You actually make a great point here, though I disagree with your exact conclusions.

The good news is that there are plenty of plant-based dog diets that meet all AAFCO nutrition standards. A quick google search will bring these up. As dogs' most common allergens are all meat and they're considered omnivores, this is a great solution for dog owners.

Cats are obligate carnivores, and require molecules that only occur naturally in meat (e.g. taurine). Technically, this does not translate to a requirement for meat itself — artificial taurine, etc. does exist. However, while the only research review says it can be done (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/6/9/57/htm) I don't see enough longitudinal evidence that it can be done safely, as issues like urinary crystals are a major concern. I think the best hope for cats' diets is something like the lab-grown mouse meat kibble Wild Earth is developing, but sadly this product just doesn't exist yet.

So those interested in reducing their carbon footprint should absolutely consult their vet about switching their dog onto a plant-based diet. For cats (and ferrets/foxes/etc), I think the best we can do right now is fund overpopulation control measures (i.e. spay/neuter programs) and continue research into sustainable nonanimal food.

It goes without saying that all pets should be adopted (is anyone capable of coming up with some edge case where this is bad advice? if so please let me know) so as to not breed more animals into the world. As long as you adopt, I see no moral negative to having a plant-based dog.

And for those unable/unwilling to do so, taking up gardening instead is a great option.

I understand where you're coming from but if you're going to make people choose between their pets and climate change, you may not like the answer. My initial reaction was a snarky "why stop there, let's get rid of zoos and maybe even wild animals too"

- "get rid of zoos" this one would really make sense, seriously it's so bad to retain wild animals in captivity for human entertainments, even if they are treated well

- wild animals contribute to their local ecosystem, they are "useful" to the environment.

How are you drawing this moral distinction? People find visiting zoos "useful" for education and promoting habitat conservation.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, I just don't see how you got there.

People already advocate with seemingly straight faces that you shouldn’t have children because of climate change.

It's true that cats and dogs have a non-negligeable impact on the environment. One study [1] estimates for the US, which has around 160m cats and dogs, the impact to be around 20-30% compared to humans.

I think it's fair to assume that globally this number is much, much lower than 20%, since no country has as many pets as the US.

1: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

This feels like it ends with a supervillain plotting to kill everyone on Earth in order to save the planet.