The environmental impact of pets is often overlooked. But more than half of the people in the world have a pet at home and this number is on the rise. As of 2023, pet ownership in the United States reached 66% of households, up from 56% in 1988.
So how much should we care about the damage our pets are doing to the environment?
Both dogs and cats can harm wild animal populations. They hunt and kill birds and other creatures, while also stalking and harassing wild animals. However, perhaps the most concerning aspect of owning pets is the climate impact of the food they eat.
The environmental footprint of our animal companions can vary significantly and is influenced by factors including their size, how many of them we own and how they feed. Choosing nutritionally balanced foods with lower meat content will typically reduce emissions. But, just like other aspects of consumption, we have to consider our choice of pets and how to feed them to minimize their impact on the climate.
The uncertain impact of pet food
Animal by-products (such as lungs, hearts, livers or kidneys) are often used in pet foods due to their low cost and ability to provide adequate nutrition. Poultry by-products, for example, have been identified as the most important ingredient in commercial pet diets, both dry and wet.
How the environmental impact of these by-products is taken into account is therefore crucial. But published research on the environmental impact of pet food is limited. And even then, some of these studies produced questionable results.
A studypublished last year, suggested that feeding wet food to a 10kg dog (roughly the size of a standard dachshund) is associated with the equivalent of 6,541 kg of CO2 emissions each year. This is equivalent to 98% of the total emissions of an average Brazilian citizen. Conversely, a diet based on dry food for the same dog would result in emissions equivalent to 828 kg of CO2.
In 2017, another study produced equally alarming results. This study revealed that emissions from the production of dry dog and cat food in the United States amount between 25% and 30% of emissions associated with animal products consumed by all US citizens.
Both of these studies attribute environmental impacts to animal by-products as human-grade meat. This assumption allows the use of available meat emission factors, but creates double counting since livestock emissions were attributed to the human-grade meat they produce and not to the combination of meat and animal by-products.
Rethink this approach
A more balanced approach is to allocate emissions associated with meat and by-products using the relative economic value of different products. The impact of the whole animal is recalculated and different values are assigned to the meat and the by-product. It also slightly lowers emissions associated with meat, to give the same emissions for farmed animal. By-products generally have a lower economic value, therefore leading to lower emissions per kilogram allotted to them than meat.
Using this approach, the food emissions of a 10 kg dog would be the equivalent of 240 kg of CO2 emissions per year. Adapted for a medium dog of 22 kg, means 530 kg of CO2 emissions every year. This is lower than, but relatively close to, the calculation of 770 kg per year by Berners-Lee.
But even with the lower emissions from this approach, the environmental footprint of pet food is still sizable. Globally, dry pet food production accounts for between 1.1% and 2.9% of agricultural emissions, up to 1.2% agricultural land use e about 0.4% of agricultural water abstraction. This equates to an environmental footprint roughly double the UK’s land area, with greenhouse gas emissions that would rank as the 60th highest emitting country. While substantial, it’s worth noting that it’s still only about a tenth of the global aviation emissions.
Reduce the environmental load
There is also substantial variability in the size of our pets, especially when it comes to dogs. While a big bulldog could weigh 80kg, a chihuahua it could weigh more than 30 times less, resulting in significantly less nutrition.
That variability means that simplified carbon footprint comparisons between activities like owning dogs and flying in a private jet could not be useful. But in any case there are several things we can do to reduce the environmental impact of our pets.
Reducing the amount of pet food required is a good start. By moving to smaller breeds, we can maintain the benefits of pet ownership while reducing our environmental impact. Feed your pet in the appropriate amount it would also help limit the demand for pet food and also fight their obesity.
Equally important is the type of food we give them. It is likely that current trends towards the humanization of pet food (where the products more closely resemble human food) or feeding with raw meat increase the environmental impact of possession.
Sustainable food brands – of which there are now many – and the brands they incorporate innovative ingredients such as insects they offer a more environmentally conscious approach. These foods have a low meat content, especially ruminant meat (grazing mammals such as cattle) and include ingredients of plant origin. But it is essential to consider what do insects eat to ensure that the overall environmental cost is reduced.
Statements comparing pets to private jets can oversimplify the issue, especially when there’s contention about what each activity might mean. But taking care of our pets contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions (along with the other environmental impacts of owning them) need to be considered when deciding which pets to own and how to feed them.
(Peter Alexander – Senior Lecturer in Global Food Security, The University of Edinburgh -, su The Conversation del 05/06/2023)
the association does not receives and is against public funding (also 5 per thousand)
Its economic strength are inscriptions and contributions donated by those who deem it useful
DONATE NOW