If You Own a Dog, Read This.
If you’re reading this, chances are you have a pet dog—or maybe you don’t, and you’re just reading out of curiosity. Earlier this year, a climate communications study sparked mild outrage across the internet. Many people interpreted the findings as an attack on dog ownership itself.
But the reaction raises an important question: why is it so controversial to talk about the environmental impact of our pets? Is it because the claim is false—or because the subject hits too close to home? Are we resisting the idea because it challenges something we love, rather than something we misunderstand? To answer this, we first need to look at what the research actually says, and why it provoked such a strong response.
Environmental psychology researcher Danielle Goldberg published her study in the journal PNAS Nexus, where she examined how people understand the climate impact of their everyday choices. The study was not about dogs in particular, nor was it intended as a commentary on pet ownership. Instead, it focused on a broader issue: many individuals hold inaccurate assumptions about which personal behaviors meaningfully reduce carbon emissions, often overestimating the value of small actions while overlooking more substantial ones.
Goldberg’s research explored whether correcting these misperceptions—by clearly ranking climate actions by their actual impact—could shift people toward more effective choices. Yet when pets appeared among a long list of lifestyle factors, public attention narrowed. What began as a discussion about climate literacy quickly turned into a debate about dogs, responsibility, and blame. It is clear that a reaction as intense as this suggests the controversy was not about the statement alone, but about how personally it was received.
So, can dogs leave a carbon pawprint?
The largest contributor is what dogs eat. Many commercial dog foods rely heavily on animal-based proteins, especially beef and lamb, which are among the most carbon-intensive foods to produce. The emissions tied to livestock farming—through land use, feed production, methane, and transportation—extend to the pets that consume these products.
In the broader context of global emissions, pet food production makes up a relatively small share. Still, it sits within a high-impact category: food and agriculture. Agriculture—particularly livestock production—ranks behind major sectors like energy, transportation, and industry in overall emissions. While pet food alone is not a leading driver of climate change, it is part of the same system that makes animal-based diets one of the more carbon-intensive areas of consumption.
Dogs require toys, beds, leashes, grooming products, and other accessories, all of which must be manufactured, packaged, and shipped. It is common knowledge in the present day that the online shopping industry contributes a significant amount of energy to the general ecosystem and climate. While each item may seem minor, collectively they contribute to resource use and emissions.
Manufacturing processes rely on energy-intensive extraction and processing of raw materials, while global shipping and last-mile delivery add further emissions. The rapid growth of e-commerce has amplified these effects through increased packaging waste, warehousing energy use, and frequent small-scale deliveries, all of which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental strain.
Studies suggest that the environmental impact of pet-related consumption is not insignificant when considered at scale. A widely cited 2017 study by Gregory Okin estimated that dogs and cats in the United States are responsible for roughly 25–30% of the environmental impacts associated with animal-based meat consumption, contributing an estimated 64 million tons of CO₂-equivalent emissions annually. While this figure reflects food consumption rather than accessories alone, it illustrates how pet-related industries operate within the same high-emission systems as broader consumer markets. More generally, research on consumer goods production shows that manufacturing and global shipping account for a substantial share of lifecycle emissions, with transportation alone responsible for approximately 20–30% of product-related greenhouse gas emissions, depending on the supply chain. As pet ownership continues to grow alongside e-commerce and consumer demand, these indirect contributions accumulate in ways that are often overlooked.
Routine veterinary visits, medications, and pet waste disposal also carry environmental costs, ranging from energy use in clinics to plastic packaging and landfill contributions. While shifting to more eco-friendly packaging can help reduce some of this impact, medications and necessary veterinary care remain unavoidable sources of emissions. As a result, even responsible pet ownership still involves environmental trade-offs that cannot be entirely eliminated.
Driving to veterinary appointments, parks, training classes, groomers, or pet stores adds a significant source of indirect emissions associated with dog ownership. These trips typically rely on personal vehicles, particularly in suburban and rural areas where distances are longer and alternatives such as walking, cycling, or public transportation are limited or impractical. Even short car trips can be disproportionately emission-intensive, as vehicles burn more fuel during cold starts and stop-and-go driving, conditions common for errands and local travel.
Pet-related transportation is rarely a one-time occurrence. Routine veterinary checkups, vaccination visits, grooming appointments, obedience classes, and regular trips to purchase food or supplies can add up over the course of a dog’s lifetime. For larger dogs or those with medical needs, visits may be more frequent, further increasing travel-related emissions. In households with multiple pets, these trips are often repeated or extended, compounding their environmental impact.
This pattern is also shaped by broader infrastructure and lifestyle choices. In car-dependent communities, pet care becomes another activity embedded within systems designed around driving. Dedicated dog parks, specialty pet stores, and veterinary clinics are often located in commercial zones that require travel, reinforcing reliance on personal vehicles. While transportation is not the largest contributor to a dog’s overall carbon paw print, it illustrates how caring for a pet intersects with existing transportation habits and energy use. As with many indirect emissions, the environmental cost lies less in any single journey and more in the accumulation of small, routine trips over time.
The reaction to framing dog ownership in environmental terms points to a broader tension at the heart of modern climate discourse: the conflict between care and consequence. Environmental harm is often imagined as distant—caused by corporations, governments, or abstract systems—while personal relationships are understood as morally insulated from such analysis. When the environmental lens is turned toward pets, it collapses that distance, forcing a confrontation with the idea that even relationships grounded in love and responsibility are embedded within extractive and carbon-intensive systems. The discomfort that follows is not simply defensiveness, but a deeper resistance to reconciling environmental accountability with practices that give meaning to everyday life. In this sense, the backlash reflects the limits of how environmental responsibility is culturally framed—not as something that permeates all forms of care, but as something that applies only when it feels impersonal or optional.
Whether dogs leave a carbon paw print is less a question of blame than of awareness. The environmental impacts associated with dog ownership—food, consumption, care, and transportation—are part of broader systems that shape everyday life, not exceptions to them. While these impacts are modest in the context of global emissions, they highlight how environmental responsibility does not stop at impersonal choices or distant industries.
The reaction to discussing pets in environmental terms reveals how selectively climate accountability is often applied, particularly when it intersects with care and emotional attachment. Acknowledging these impacts does not diminish the value of companionship, nor does it demand guilt-driven responses. Rather, it invites a more honest understanding of how even our most personal relationships exist within environmental systems. Recognizing this complexity may be uncomfortable, but it is a necessary step toward integrating climate awareness into everyday life.
my last piece was about violence, but in a quiet way. it came from thinking about how harm can be framed as normal or even necessary, and how easy it is to accept those ideas without realizing it. i was trying to understand what it feels like to carry something you didn’t choose, and how loss can stay with you even when you’re told to move on.
✧ last piece of mine
Judy Moreau
I’m trying to build a small space on the internet where things are sincere and human. if you’d like to be a part of it, there’s a subscribe button below. ♡
If there are any topics you’d want me to write about or discuss more of, please feel free to reach out to me via DM or email.
( thejudymoreau@gmail.com )
