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 approximately 64 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂)-equivalent gases each year, which is comparable to the annual offset of approximately 13.6 million cars.³ The analysis suggested dogs and cats account for approximately 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, the US, and China.⁴

An average-sized cat produces approximately 310 kg of CO₂ equivalent annually, whereas a medium-sized dog generates approximately 770 kg per year.⁵ Larger dogs can emit upward of 2500 kg 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 CO₂, which is the annual equivalent of approximately 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 approximately 5.1 million tons of feces each year, which is equivalent to the waste of 6.63 million people. The Environmental Protection Agency classifies dog waste as an urban pollutant, as it can contain pathogens and nutrients that contaminate soil and water, yet fewer than half of owners pick it up.

Cat litter, on the other hand, is nonbiodegradable and often sourced through strip mining, causing erosion and habitat loss, and silica gel litter is even more carbon-intensive, requiring approximately 5 tons of coal for every ton of crystals.

Pet food and moral blind spots in communication

The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that global food systems are responsible for approximately 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 because it is closely tied to livestock agriculture through dedicated meat streams, coproducts, and rendered byproducts, which amplify pressures on other natural resources. A 2018 study by Poore and Nemecek, published in Science, found that meat sources can have 10 to 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, a psychology student at New York University, published in PNAS Nexus, found that people vastly underestimate the impact of decisions like pet ownership while overestimating low-impact behaviors 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 as recognizing climate change as a professional concern. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) declared climate change an emergency and endorsed the One Health approach to tackle it.¹² Additionally, the World Veterinary Association’s (WVA’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 far 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 they tend to have higher footprints than cats because of body size and diet quantity. Although 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 Counseling owners against overfeeding, unnecessary “indulgence” treats, and ultrapremium, 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 used safely and appropriately, can lower net waste from the human food chain, reducing the need for dedicated livestock production. Emerging research on plant-forward dog diets also suggests substantial potential reductions in resource use, though 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 an 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 WVA are well placed to issue evidence-based guidelines on climate-smart pet ownership, including standards for environmental labeling 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, nonjudgmental advice instead of framing it as an indulgence reserved for the wealthy.

The 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 the Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine. He is also a marine conservationist and science communicator. Sawant serves as the president of the ThinkOcean Society, a global nonprofit active in more than a dozen countries and working toward 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 the 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. AVMA. Published October 10, 2024. Updated November 6, 2024. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://www.avma.org/news/pet-population-continues-increase-while-pet-spending-declines
2. Paw print, your pet's carbon footprint. Transition St Andrews. 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. 2017;12(8):e0181301. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181301
4. Nuwer R. We love our dogs and cats. but are they bad for the environment? 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. Han J. The environmental impact of pets: working towards sustainable solutions. Earth.org. May 25, 2023. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-pets/
6. 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 MDA. The global environmental paw print of pet food. Global Environmental Change. 2020;65:102153. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102153
8. Food systems account for more than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 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. Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2018;360(6392):987-992. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216
10. Wall T. 5 trends shape the global pet food industry in 2022. Pet Food Industry. June 15, 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. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf191
12. Convention sessions, statement touch on environmental impact of veterinary medicine. AVMA. June 28, 2023. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://www.avma.org/news/convention-sessions-statement-touch-environmental-impact-veterinary-medicine
13. WVA position statement on One Health. World Veterinary Association. 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. 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. doi:10.3390/ani9100754
16. Cat & 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. New survey reveals alarming rates of pet obesity in the US. Association for Pet Obesity Prevention. 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. Fish based pet food market size, share global analysis report, 2023-2030. Facts and Factors. Accessed January 11, 2026. https://www.fnfresearch.com/fish-based-pet-food-market