Flying and Pets Emit More Than You Think—Recycling Less So

People are misjudging the true environmental impact of their personal actions in the fight against climate change, with many overestimating the value of recycling while underestimating the carbon costs of flying and pet ownership, particularly for carnivorous pets like dogs, according to recent studies [1]. A survey of nearly 4,000 U.S. participants revealed a significant disconnect between perceived and actual climate impact—individuals often believe that recycling is among the most effective actions for reducing carbon emissions, when in reality, the benefits are far less significant than previously assumed [2].

The study, led by researchers from institutions such as New York University, Yale, and Stanford, found that participants underestimated the carbon impact of high-emission behaviors such as flying and eating meat, while overestimating the effectiveness of low-impact actions like using energy-efficient appliances or recycling [2]. According to Madalina Vlasceanu, a co-author of the report and professor at Stanford University, people tend to over-assign impact to actions that are visible and habitual—such as recycling—while neglecting to account for the less visible but far more damaging carbon emissions from activities like air travel [1].

Flying, in particular, is a major source of carbon emissions due to the release of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, and the formation of contrails that trap heat in the atmosphere [1]. A single round-trip economy flight on a 737 between New York and Los Angeles can result in over 1,300 pounds of emissions per passenger, according to the International Civil Aviation Organization [1]. Experts suggest that reducing air travel—just by one long-haul flight annually—could make a more significant contribution to lowering individual carbon footprints than widespread recycling efforts [2].

Pet ownership, particularly of carnivorous dogs, also contributes meaningfully to climate change due to the substantial methane emissions from livestock used to produce pet food [1]. In the United States, agriculture accounts for approximately 10 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, with cattle digestion and manure responsible for nearly half of those emissions [1]. A 2017 study from the University of California, Los Angeles, found that U.S. dogs alone generate 64 million tons of carbon dioxide annually—equivalent to the emissions from 13.6 million cars [3]. Despite this, public messaging on climate change has largely overlooked the environmental toll of pet ownership [3].

These findings underscore a broader challenge in climate communication: the psychological weight given to actions that appear more visible, such as recycling, often overshadows the reality of less tangible but far more impactful emissions sources [2]. Jiaying Zhao, a psychology and sustainability professor at the University of British Columbia, explained that the invisibility of carbon emissions makes it difficult for people to associate flying or eating meat with climate impact [1]. As the study highlights, addressing this misperception is crucial for guiding individuals toward more effective climate actions [1].

Source:

[1] Why Your Next Flight, Not Recycling, Will Have More Climate Change Impact (https://www.travelpulse.com/news/features/why-your-next-flight-not-recycling-will-have-more-climate-change-impact)

[2] Flying vs. Recycling: Travelers Get Climate Math Wrong (https://skift.com/2025/08/18/flying-vs-recycling-travelers-get-climate-math-wrong/)

[3] Scientists Find Evidence That You're a Hypocrite Who's... (https://futurism.com/climate-change-individual-actions-study)