This article, originally published on Grist and part of the Climate Desk collaboration, explores a complex and often overlooked aspect of personal climate impact: pet ownership. The author, a longtime vegetarian who chose the lifestyle to reduce environmental harm, finds herself wrestling with the paradox of feeding her 50-pound rescue dog, Loki, a meat-based diet. This dilemma sparked deeper reflection after reading a recent study highlighted in the Associated Press, which revealed surprising insights about how people perceive the climate impact of their daily choices—including owning pets.
The study, led by environmental psychology researcher Danielle Goldwert and published in the journal PNAS Nexus, investigated how people estimate the climate effects of various individual behaviors. Participants were asked to evaluate actions such as adopting a vegan diet or switching from fossil fuel-powered cars to renewable public transportation. The findings showed that people tend to overestimate the impact of low-impact behaviors like recycling and using energy-efficient appliances, while significantly underestimating the environmental consequences of other personal decisions, notably the choice to own a dog.
The primary goal of the research was to determine whether providing accurate climate information could encourage people to adopt more effective behaviors. However, the media coverage quickly distorted the message, sparking backlash from pet owners and animal lovers. Social media users reacted defensively, dismissing the idea that having a dog—especially small breeds like Chihuahuas—could contribute meaningfully to climate change. Some accused the study and its coverage of unfairly blaming pet owners for the crisis, calling for the focus to remain on major polluters such as billionaires and fossil fuel companies. Goldwert herself expressed disappointment at the response, clarifying that the researchers never intended to demonize pets or suggest that people should give them up.
This incident highlights a broader challenge in climate communication: when messages touch on deeply personal or beloved aspects of life, they can provoke emotional resistance and even disengagement from the climate cause. The author relates to this instinct, deeply loving her dog and instinctively defending the decision to share one’s life with pets. At the same time, she recognizes the need for honest discussions about the environmental footprint of pet ownership, which is an area often ignored despite being more within individual control than systemic issues like fossil fuel dependency.
Dogs and cats have a substantial carbon “pawprint” largely due to their meat-heavy diets. A 2017 UCLA study estimated that pets account for about 25 to 30 percent of the environmental impact from meat consumption in the United States—roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of 13.6 million cars. While traditional pet food often uses meat byproducts not suitable for human consumption, a growing trend among pet owners is feeding pets “human-grade” meats, which carry higher environmental costs. Additionally, pet waste contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Dog waste is typically bagged in plastic and sent to landfills, where even biodegradable bags release methane gases, and composting options for pet waste remain limited.
The scale of this issue is growing along with the number of dogs in the U.S., which has risen from about 53 million in 1996 to nearly 90 million in 2024. Despite this, pets are deeply embedded in family life—97 percent of owners consider their pets part of the family, and over half view them as equal to human family members. This strong emotional bond explains why any discussion about pets’ climate impact quickly triggers defensiveness.
Such reactions are part of a recurring pattern in climate debates, where efforts to address the crisis are often portrayed as threats to cherished lifestyles and freedoms. Climate policies have been framed by some political and corporate interests as attacks on personal choice—targeting everything from burgers and gas stoves to coal jobs. This narrative has been effective in mobilizing opposition and delaying meaningful action, as it pits individual sacrifice against systemic responsibility. Fossil fuel companies, for instance, push the contradictory message that climate change is caused by individuals but insist that people should not have to change their lifestyles.
In response, many climate advocates have shifted their messaging away from individual responsibility, focusing instead on systemic changes like transforming energy and transportation infrastructure through government action. Writer and podcaster Mary Annaïse Heglar has been a vocal critic of the emphasis on individual consumer habits, calling it “victim blaming” and a distraction from the real power of collective action. She argues that no amount of individual lifestyle tweaks could have prevented the crisis without large-scale systemic change.
However, not everyone agrees that personal actions should be completely sidelined. Climate