Dogs are people’ friends. Their friendship, love, and dedication are valued throughout cultures. Almost all American pet owners (95%) view family pets as member of the family—up from 88% in 2007. Pet ownership is increasing throughout the world, driven by elements such as the increase of the middle class. The top three countries for dog ownership lie on various continents: the U.S. (76.8 million), Brazil (52.2 million), and China (27.4 million). Cats are likewise popular house family pets with the very same nations in the leading 3: the U.S. (58.4 million), China (53.1 million), and Brazil (22.1 million).
American Pet Products Survey reports that 70% of American homes have at least one family pet. By some accounts“companion animals enrich the lives of their owners in numerous ways, such as increasing physical activity, lowering blood pressure, and reducing risks of certain heart diseases. Pet ownership has also been associated with psychological benefits, including increased self-esteem in children, reduced risk of depression, and increased social engagement and cohesion.” Indeed, COVID-19, which significantly reduced social interactions, significantly increased pet ownership. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reports that 23 million American homes, that is, about “one in five households acquired a cat or dog since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis.”
Climate Implications of Pet Ownership
The increasing pet population postures special difficulties. Studies link city family pets, particularly cats, to the loss of wildlife. Scholars note problems such as the fecal load, making use of plastic bags to tidy up dog poop, and the land fill ramifications of family pet toys. Others express issues about the ecological effect of cat litter made from bentonite claywhich needs strip mining, and highly advise natural alternatives.
Many individuals extravagant attention and resources on their family pets. This is especially real for the 18-25 mate which likewise tends to be pro-climate. When inquired about items/services they purchase for their family pets, participants note specialized or prescription food (44%), birthday presents (39%), birthday cakes (34%), Christmas/vacation presents (34%), clothes and outfits (32%), and high-end family pet food (28%).
A recent short article in The Economist keeps in mind that in Latin America, homes typically fed table scraps to their dogs. But significantly, they acquire food from shops. Consequently, dogs now get about 40% of their calories from store-purchased food. The short article reports that “(p)et owners are buying posher nibbles. Euromonitor estimates that dog-food sales in Mexico have grown by 25% in real terms since 2013.” This pattern shows up in other areas also. The short article quotes a shop owner in Finland who states that his pet shop “not only sells a huge range of prepared pet foods, including ice cream for dogs, … it also has two large freezers of fresh meat. The assistants say that a growing number of dog owners add this meat to prepared food, believing it to be more natural and healthy.”
How big is the pet food ecological footprint? Globally, if household pets were a country, they would rank 5th in meat consumption behind China, the US, Brazil, and Russia. A recent book suggested that a dog’s carbon footprint is comparable to that of an SUV (for a contra view, see this). On average, the ecological footprint of a Japanese dog equals the dietary footprint of a Japanese citizen. In Chinathe ecological footprint of dogs equals that of 70 to 245 million Chinese citizens. In the U.S., the annual carbon footprint of pet animal products is about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (or annual emissions of 14.2 million gasoline-powered cars). For perspective, as the New York Times reports, the annual emissions from the Alaska’s Willow Project would equal to about 2 million gasoline-powered cars.
How to reduce carbon footprint?
Household pets are an important aspect of human existence and play a critical role in our life. They are a part of the family and define who we are. Hence, the climate challenge is to find ways to support pet ownership but lower their carbon footprint.
Changing diets is perhaps the most obvious first. Cats are “obligate carnivores” that must eat meat. But dogs do not need meat in every meal. Some studies show that vegan diets are probably more healthy for dogs than meat ones. Perhaps this is where changes can begin. Some suggest that owners feed their pets more nutrients than needed. Consequently, the pet food industry responding to consumer demand rather than nutritional requirements provides products that are meat rich.
As with humans, vegetarian pet food has a lower carbon footprint than a meat-infused diet. But even in the latter that individuals purchase from stores, there are differences. Dry foods generate fewer carbon emissions than wet food, because “90% of the calories in the wet diets came from animal ingredients, compared with 45% in the dry diets.” These differences have a huge overall impact. In the context of Brazila study concluded that the annual carbon footprint of a dog weighing 10kg depends on food: 828kg of emissions for dry food but 6,541kg for a wet diet. For reference, the annual carbon footprint of a Brazilian is 6,690kg of carbon emissions.
In sum, climate change has an important overconsumption dimension. As a result, climate action will require changes in public policies and individual lifestyles. There is already a debate on moral imperative to reduce flying and modify human dietary choices. Perhaps, we need to extend this discussion to the carbon footprint of the foods we provide to our pets.
