It’s Just ScienceTM.
| University/Institution | Program/Department | Key Study/Findings | Recommendations to Discourage/Ban |
| Curtin University (Australia) | School of Molecular and Life Sciences (ecology focus) | 2025 review in Biological Reviews on pet dogs’ impacts: Dogs contribute to climate change via pet food emissions (56-151 Mt CO₂ globally from dry food alone), waterway pollution from waste, and habitat disruption. Off-leash dogs in natural areas cause up to 40% higher wildlife disturbance. | “Restrictive measures such as banning dogs from sensitive areas are necessary” for ecosystem protection; broader calls for policymakers to balance ownership with conservation, implying reduced access in vulnerable zones. scitechdaily.com +1 |
| University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) | Department of Geography (Institute of the Environment and Sustainability) | 2017 study in PLOS One: U.S. dogs and cats consume 25-30% of animal-derived calories, producing 64 million tons of CO₂ annually—comparable to the emissions of 13.6 million cars. Larger dogs on beef diets have the highest footprint. | No outright ban, but urges reevaluation of pet diets and numbers; researcher Gregory Okin states, “I’m not recommending getting rid of pets,” but highlights the need to “consider the environmental consequences” of ownership scale. newsroom.ucla.edu +1 |
| University of Bristol (UK) | School of Biological Sciences | 2009 study in New Scientist (co-authored by Prof. Stephen Harris): Pets exacerbate biodiversity loss (e.g., cats kill 27 million UK birds yearly) and contribute to emissions via food and waste. | “People should weigh up the environmental cost of owning a pet… Do we really need a pet?” Advocates indoor-only cats and debates compulsory neutering to curb populations; supports U.S.-style restrictions on outdoor access. theguardian.com |
| University of Edinburgh (UK) | School of GeoSciences (Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Security) | 2024 article in The Conversation by Dr. Peter Alexander: Pet food accounts for 1.1-2.9% of global agricultural GHG emissions and 1% of land use; raw diets for a 45-lb dog exceed most human meat-eaters’ footprints. | Shift to smaller breeds or “time-share” models to reduce overall ownership; “consider our choice of pets… to minimise their climate impact,” discouraging large-scale carnivorous pet keeping. theconversation.com +1 |
| Maastricht University (Netherlands) | School of Sustainability, Operations and Logistics (Planetary Health focus) | 2019 study by Prof. Pim Martens et al. in Journal of Cleaner Production: Dutch dogs emit up to 1.4 tons CO₂/year from food alone; global pet ownership rivals aviation emissions in scale. | Not against pets but stresses “benefits must be weighed against environmental harms”; promotes policy nudges like eco-labels on pet food to discourage high-impact ownership. usatoday.com +1 |
Broader Context and Limitations
- Common Themes: These programs focus on mitigation (e.g., plant-leaning diets, insect-based foods, or biodegradable waste management) rather than outright bans, as pet ownership provides mental health benefits outweighing individual impacts for many. However, they substantiate discouraging excessive or outdoor-unrestricted ownership in climate-vulnerable areas.
- No Widespread Bans: Fact-checks confirm sensational claims (e.g., “kill your pets for climate”) are false; studies like those above prioritize education and alternatives.
