A recent study shows people often underestimate the environmental footprint of pet ownership, particularly dogs, while overestimating simpler actions like recycling. Led by researcher Danielle Goldwert and published in PNAS Nexus, the findings sparked backlash, with some viewing media coverage as an attack on beloved pets. The research highlights tensions between personal choices and systemic climate action.
Environmental psychology researcher Danielle Goldwert led a study published in the journal PNAS Nexus, examining how individuals perceive the climate impact of various behaviors. Participants compared options such as adopting a vegan diet for a year or shifting to public transport against decisions like not purchasing or adopting a dog. The team found that people generally overestimated low-impact actions, including recycling and using efficient appliances, while vastly underestimating the effects of high-impact choices, such as avoiding dog ownership.
The study's objective was to determine if providing climate information could encourage commitments to more effective actions. However, an Associated Press article titled “People often miscalculate climate choices, a study says. One surprise is owning a dog” reframed the research, leading to online backlash. Reddit users reacted with ire, with one writing, “Climate change is actually your fault because you have a dog.” Goldwert responded, “If I saw a headline that said, ‘Climate scientists want to take your dogs away,’ I would also feel upset. They definitely don’t. You can quote me on that.”
Supporting data underscores the issue: A 2017 UCLA study indicated that dogs and cats account for 25 to 30 percent of the environmental impact of meat consumption in the United States, equivalent to the annual driving emissions of 13.6 million cars. The U.S. dog population has grown from 52.9 million in 1996 to 89.7 million in 2024. A 2023 Pew Research poll revealed that 97 percent of owners view pets as family members, with 51 percent equating them to human relatives.
The experiment involved rating 21 individual actions and five systemic ones, like voting. After receiving impact information, participants shifted toward higher-impact personal actions but reported lower likelihood for collective efforts, suggesting a backfire effect. Goldwert noted, “It might be kind of like a mental substitution. People feel like, ‘OK, I’ve done my part individually. I kind of checked the box on climate action.’”
Climate scientist Kimberly Nicholas highlighted the ongoing tension: “There’s still an ongoing tension between personal and system change, or individual and collective action.” The article's author, a long-time vegetarian, grapples with feeding her husky mix Loki meat-based kibble, advocating for adjustments like reducing beef in pet diets while emphasizing joy and emotional bonds in climate motivation.