You've probably heard of the term "carbon footprint." The Oxford Dictionary describes it as "a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of the activities of a particular individual, organization, or community." But what about a "carbon pawprint?" That's the same thing, except it's the carbon dioxide released as a result of a pet's activities! One of the most climate-intensive decisions we make is whether to own a pet. It's for the same reason that humans have a big impact: pets eat every day. And most of them eat meat. In the US, feeding dogs and cats accounts for more than a quarter of the environmental impact from meat consumption. The pollution created from the meat that dogs and cats eat in the US is about the same amount as the pollution created from driving 13.6 million cars for a year, according to a UCLA study. But just like people, a pet's impact on the planet can depend on their diet. People are increasingly treating their pets like family members — and that includes buying them food that's similar to their own. But there isn't much evidence to suggest that human-grade food leads to better pet health, according to Alison Manchester from Cornell University's College of Veterinary Medicine. Manchester said that traditional pet food can also provide a perfectly balanced pet diet, and it often makes use of animal parts that otherwise might have been wasted because they're not eaten by humans. But diet isn't the only factor to consider. The type of pet, its breed and where it came from all affect its impact. For example, buying a dog from a breeder creates demand for that breeder to make more dogs, said Billy Nicholles, a pet food researcher with Bryant Research. Adopting a pet that needs a home, on the other hand, would be better for the environment. And Nicholles adds that, generally, the smaller the pet, the smaller the carbon footprint — or pawprint.