Vlasceanu said marketing focuses more on recycling and using energy-efficient light bulbs than on why flights or dog adoption are relatively bad for the climate, so participants were more likely to give those actions more weight.

Dogs are big meat eaters, and meat is a significant contributor to climate change. That is because many of the farm animals, which will become food, release methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Beef is especially impactful, in part because around the world cattle are often raised on land that was illegally deforested. Since trees absorb carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas, cutting them to then raise cattle is a double whammy.

“People just don’t associate pets with carbon emissions. That link is not clear in people’s minds,” Zhao said.

So this isn't really a big deal in terms of all the other things to be outraged about right now, but it just caught my eye. Probably the intention/it's kinda clickbait.

The things that get blamed on people vs corporations when it comes to climate change impact is always ridiculous, but this is a new low.

First of all, as if we all didn't see exactly how much the climate would benefit if corporations were suddenly forced to come to a screeching halt:

Emission Reductions From Pandemic Had Unexpected Effects on Atmosphere

A comprehensive new survey of the effects of the pandemic on the atmosphere, using satellite data from NASA and other international space agencies, reveals some unexpected findings. The study also offers insights into addressing the dual threats of climate warming and air pollution. “We’re past the point where we can think of these as two separate problems,” said Joshua Laughner, lead author of the new study and a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech in Pasadena, California. “To understand what is driving changes to the atmosphere, we must consider how air quality and climate influence each other.”

Since the pandemic, have we seen frequent headlines stressing little changes from corporations could have a big impact? Not even anything drastic, just little slivers of change?

Nonsense. This headline is 100% necessary. You greedy plebians already have way too much privilege. If you just ceased yet another thing that brings you joy, it might help offset some of the continuing damage to the climate that is otherwise completely unavoidable.

To their credit the article does mention:

The owner of a meat-eating pet can lower their impact by looking for food made from sources other than beef. Zhao, for example, tries to minimize her dog’s carbon footprint by feeding her less carbon-intensive protein sources, including seafood and turkey.

Can't argue with any of that, but again, before shaming plebs for clickbait, are there any other current events that come to mind in terms of alternatives to meat production you could have at least mentioned? Anybody else that might be more blameworthy than those fatcat dog companions?

Why Are Politicians Banning Cultivated Meat? New Study Explains It All

One country and six US states have so far passed laws that prohibit companies from making or selling cultivated meat within their boundaries. For Italy, the reason behind the ban was a threat to its cultural identity. For policymakers in the US, while the arguments often touch upon food safety concerns, more often than not, they are tied to the same theme: protecting the ranchers.

New study reveals that beef, lamb, milk and eggs are most vulnerable to lab-grown competition