Climate activists are once again broadening the scope of individual responsibility for climate change—this time, by targeting dog ownership.
According to a new study published in PNAS Nexus, everyday Americans are misjudging which personal choices make the greatest impact on their carbon footprint. And among the latest culprits cited: man’s best friend.
The study, led by Stanford University’s Madalina Vlasceanu, claims that while people tend to focus on visible but relatively low-impact behaviors—such as recycling or changing lightbulbs—they often overlook what researchers say are more effective actions, like reducing air travel or cutting beef consumption. But perhaps most controversial is the suggestion that people should “opt out of getting a dog” to lessen their environmental impact.
That recommendation appeared in Greater Good Magazine, a University of California, Berkeley-affiliated publication, as part of a broader list of lifestyle “climate solutions.” The magazine cited data from Earth.org estimating that U.S. pets—primarily cats and dogs—account for 64 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, a staggering 25–30% of the environmental impact linked to meat consumption.
The implication is clear: for those serious about going green, dog ownership is becoming a moral dilemma.
This shift in messaging marks an escalation from standard advocacy toward more invasive lifestyle critiques. What was once encouragement to recycle or take the bus is now a challenge to deeply personal choices—owning pets, taking family trips, and choosing diets—under the banner of “collective action.”
Vlasceanu emphasized that perceived ease, not effectiveness, often drives public willingness to make changes. “People will engage in lifestyle changes when they think it’s easy to do,” she said. “It’s less important to them if it’s effective.”
Climate activists are increasingly pushing the narrative that radical lifestyle shifts are necessary to reach “net zero.” The question remains whether the public will follow—or whether lines will finally be drawn on what sacrifices people are actually willing to make.
For now, even dogs aren’t immune from the expanding scope of climate policy debates.
