Dogs and cats in the U.S. produce approximately 5.1 million tons of feces each year—equivalent to the waste generated by 90 million Americans.
New York, N.Y. — Pets contribute significantly to emissions through meat-based diets and waste, but the love they inspire may motivate broader climate action. A recent WIRED article explores how climate researchers attempting to quantify the carbon footprint of pet ownership inadvertently triggered a defensive backlash when media coverage was perceived as an attack on dogs, revealing the psychological barriers that emerge when climate messaging touches deeply personal choices.
Dogs and cats account for approximately 25 to 30 percent of the environmental impact of meat consumption in the U.S.—equivalent to the annual emissions of 46 million cars—with dog ownership in America surging from 52.9 million in 1990 to over 89 million in 2024, according to the American Pet Products Association.
The Carbon Cost of Canine Companionship
Gregory Okin, a geography professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, published research in 2017 calculating that American dogs and cats consume roughly 19% of the calories humans do in meat and fish products.
His findings suggested that the 163 million U.S. dogs and cats were responsible for emitting about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide annually through their meat-heavy diets.
The study also examined waste production, estimating that dogs and cats produce approximately 5.1 million tons of feces each year—equivalent to the waste generated by 90 million Americans.
That’s as many people who live in California, Texas and Florida combined!
When Love Meets Logic
The research sparked immediate controversy. Pet owners flooded social media with defensive reactions, some suggesting that scientists should focus on livestock or human consumption instead. Okin received messages ranging from concerned to hostile, with one person asking whether he would recommend euthanizing pets to reduce emissions.
“I knew it would be controversial, but I didn’t expect the level of emotional response,” Okin said in interviews following the publication. “People felt I was attacking their relationship with their pets.”
The backlash revealed a fundamental tension in climate communication: how to discuss carbon-intensive lifestyle choices without alienating people or triggering psychological defenses that shut down productive conversation.
Small Dogs, Smaller Footprints
Not all dogs carry equal environmental weight. A 2020 study in the journal Global Environmental Change found that smaller dogs have substantially lower carbon footprints than larger breeds, primarily because they consume less food over their lifetimes.
A Chihuahua weighing nine pounds might consume approximately 1,700 calories weekly, while a German Shepherd weighing 88 pounds requires about 9,000 calories during the same period. Over a typical lifespan, this translates to dramatically different environmental impacts.
For advocates like those at the New York Shih Tzu Rescue Society, this research offers unexpected validation. “We’ve always encouraged people to consider small breeds, especially for apartment living,” explains the organization’s president. “Now there’s an environmental argument too, though that’s never been our primary focus. We rescue these dogs because they deserve homes, full stop.”
The Psychology of Pet Defense
Environmental psychologist Kathryn Stevenson at North Carolina State University studies why climate messages often fail to change behavior. She notes that pets occupy a unique psychological space—they’re family members, sources of unconditional love, and for many people, essential to mental health and wellbeing.
“When you suggest someone’s pet contributes to climate change, you’re not just presenting data,” Stevenson explains. “You’re challenging their identity as a good person and a good pet owner simultaneously. That triggers powerful defensive mechanisms.”
Research shows that people are more likely to deny or minimize environmental problems when solutions require sacrificing things they deeply value. Pet ownership falls squarely into this category, particularly in cultures where dogs and cats are treated as children.
Finding Middle Ground
Some researchers and advocates argue the pet carbon footprint discussion could ultimately advance climate action rather than hinder it. If pet owners who initially react defensively later engage with the science, they might become more aware of their overall environmental impact and make changes in other areas.
Several companies now offer sustainable pet food options using insect protein, plant-based ingredients, or cultured meat—products that significantly reduce carbon emissions while meeting nutritional requirements. Market research suggests these alternatives remain niche but are growing approximately 15 percent annually.
Additionally, adopting rescue dogs rather than purchasing from breeders reduces demand for new breeding operations and gives homeless animals second chances—a win for both animal welfare and environmental ethics, according to shelter advocates.
Love Without Denial
The controversy around pet carbon footprints ultimately reflects broader challenges in climate communication. People need space to love what they love while also confronting uncomfortable truths about modern life’s environmental costs.
“Nobody’s saying you shouldn’t have a dog,” Okin emphasizes. “But we should be honest about impacts and look for ways to reduce them where possible. That might mean choosing sustainable food, adopting rather than buying, or considering a smaller breed.”
For rescue organizations working with small dogs, the environmental angle remains secondary to their core mission: saving lives.
But they acknowledge that every conversation about sustainability—even uncomfortable ones—helps build awareness that can lead to broader climate action.
“Our Shih Tzus and Chihuahuas aren’t going to single-handedly solve climate change,” New York Shih Tzu Rescue Society president Jim Luce notes.
“But if adopting a small rescue dog instead of buying a large puppy mill breed makes even a modest difference while giving a deserving animal a home, that feels like progress worth celebrating.”
The dogs themselves, of course, remain blissfully unaware of the carbon calculations surrounding their kibble bowls—their primary concerns limited to walks, treats, and the next available lap.
Summary for Audio (75 words)
Researchers quantifying pets’ carbon footprints sparked unexpected backlash from dog lovers. Dogs and cats produce emissions equivalent to 46 million cars through meat-heavy diets. Smaller breeds like Shih Tzus have substantially lower environmental impacts than large dogs. The controversy reveals how climate messaging fails when challenging deeply personal choices. Rather than abandoning pets, experts suggest sustainable solutions: insect-based foods, adopting rescues, choosing smaller breeds. The debate demonstrates that meaningful climate action requires honest conversations about uncomfortable truths while respecting what people love.
Who Knew? Our Cats and Dogs Have a Tremendous Carbon Footprint (Nov. 5, 2025)
#DogCarbonFootprint #SustainablePets #ClimateChange
Tags: climate change, carbon footprint, pet ownership, sustainable living,
dog rescue, small dog breeds, environmental impact, animal welfare, green pets
Social Media Posts
Facebook: New research reveals dogs contribute as much carbon as 46 million cars—but the backlash shows how hard climate conversations become when they touch what we love. Should pet owners feel guilty? Scientists say no, but suggest smaller rescue dogs and sustainable food as solutions. What do you think? 🐕 (www.stewardshipreport.org/wiki)
Instagram: Your dog’s carbon pawprint might be bigger than you think 🐾 New studies show pets = major emissions through meat diets. But smaller rescue breeds like Shih Tzus offer a greener option. Love your dog AND the planet? Link in bio. #DogCarbonFootprint #SustainablePets #RescueDogs (www.stewardshipreport.org/wiki)
LinkedIn: Climate researchers faced fierce backlash when quantifying pet carbon footprints—revealing psychological barriers to sustainability messaging. The controversy offers lessons for communicating uncomfortable environmental truths while respecting personal values. Key insight: smaller rescue dogs have dramatically lower emissions than large breeds. (www.stewardshipreport.org/wiki)
X/Twitter: Dogs = 64M tons of CO2 yearly. Smaller rescues = smaller footprints. Climate meets cuddles. (www.stewardshipreport.org/wiki) #ClimateChange #DogLovers
BlueSky: Research on dog carbon footprints triggered massive backlash—but opened important conversations. Smaller rescue breeds offer compromise between love & sustainability. Should we factor emissions into pet choices? (www.stewardshipreport.org/wiki)