewable energy in their operation.

Based on a report by MarketResearch.com, the American pet food market is experiencing healthy growth: “marketers continue to convert pet owners to better quality, higher priced, more upscale fare.” This glowing report from October 2006 mentions the “bases” that premium pet food makers manage to cover: natural/organic, fortified/functional, weight control, breed-size specific, and gourmet, among others.

People who purchase organic pet food would hardly be so cruel as to leave Fido in a warm apartment in the summer months without air conditioning. Besides eight hours of cool air, don’t forget to factor in the TV to keep him company, or the electric lights when he is home alone in the evening. In very round numbers, a single 6,000 British Thermal Unit air conditioner run for eight hours has the carbon footprint of .15 gallons of gas, which will drive a car for about 3 miles. Over its 10-year life span, a dog enjoying the benefits of air conditioning will consume about 150 gallons of fossil fuel — and that’s assuming the system is operating at 100% efficiency.

And don’t get me started on cats, which compete with humans in annually consuming millions of tons of various fish varieties from overfished seas.

This exposition is not about animals, however, but about the hypocrisy and willful ignorance of the liberal mindset.

After all, what is the point of feeding “natural/organic” food to animals that lick the behinds of other animals, drink from toilets, sniff up dirty curbs and sidewalks, and chew on shoes and rugs which contain dyes and other chemicals?

As with the cloth shopping bags, the fluorescent light bulbs, and the Kyoto Treaty, Upper West Siders want to appear virtuous, all the while polluting the ground under our feet and fouling the air we breathe.

Ms. Powers, an academic in New York City, is writing a memoir, “From Velveeta to Brie: How We All Became Liberals.”