Veterinarians are uniquely positioned to provide practical guidance to clients on the uncomfortable truth about pets and the climate, yet the profession has largely ceded this terrain to marketing departments and social media influencers. As companion animal ownership accelerates globally, with the US dog population alone surging from 52.9 million in 1996 to 89.7 million in 2024, the time for professional silence needs to end.1
Over the past decade, a growing body of life-cycle assessments has revealed that dogs and cats carry a far larger environmental “paw print” than most owners imagine.2 In the US, Gregory Okin estimated that feeding companion animals releases around 64 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases each year, which is comparable to the annual offset of roughly 13.6 million cars.3 The analysis suggested dogs and cats account for roughly one-third of the environmental impacts of all animal-based food production in the country, including land use, water, fossil fuel, and biocide.
The scale becomes startling when reframed. If American dogs and cats were a nation, they would rank fifth globally in meat consumption, behind Russia, Brazil, US, and China.4
An average-sized cat produces approximately 310 kilograms of CO₂ equivalent annually, while a medium-sized dog generates around 770 kilograms per year.5 Larger dogs can emit upwards of 2,500 kilograms annually, which is twice the emissions of an average family car. A typical pet dog’s lifetime climate impact, therefore, can span several tons of CO₂ equivalent, with food production affecting almost every environmental impact category.6 Subsequent global studies reveal that worldwide dry pet-food production results in an additional 56 and 151 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is the annual equivalent of roughly 1 to 3% of all agricultural emissions.7
Pet waste is another major but overlooked issue. In the US alone, 163 million dogs and cats produce about 5.1 million tons of feces each year, which is the equivalent waste of 6.63 million people. The EPA classifies dog waste as an urban pollutant containing pathogens and nutrients that can contaminate soil and water, yet less than half of the owners tend to pick it up.
Cat litter, on the other hand, is non-biodegradable and often sourced through strip mining, causing erosion and habitat loss, and silica gel litter is even more carbon-intensive, requiring about 5 tons of coal for every ton of crystals.
Pet food, and moral blind spots in communication
FAO estimates that global food systems are responsible for roughly one-third of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with livestock and feed production contributing a disproportionately large share.8 In this context, the pet-food sector becomes highly relevant since it is closely tied to livestock agriculture through dedicated meat streams, co-products, and rendered by-products, which amplify pressures on other natural resources. A 2018 study by Poore and Nemecek, published in Science, found that meat sources can have 10-100 times higher emissions than most fish, highlighting that protein choices hugely determine emissions.9
Yet public discussion of “sustainable pets” often drifts into moral panic about whether one is allowed to love animals at all in a warming world, rather than confronting concrete decisions about species, size, diet and numbers. Some commentators respond by downplaying the issue altogether, framing concern over pet-food emissions as a modern tragedy or a niche obsession of environmental extremists. Such narratives are convenient for an industry built on ever more premium, meat-heavy formulations, even as independent analyses repeatedly confirm nontrivial climate impacts from pet diets and suggest clear mitigation options.10
Complicating the discourse further is a psychological paradox as revealed by recent climate communication research. A 2025 study by environmental psychologist Danielle Goldwert, PhD student in psychology at New York University, published in PNAS Nexus, found that people vastly underestimate the impact of decisions like pet ownership while overestimating low-impact behaviours such as recycling.11 When the study’s findings were linked into a narrative for pets by the media, the backlash was fierce, with social media users accusing publications of “attacking” pets and ignoring the role of major polluters. This backlash signals that climate messaging about pets can trigger defensiveness and reduce willingness to engage in collective action. This reality is also why veterinary leadership matters in reframing the narrative from accusation to practical partnership.
One Health demands professional leadership
Major veterinary bodies are already on record that climate change is a professional concern. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) declared climate change an emergency and endorsed the One Health approach to tackle it.12 Whereas the World Veterinary Association’s One Health position statement explicitly acknowledges veterinary responsibilities in addressing drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation.13 Academic commentaries on ‘Climate Change and Veterinary Medicine’ go as further as describing veterinarians as frontline defenders of environmental and public health who must integrate climate adaptation and mitigation into routine practice and education.14
Companion animals, therefore, are a logical first arena in which to enact those commitments. Everyday choices ranging from diets and overfeeding to pet numbers and waste directly shape carbon emissions and resource use. Adapting the “3 Rs” of replacement, reduction and refinement, as in for use of lab animals, could be replicated for pet keeping while protecting welfare.15
What climate-smart pet ownership can look like
link