Veterinarians must lead the climate-smart pet ownership conversation

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

For clinicians wary of moralizing, the first reassurance I’d provide is that climate-smart pet ownership is not a code for shaming clients or forcing carnivores onto poorly designed vegan diets. Rather, it is about using existing scientific tools in nutrition, behavior, population medicine and ethics to minimize harm while preserving the human-animal bond.

Choice of species and size matters. Life-cycle assessments suggest that larger dogs generally have substantially higher lifetime emissions than smaller dogs, and tend to have higher footprints than cats because of body size and diet quantity. While no clinician should prescribe a particular species purely on climate grounds, it is reasonable to discuss with prospective owners how housing, finances, and activity levels intersect with both welfare and environmental impacts.

Feeding for health rather than excess is another clear win. Studies show that the same animal can be associated with very different annual emissions depending on formulation and energy density.16 For example, a medium-sized dog fed only wet food could be responsible for several times the annual greenhouse gases of the same dog on nutritionally equivalent dry food. In 2022, the Association for Pet Obesity Prevention revealed that nearly 60% of all pets in the US were obese or overweight.17 Counselling owners against overfeeding, unnecessary “indulgence” treats and ultra-premium, high-meat diets in cases without clinical indication is simultaneously good for health, environment, and economics.

Diet formulation itself offers multiple levers. The pet-food industry already relies heavily on rendered byproducts, which, when safely and appropriately used, can lower net waste from human food chain reducing the need for dedicated livestock production. Emerging research on plant-forward dog diets also suggests substantial potential reductions in resources, although these options must always be evaluated against rigorous nutritional and welfare evidence rather than ideology. Encouragingly, sustainable seafood options in pet food, with smaller offsets, have grown dramatically and will only increase over the next 5 years.18

Population ethics is another aspect to consider seriously. Unplanned litter and high shelter intake often cause preventable suffering and aggregate environmental footprint from additional animals. Spay and neuter programs, promotion of adoption over commercial breeding, and client education about lifetime commitments all sit squarely within existing veterinary roles while advancing climate equity goals.

If veterinarians do not lead this conversation right now, others with narrower interests will gladly fill the vacuum. Already, some industry messaging emphasizes “eco-friendly” packaging and carbon-offset schemes while sidestepping the basic question of how much high-impact animal protein is being fed, and to how many animals. Only profession-led transparent guidance can help owners distinguish genuine emissions reductions from greenwashing.

Yes, professional organizations are moving, but far more in terms of continued education on climate and food systems should be mainstreamed, besides the optional webinars. Veterinary curricula must treat sustainability as a core competency rather than an elective. National associations such as the AVMA and global bodies like the World Veterinary Association (WVA) are well placed to issue evidence-based guidelines on climate-smart pet ownership, including standards for environmental labelling of pet foods based on independently verified life-cycle assessments.

Finally, veterinarians must insist on incorporating climate narratives in their messaging. Companion animals provide invaluable mental-health and social benefits, particularly for people who are isolated, disabled, or economically precarious, even as climate impacts fall hardest on the poorest communities. That reality argues for practical, non-judgmental advice instead of framing it as an indulgence reserved for the wealthy.

Climate-smart pet conversation will happen with or without veterinary leadership. The only question is whether it will be shaped by science and ethics, or by sentimentality and sales targets. By bringing the best available evidence into everyday consultations, veterinarians can help clients keep the animals they love while living within planetary limits.

Ajay Sawant is a veterinary intern at Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine. He is also a marine conservationist and science communicator. Sawant serves as the president of ThinkOcean Society, a global non-profit active in over a dozen countries and working towards ocean literacy, restoration projects, and policy advocacy.

An Explorers Club 50 honoree, Sawant has previously written conservation commentaries for Mongabay, Current Conservation, Earth.org and National Geographic Society, among many others. He is a DVM360 student ambassador. Learn more at www.ajaysawant.com

References

1. Larkin M. Pet population continues to increase while pet spending declines. American Veterinary Medical Association. November 6, 2024. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://www.avma.org/news/pet-population-continues-increase-while-pet-spending-declines
2. Transition St Andrews. Paw print, your pet's carbon footprint. March 27, 2019. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://transitionsta.org/2019/03/paw-print-your-pets-carbon-footprint/
3. Okin GS. Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats. PLOS ONE 12(8): e0181301. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181301
4. Rachel Nuwer. Dogs, cats, pets, and the environment impact. New York Times. July 29, 2025. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/29/climate/dogs-cats-pets-environment-impact.html
5. Jessica Han. The environmental impact of pets: Working towards sustainable solutions. Earth. May 25, 2023. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-pets/
6. Lucy. Carbon pawprints: Are pets bad for the planet?. Climate Essentials. June 9, 2021. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://www.climateessentials.com/articles/carbon-pawprints-are-pets-bad-for-the-planet
7. Alexander P, Berri A, Moran D, Reay D, Rounsevell MD. The global environmental paw print of pet food. Global Environmental Change. 2020;65:102153. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102153
8. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food systems account for more than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. March 9, 2021. Accessed January 12, 2026.https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/Food-systems-account-for-more-than-one-third-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/en
9. 1.Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers. Science. 2018;360(6392):987-992. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
10. Wall T. 5 trends shape the global pet food industry in 2022. Pet Food Industry. 2022. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://www.petfoodindustry.com/news-newsletters/pet-food-news/article/15468927/5-trends-shape-the-global-pet-food-industry-in-2022
11. Goldwert D, Patel Y, Nielsen KS, Goldberg MH, Vlasceanu M. Climate action literacy interventions increase commitments to more effective mitigation behaviors. PNAS Nexus. 2025;4(6):pgaf191. Published 2025 Jun 9. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf191
12. American Veterinary Medical Association. Convention sessions, statement touch on environmental impact of veterinary medicine. AVMA News. June 28, 2023. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://www.avma.org/news/convention-sessions-statement-touch-environmental-impact-veterinary-medicine
13. World Veterinary Association. WVA position statement on One Health. March 2024. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://worldvet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/WVA-PS-on-One-Health.pdf
14. Kramer CG, McCaw KA, Zarestky J, Duncan CG. Veterinarians in a Changing Global Climate: Educational Disconnect and a Path Forward. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:613620. Published 2020 Dec 17. doi:10.3389/fvets.2020.613620
15. Hubrecht RC, Carter E. The 3Rs and Humane Experimental Technique: Implementing Change. Animals (Basel). 2019;9(10):754. Published 2019 Sep 30. doi:10.3390/ani9100754
16. Scientific Reports. Cat and dog owners: feeding pets dry food reduces their environmental impact. SciTechDaily. November 17, 2022. Accessed February 4, 2026. https://scitechdaily.com/cat-dog-owners-feeding-pets-dry-food-reduces-their-environmental-impact/
17. Association for Pet Obesity Prevention. New survey reveals alarming rates of pet obesity in the US. May 9, 2023. Accessed February 4, 2026. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.movma.org/resource/resmgr/files/_2022_apop_state_of_us_pet_o.pdf
18. Facts and Factors. Fish-based pet food market analysis and forecast. Accessed January 11, 2026. https://www.fnfresearch.com/fish-based-pet-food-market