Fashion is a major sustainability challenge in the global economy, and for most of the last decade, it has faced little regulation. That is starting to change. In the past eighteen months, California passed the first U.S. law for extended producer responsibility (EPR) for textiles, France approved strict anti-fast-fashion laws, and the EU set a 2027 deadline for all member states to have a textile EPR program.

Every second, a garbage truck’s worth of clothing ends up in a landfill or is burned somewhere in the world. This isn’t just a figure of speech. The fashion industry produces about 92 million metric tons of waste each year, and if nothing changes, that number could reach 148 million metric tons by 2030.

Meanwhile, the resale market is growing about three times faster than traditional retail. The industry still has a long way to go, but for the first time, there are real systems in place to hold it accountable.

The Scale of the Problem

How big is fashion’s impact? It’s large, debated, and still growing. The fashion industry is responsible for 8 to 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN Environment Programme. While experts debate the exact numbers, everyone agrees the problem is getting worse.

The Apparel Impact Institute, a nonprofit supported by brands like H&M, Target, PVH, and Lululemon, reported that apparel sector emissions rose by 7.5 percent in 2023. This was the first yearly increase since 2019, and the group linked it to overproduction, ultra-fast fashion, and more use of virgin polyester, which now accounts for 57 percent of global fiber production.

No matter which numbers you believe, the trend is troubling. Each year, 80 to 100 billion new garments are made. Clothing production has doubled since 2000, and people now wear each item 36 percent fewer times before throwing it away. Synthetic fibers, mostly polyester made from fossil fuels, make up about 57 percent of global fiber production and are expected to increase.

The amount of water used in fashion is huge, even by industrial standards. Making one cotton T-shirt takes about 2,700 liters of water, which could provide drinking water for one person for 900 days. Producing a pair of jeans uses about 7,500 liters. Textile dyeing and treatment is the world’s second-largest source of water pollution, causing about 20 percent of industrial water pollution. ic clothing also sheds microplastics every time it’s washed. The IUCN has estimated that about 35 percent of primary microplastics in the ocean originate from synthetic textiles like polyester, nylon, and acrylic, though the total volume keeps rising as synthetic usage increases.

After technology manufacturing, garment production is still one of the industries most affected by modern slavery and child labor, according to International Labour Organization data. These problems are most common in the early stages of production, such as cotton farms, dye houses, and fabric mills, which are less visible than the brand-name factories.

Fast Fashion, Faster: The Shein and Temu Problem

In the last five years, a new category called ultra-fast fashion has emerged, making older models like Zara and H&M seem slow by comparison. Platforms such as Shein and Temu add thousands of new styles daily, produce items on demand in Chinese factories, and ship directly to customers around the world.

The environmental impact is severe. Shein’s own reports show its greenhouse gas emissions nearly doubled from 2022 to 2023, reaching 16.7 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent. That’s almost as much as Inditex, Zara’s parent company, which is five times bigger by revenue. In 2024, Shein’s transportation emissions alone were over 8.5 million metric tons, more than three times Inditex’s. Temu hasn’t shared its emissions data, but third-party estimates put its yearly footprint between 4 and 6 million metric tons of CO₂e, mostly from shipping over a million air-freight parcels each day.

These business models not only pass environmental costs onto others, they rely on it. This is the main reason behind the push for new regulations.

The New Regulatory Landscape

For most of modern fashion history, sustainability promises have been voluntary, hard to verify, and mostly ineffective. That is finally starting to change. Three recent developments in the past eighteen months are especially important to watch..

California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act (SB 707)

Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 707 into law in September 2024, making California the first U.S. state with extended producer responsibility for textiles. The law shifts responsibility for end-of-use management of apparel, footwear, and household textiles from consumers and municipalities to the companies that put the products on the market. Producers with less than $1 million in annual global revenue are exempt; everyone else must join a state-approved Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) that will finance collection, repair, reuse, sorting, and recycling.

Implementation is staged. On February 27, 2026, CalRecycle selected Landbell USA as California’s textile PRO. Producers must register with the PRO by July 1, 2026. A statewide needs assessment runs through 2027, final implementing regulations are due by July 2028, and full enforcement begins July 1, 2030, with fines of up to $50,000 per day for noncompliance.

France’s Anti–Fast Fashion Law

In June 2025, the French Senate passed the most aggressive anti-fast-fashion legislation in the world by a vote of 337 to 1. The law imposes a per-item eco-tax starting at €5 and rising to €10 by 2030 (capped at 50 percent of retail price), bans advertising and influencer marketing of ultra-fast-fashion brands, requires point-of-sale environmental disclosures including carbon footprint and durability data, and carries fines of up to €100,000 for violating the ad ban. Revenue is directed to French sustainable-fashion producers.

The law is clearly aimed at Shein and Temu. In November 2025, French authorities requested that Shein’s fast-fashion platform be suspended for three months over the sale of illicit products — days after Shein opened its first physical retail store in Paris. The European Commission issued a detailed opinion on the French law in September 2025; other EU member states are watching.

The EU Waste Framework Directive

Under revisions to the EU Waste Framework Directive, every member state was required to have separate textile waste collection in place by January 2025 and must have a fully operational textile EPR scheme by 2027. France’s EPR program, which has been operating since 2008, and the Netherlands (2023) are already live. Italy, Spain, and others have draft decrees in public consultation. Outside the EU, Switzerland, Australia, and Chile are developing national frameworks.

In the U.S., beyond California, New York’s Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act (A4631) and Senate Bill S3217A both carried into the 2026 session. Washington State introduced HB 1420 in January 2025; as of March 2026, it remains in committee. None of these have passed.

The Resale Market Is Doing What Regulation Hasn’t

While policymakers work on new rules, consumers are already changing their habits. ThredUp’s 2025 Resale Report says the U.S. secondhand clothing market grew by 14 percent in 2024, five times faster than traditional retail. It’s expected to reach $74 billion by 2029. Globally, the secondhand market could hit $367 billion by 2029, growing 2.7 times faster than the overall apparel market.

There is a clear generational divide. In 2024, 58 percent of U.S. consumers bought secondhand clothing. Among those aged 18 to 44, 48 percent now choose secondhand first when shopping for clothes. Thirty-nine percent of younger shoppers have bought secondhand items through social platforms like Instagram or TikTok Shop.

Resale alone won’t solve fashion’s environmental impact. Extending a garment’s life only helps if it replaces a new purchase. Still, this is the biggest shift in consumer behavior the industry has seen in a generation.

What Sustainable Fashion Actually Means

Sustainable fashion means having a supply chain that is responsible for both the environment and people at every stage. In practice, this includes using fibers that need less water, fewer chemicals, and create lower emissions; manufacturing with renewable energy; ensuring fair wages and safe working conditions; making products that last and can be repaired; and recycling materials into new clothes instead of turning them into insulation or sending them to landfills in places like Ghana or Chile.

It’s a long list, and no brand meets every standard. Still, more brands are making real progress. Patagonia, Eileen Fisher, and Pangaia share detailed impact reports that are checked by outside experts. Brands using leftover fabrics, made-to-order production, and closed-loop recycling are slowly growing. Certifications like Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) for organic fibers, Fair Trade Certified for labor, and bluesign for chemical management are meaningful when you see them on a label.

Fashion is still the most greenwashed part of the consumer goods industry. Words like “conscious,” “eco,” and “sustainable” aren’t regulated in the U.S. What really matters are specific certifications, published supply-chain data, and third-party audits—not marketing slogans.

Take Action At Home

Individual choices won’t fix fashion’s big problems, but they do influence demand. That demand can drive companies and lawmakers to make changes. Here are some practical steps, ranked by impact:

• Buy less, buy better. The single most impactful choice is reducing the amount of new clothing entering your closet. A capsule wardrobe of durable, versatile pieces worn many times beats any “sustainable” label on a fast-fashion cycle.
• Shop secondhand first. ThredUp, Poshmark, Depop, The RealReal, Vinted, and local thrift and consignment stores now offer selection and convenience comparable to traditional retail.
• Get familiar with clothing materials. Natural fibers like organic cotton, linen, hemp, and wool usually have a smaller environmental impact at the end of their life than synthetics. Recycled polyester is better than new polyester, but it still releases microfibers.
• Use a microfiber filter. Tools like the Guppyfriend wash bag or washing machine filters can catch a lot of synthetic microfibers before they enter the water system.
• Repair before replacing. Visible mending, basic tailoring, and simple patches can extend a garment’s life by years.
• Take care of your clothes so they last longer. Wash them in cold water, air-dry when you can, and avoid the dry cleaner unless it’s necessary. These steps help reduce emissions and wear on your clothes.
• Recycle clothes instead of throwing them away. When something can’t be worn anymore, look for textile recycling options using Earth911’s recycling locator or a store take-back program. Sending clothes to a landfill should be the last resort.
• Support new policies. Laws about textile EPR, supply-chain transparency, and anti-greenwashing are being considered in many states. These laws are more likely to pass when people contact their representatives.

Fashion is one of the most obvious ways the global economy affects our daily lives. Because it’s so visible, everyone is part of the problem—but it also means that when change happens, it’s easy to notice.

Editor’ Note: Originally written by Gemma Alexander on April 8, 2022, this article was substantially updated in April 2026.

The post A Stylish Investment: Making Fashion Sustainable appeared first on Earth911.

Editor’s Note: This is the first article in a new Earth911 series, Where Waste Comes From, examining the largest sources of waste in the typical American household, what each category costs the family, what it costs the country, and what it costs the climate. We begin with food because food is the biggest category, because every household touches it every day, and because the lever any one family can pull on it is unusually large.

A family of four in the United States throws out more than $3,000 worth of food a year. Not “wastes” in the vague sense of eating too much or buying the wrong brand. We mean “throws out” — into the trash, into the disposal, or scraped off a plate into the bin, according to the 2026 ReFED U.S. Food Waste Report, the most current accounting of the problem.

Between uneaten groceries at home and plate waste at restaurants, American consumers discard roughly 35 million tons of food every year, about $259 billion in purchased calories, or $762 per person. Households pay for all of it, and bear most of it at home: residential food waste is the single largest slice of the consumer total.

The climate bill is equally devastating. All of that uneaten food carries an annual greenhouse gas footprint of 154 million metric tons of CO₂-equivalent, the same as driving 36 million passenger vehicles for a year. That food also required about 9 trillion gallons of water to grow — water that was never consumed by a human being. None of these resources made it to a table.

The waste stream inside the house

Food is the single largest component of landfilled material in the United States by weight, based on the EPA’s most recent sustainable materials accounting. EPA discontinued the comprehensive series after that December 2020 release; budget and staffing cuts under the current Trump administration have kept the report from being revived.

State waste studies provide continuing proof of the food waste epidemic, and the potential for progress. Washington’s 2020-2021 Statewide Waste Characterization Study found food waste accounted for nearly 20% of residential garbage. California’s 2021 Disposal Facility-Based Waste Characterization Study found organics, which includes food and yard waste, made up 28.4% of landfilled material, down from 34.1% in 2018, with the reduction credited largely to SB 1383, a state law that requires curbside organics collection for composting.

Where does food waste come from inside the home? ReFED’s consumer-behavior research, published in July 2025, breaks it down into four dominant habits:

Produce that spoiled before it was used. Fresh fruits and vegetables lose freshness quickly, cost less per pound than animal proteins, and tend to be bought in larger quantities than households consume.

Prepared food left over. The restaurant-style portion has migrated into the home kitchen. Leftovers are forgotten, buried, or mentally written off the moment a newer meal enters the fridge.

Confusion over date labels. “Sell by,” “best by,” and “use by” mean different things, are not federally regulated except for infant formula, and are frequently treated by consumers as expiration warnings when they are shelf-life guidance.

Over-purchasing against oversize packaging. The family-size bag of spinach and the 48-ounce jug of milk are typically the lowest per-unit price, and the highest risk of spoilage for small households.

ReFED revised its residential-waste estimate downward in its 2024 report by roughly 40 percent, or 17 million tons — not because household behavior improved, but because earlier estimates double-counted some flows. The overall residential waste picture is still enormous. It is also not shrinking. Consumer waste rates rose in the most recent data year even as overall U.S. food waste edged down, driven by retail and manufacturing progress that the home has not yet matched.

Burning a hole in your family budget

Let’s break down the national number to look inside a single household. A U.S. family of four spending roughly $12,000 to $15,000 a year on groceries throws away, on average, somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of it. The equivalent dollar number — $3,000 a year lost in the kitchen — is larger than the average American household’s annual spending on home energy, larger than most families’ annual clothing budget, and comparable to an annual car insurance premium. It is, in most households, the biggest single lever the family has on its grocery budget, climate footprint, and water footprint simultaneously. Very few household sustainability choices compound this cleanly.

Beyond the grocery-bill number, food waste generates costs the household pays for through taxes, utility fees, and environmental damage whether it knows it or not:

• Landfill tipping fees: The 2024 Environmental Research and Education Foundation’s national tipping-fee survey put the weighted-average U.S. landfill tipping fee at $62.63 per ton, which is up 10 percent year over year — the largest annual increase since 2022. Every ton of food scraps sent to landfill is a ton charged against the municipal solid-waste budget that residents fund through utility bills and property taxes.
• Landfill methane: Food waste is the single largest contributor to the methane emissions from U.S. landfills, which are the third-largest source of anthropogenic methane in the country.
• Food insecurity: The 35 million tons of consumer food waste translate to nearly 58 billion meals that could have gone to people in need, while roughly 14 percent of Americans (1 in 7) experience food insecurity. The waste is not just resources; it is a distribution failure with a public-health cost downstream.
• Water: Nine trillion gallons is an abstract number. It is roughly the volume of Lake Okeechobee. Every drop required an energy input for pumping, treatment, and, in the western third of the country, an increasingly scarce supply.

Where the infrastructure works, and where it doesn’t

Curbside organics collection, the municipal programs that pick up food scraps along with yard waste for industrial composting or anaerobic digestion, is available in parts of California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, Colorado, Minnesota, and a growing number of metro areas in other states. Where it runs, compostable collection materially shifts the numbers. San Francisco’s mandatory program, the oldest and most cited, diverts the majority of residential organic material from landfill and produces commercial-grade compost that returns to regional farms.

Outside those states, most households have no curbside pathway. Backyard composting is the most widely available option. For households without the space or the desire to compost at home, a small ecosystem of digital services has grown up to fill the gap municipal programs don’t cover. MakeSoil and Peels operate peer-matching platforms that connect people who have food scraps with neighbors who already run a compost pile, worm bin, or chicken coop. CompostNow runs paid curbside pickup in a growing list of cities, including Atlanta, Asheville, Cincinnati, and the Raleigh-Durham area, and partners with municipalities on drop-off programs elsewhere. ShareWaste, the original neighbor-matching service and the one most commonly cited in earlier reporting, unfortunately, was shuttered at the end of 2024.

Most of the household lever on food waste is not composting. It is prevention. Composting turns discarded food into a lower-impact product. It still represents calories, dollars, and upstream water and energy that never delivered their purpose. The first line of defense is buying, storing, and planning to match the family’s actual consumption. The second line is composting what remains.

Take Action

At the individual and household level, some simple steps can make a difference:

1. Audit one week of your kitchen trash. Actually weigh or photograph a week of food-bin contents. Families who do this consistently identify their top three loss categories (usually produce, leftovers, and bread) within a single week, and those become the behavior targets.
2. Shop the fridge, then the pantry, then the store. Before writing a grocery list, list what’s already on hand. Plan at least one “use it up” meal per week built around what is about to spoil.
3. Learn date labels. “Use by” is the only label where food should not be eaten after the date, and only for a short list of products (infant formula, some deli meats). “Sell by” is inventory guidance for the retailer. “Best by” is quality guidance, not safety.
4. Freeze aggressively. Bread, cheese, cooked grains, leftovers, and most produce (with minimal prep) all freeze well. Most household waste is time-based; the freezer pauses the clock.
5. Start composting where collection exists, or set up a backyard or countertop system. Earth911’s recycling search tool lists local organics programs by ZIP code.

At the community and policy level, a little cooperation and activism can go a long way:

1. Support mandatory organics collection where your state or city is considering it, then use the services when available. Organics bans have now passed in California (SB 1383, mentioned above), Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington. The programs work only when households participate.
2. Push for a unified federal date-label standard. Legislation has been introduced in every recent Congress. It has not passed.
3. Work on food insecurity in the same room as food waste. The two issues belong on the same municipal agenda. Rescue organizations — Feeding America, City Harvest, community food-pantry networks — need volunteers and advocacy as much as they need donations.

The post About That $3,000 Bag of Groceries in Your Trash appeared first on Earth911.

Nine million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. That is the projected climate cost of the 48-team, three-country, 16-city soccer tournament that kicks off June 11 in Mexico City — nearly double the average emissions of every World Cup held between 2010 and 2022.

The figure comes from a peer-reviewed analysis published by Scientists for Global Responsibility, the Environmental Defense Fund, Cool Down, the Sport for Climate Action Network, and the New Weather Institute. Their conclusion: FIFA’s decision to expand the tournament and spread it across a continent has locked in a climate footprint that no amount of host-city recycling or LED lighting can offset.

Which makes the question of which host cities are doing serious sustainability work more important, not less. Their practices will outlast the tournament.

The Problem Is Structural

World Cup-related team air travel will account for roughly 7.7 million tons of CO2-equivalent — about 85% of the total, according to the SGR analysis. That is the direct consequence of two FIFA decisions. First, the tournament grew from 32 to 48 teams and from 64 to 104 matches. Second, FIFA chose to hold those matches across Canada, Mexico, and the United States rather than concentrate them in a single region.

The contrast with the previous tournament is stark. Qatar 2022 kept its eight stadiums within 34 miles of each other. The shortest distance between 2026 stadiums, from MetLife in New Jersey to Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia, is 95.5 miles. Most teams’ itineraries cover thousands of miles. One UEFA playoff winner, according to a Fossil Free Football analysis, could travel Toronto to Los Angeles (2,175 miles), then Los Angeles to Seattle (932 miles), then, in the knockout rounds, another 2,500 miles to Boston.

FIFA does not set binding emissions limits for host cities, and it did not address the underlying decision to spread the tournament across North America. SGR’s researchers urged FIFA to reverse the team expansion, set mandatory environmental standards, and end sponsorship deals with high-emitting companies, including the Saudi oil company Aramco, whose sponsorship is estimated to result in an additional 30 million tons of CO2e due to energy sales linked to the tournament’s promotion.

The Heat Risk Nobody Planned For

Climate change is not just an abstraction measured in tournament emissions. It is a condition players and fans will experience in real time. The SGR/EDF report assessed heat, flooding, and extreme weather risk at all 16 stadiums. Six face extreme heat stress due to Wet Bulb Globe Temperatures above 80°F, the threshold where exertion becomes dangerous. Eight of the 16 cities require what the researchers called immediate environmental intervention. Four need critical intervention, according to the report.

AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, which will host nine World Cup matches — more than any other venue — experiences 37 days per year above 95°F, with July wet bulb readings that exceed FIFA safety thresholds.

Houston’s NRG Stadium faces simultaneous heat, flooding, and wildfire risk.

Los Angeles contends with wildfire smoke.

Miami faces hurricanes.

Where Host Cities Lead, and Where They Lag

A sustainability ranking published by World Sports Network in April 2026 attempts to score the 16 host cities across transit access, electric vehicle infrastructure, waste, air pollution, urban greening, and greenhouse gas emissions. The methodology has limits — it weights all factors equally, uses stadium-specific data alongside city-wide data, and includes some questionable proxies — but its directional finding is consistent with what urban sustainability researchers have long documented about the climate in North American cities.

Vancouver tops the rankings. British Columbia generates roughly 95% of its electricity from renewable sources, largely hydropower. BC Place sits in the center of Vancouver, with 26 public transit stops within a 10-minute walk. Fans can reach it by SkyTrain or bus. That single design decision eliminates most of the vehicle trips and parking-lot sprawl that define a typical U.S. stadium day.

Boston ranked second, the highest-scoring U.S. city. That is less about inherent greenness than about what severe flooding has forced the city to prepare for. Boston experienced 19 days of flooding in 2024, and sea levels around the city are projected to rise 20 centimeters by 2030 relative to 2000. The city’s Building Emissions Reduction and Disclosure Ordinance requires large buildings to cut emissions to net zero by 2050, with interim targets that have already tightened performance at Gillette Stadium’s surrounding infrastructure.

Mexico City placed third, Toronto fourth, Monterrey fifth. The pattern shows that four of the top five cities are outside the United States, even though 11 of the 16 host cities are American. Mexico City’s transformation from one of the most polluted major cities in the world into one of the Americas’ most active urban reforesters, with over 27 million trees and plants added between 2018 and 2021, is the kind of long-horizon work that does not fit inside a tournament timeline but shapes what that timeline makes possible.

The American Transit Problem

Every U.S. host city except Boston falls in the bottom half of the WSN ranking, and the reason is almost always the same: transit.

AT&T Stadium in Arlington has no public transit stops within a 10-minute walk. Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, which will host seven matches, sits 17 miles north of downtown Miami with no rail connection. SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, MetLife in East Rutherford, and NRG in Houston all require a car, a shuttle, or a rideshare for most attendees.

Dallas-Fort Worth is ranked third in the world for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, a structural problem no single event can fix. The Dallas organizing committee has built a sustainability plan in collaboration with the University of Texas at Arlington’s chief sustainability officer, Meghna Tare. It addresses waste management, single-use plastic reduction, composting, and community legacy. The North Central Texas Council of Governments has designed a charter bus system to fill the transit gap for the nine matches AT&T Stadium will host. These are real efforts. They also show that when infrastructure is car-dependent, event-specific workarounds can reduce harm but don’t substitute for the public transit that does not exist.

What This Means Beyond the Tournament

The 2026 World Cup will be a 34-day event watched by a projected 5 million in-person fans and up to 6 billion viewers worldwide. The emissions it generates will dissipate into an atmosphere that cannot tell tournament carbon from commuting carbon. What will persist are the infrastructure choices each host city makes now, including whether transit lines are extended or not, stadium renovations that meet LEED standards or do not, food recovery programs that continue operating after the final match or get packed away with the branded signage.

These are not reasons to hate world football. It’s the Beautiful Game, and its governing body, FIFA, can make changes to reduce the tournament’s impact and protect players from heat-related injuries.

The post The 2026 World Cup Will Be the Most Polluting Ever appeared first on Earth911.

If you took one long-haul flight each year for the past decade, the world would eventually pay about $25,000 for it. You won’t see this charge on your credit card, but the cost shows up somewhere—maybe as a hotter field with less rice, a stronger hurricane, or a factory forced to close on days that are too hot to work. This estimate comes from a Nature study published in March 2026 by researchers at Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley. They created a new way to link damage from specific emissions to certain places and years.

That $25,000 figure is based on the social cost of carbon, a dollar estimate of the harm caused by releasing one ton of carbon dioxide into the air. While it might seem abstract, it is one of the most important numbers in American policy. It helps decide if a fuel-economy rule is worth it and influences permits for pipelines and power plants. Over the last four presidential administrations, this number has been raised, lowered, removed, and brought back. What we think a ton of carbon costs today affects how much the country is willing to do about climate change in the future.

What Is the Social Cost of Carbon?

Think of the cost of carbon like a garbage bill, the metaphor the authors of the Nature study use. When you put trash on the curb, someone has to pick it up, haul it away, and store it somewhere. You pay for that service. Carbon dioxide works the same way, except no one sends an invoice—it’s more like using a credit card, the bill for which your children or great-grandchildren will eventually pay.

Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries, quietly heating the planet, damaging crops, intensifying storms, and wearing down economies. Somebody, somewhere, eventually pays. The social cost of carbon is an attempt to figure out how much.

The number comes from combining climate science with economics. Researchers model how one extra ton of CO₂ affects global temperatures over the next century or two, then estimate how those temperature changes damage human health, farm yields, labor productivity, property, and economic growth. They add up the losses and express them in today’s dollars.

Two technical choices drive almost every disagreement about the final number:

• Global versus domestic damages. Should the United States count the damage that occurs in India, Brazil, or Bangladesh from American emissions? Carbon mixes in the atmosphere — a ton released in Ohio warms the planet the same as a ton released in Mumbai — so the economic case for global accounting is strong. The political case for domestic-only accounting is that the US government works for Americans.
• The discount rate. This is the trickiest piece. Economists “discount” future damages to express them in present-day dollars. A higher discount rate makes future harm look cheap today; a lower one makes it look expensive. Using a 7% discount rate, $1 trillion in climate damage in 2100 is worth only about $4 billion today. Using 3%, the same damage is worth about $86 billion. Same science, same damage, twenty times the present value.

That second choice, how much weight to give your grandchildren’s losses compared to your own savings, is where climate economics becomes a moral question.

A Short History of a Disputed Number

2008: A Court Forces the Issue

Federal agencies ignored carbon pricing for most of the modern regulatory era. That changed after the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Bush administration over weak fuel-economy standards for light trucks and SUVs. In 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that assigning zero value to carbon emissions in cost-benefit analyses was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court stated: “the value of carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero.”

That decision created a legal obligation. If federal agencies wanted to write rules that survived court review, they had to put a price on carbon. They just did not yet have one they could agree on.

2009–2016: The Obama Administration Sets the Framework

In 2009, President Obama convened an Interagency Working Group of federal economists and scientists. In 2010, the group published its first official estimate of the social cost of carbon: $21 per ton of CO₂.

In the following years, as climate models were updated, the estimate rose, reaching about $50 per ton (2020 dollars) by the end of the Obama years. This value was based on a 3% discount rate and global damages.

That framework, which involved interagency process and peer-reviewed models with global scope, was used in more than 65 federal rules and 81 subrules between 2008 and 2016. It shaped appliance efficiency standards, power plant emission limits, fuel-economy requirements, and rules governing methane leaks from oil and gas infrastructure. A higher social cost of carbon justified stricter rules. A lower one did not.

2017–2020: The First Trump Administration Rewrites the Math

Within months of taking office, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, disbanding the Interagency Working Group and withdrawing its estimates. The Trump EPA recalculated the social cost of carbon by counting only US damages and raising the discount rate to 3%-7%. As a result, Obama’s $52 per ton estimate fell to between $1 and $7 per ton.

That lower number was, as Resources for the Future explained, “too low to make climate policies economically justifiable.” Rules that had provided a cost-benefit analysis supporting strict emissions rules under Obama suddenly no longer did so. The Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of Obama’s climate policy, was repealed partly on the grounds that the climate benefits recalculated with the lower number no longer exceeded the costs. According to Scientific American, the change in the social cost of carbon was “determinative” in at least half a dozen petroleum-sector rollbacks during the first Trump term. Simply, it gave emitters an easy out.

2021–2024: Biden Restores, Then Raises, The Price Sharply

Biden reinstated the working group and set an interim value of about $51 per ton, adjusted for inflation. Legal challenges from some states were dismissed.

In November 2023, EPA set a new central estimate for the social cost of carbon: $190 per ton for 2020 emissions, rising to $230 by 2030 and $308 by 2050. This increase drew on updated climate science, new economic models, a lower discount rate of 2%, and two decades of scientific progress clarifying warming’s impact on economic growth, climate-driven mortality, and previously understated risks.

Other governments took note. Canada adopted the updated EPA number in 2023. Germany adapted the underlying model for its own analyses in 2024.

2025: The Second Trump Administration Tries to Erase It

On his first day back in office, January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” which disbanded the Interagency Working Group, withdrew its estimates, and directed EPA to consider eliminating the social cost of carbon from federal permitting and regulatory decisions entirely. The order called the metric “marked by logical deficiencies, a poor basis in empirical science, politicization, and the absence of a foundation in legislation.”

In March 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency would “overhaul” the social cost of carbon. In May 2025, a follow-up executive memorandum directed federal agencies to stop factoring climate-related economic damage into their regulations and permitting decisions, except where statute requires it.

Where agencies are still legally obligated to put a number on it, the administration has settled on an interim estimate of as little as $1 per ton of CO₂, a return to the first Trump administration’s methodology, with domestic-only damages and higher discount rates. The companion social cost of methane dropped from $1,470 per ton to $58. In July 2025, the White House guidance went further, instructing agencies that any required analysis  should be limited to “the minimum consideration required to meet a statutory requirement” and, where possible, should not be monetized at all. The practical effect: $1 per ton on paper, $0 in most decisions.

The cycle is now in its third full reversal since 2008. Each time the number changes, so does the federal government’s willingness to regulate emissions.

What the New Research Adds

The new study in Nature does something the federal estimates have never done well: it separates past damage from future damage, and it assigns both to specific emitters. Their framework treats every ton of CO₂ as an asset that pays out negative returns; it’s a garbage bill that keeps accruing interest. Using that framework, they found three things that reshape the conversation.

A ton of CO₂ emitted in 1990 has already caused about $180 in global damages by 2020. That same ton will cause an additional $1,840 in damages between now and 2100 — 10 times more.  Using the authors’ conservative assumptions, which use a 2% discount rate with damages capped at 2100, the social cost of carbon for a ton emitted today is approximately $1,013. That is more than five times the Biden EPA’s $190 estimate, and higher estimates are possible under longer time horizons or lower discount rates.

Settling the bill for climate damage that has already happened would only cover a small fraction of the damage still to come from the same emissions. Past payments do not clear past debts.

Individuals and Corporations Run Up the Carbon Bill

The study also puts numbers on the kinds of choices that fill everyday life.

• One extra long-haul flight per year for a decade produces roughly $25,000 in future discounted damages by 2100.
• Switching from a meat-heavy to a vegetarian diet for a decade avoids about $6,000 in future damages.
• Installing and using a heat pump for a decade results in an additional $6,000 in avoided damage.
• Cutting driving by 10%, another $6,000 less future cost.

At the corporate scale, the numbers are staggering. Emissions from Saudi Aramco’s fossil fuel production between 1988 and 2015 are estimated to cause $64 trillion in cumulative discounted damages through 2100. ExxonMobil’s comparable share: $29 trillion. These are bigger than the annual GDP of most countries.

Today’s Cost, Tomorrow’s Reality

The social cost of carbon can feel like a number on a page in a regulatory document. It is not. It is a bridge between the world you are living in now and the world you will inherit.

When the federal government uses a low social cost of carbon, or no number at all, it writes rules that allow more emissions. More emissions mean a hotter atmosphere, which means stronger storms, longer fire seasons, lower crop yields, higher air conditioning bills, and more days when outdoor work becomes dangerous. Those consequences do not arrive as a lump sum in 2100.

They arrive gradually, starting now, and compounding in the form of flood and wildfire damage, biodiversity loss, and even defense spending to prevent immigration. The Nature researchers emphasize that their estimates are almost certainly too low because GDP damage functions do not capture losses of biodiversity, loss of cultural homelands, harm to mental health, or many slow-moving impacts such as sea level rise.

When the federal government uses a high social cost of carbon, it writes rules that prevent emissions. Those rules have costs today, sometimes real ones, paid by workers in fossil fuel industries, by consumers adjusting to new standards, by companies retooling their operations. The social cost of carbon does not eliminate those costs. It weighs them against costs that will otherwise fall on other people, in other places, at other times. That weighing is a choice about who counts.

The history traced here is, in that sense, a history of that choice, and none of those decisions are final. Courts have repeatedly ruled that federal agencies cannot treat the value of carbon-emissions reductions as zero. The 2008 ruling that gave rise to this framework is still on the books. Whatever the current administration does, the legal obligation to account for climate damages in cost-benefit analysis remains, and the science underpinning the newer, higher estimates continues to strengthen.

The post The Price Tag on a Ton of Carbon: What It Is, Why It Keeps Changing, and What It Means for Your Future appeared first on Earth911.

The average American discards roughly 82 pounds of clothing and textiles each year — and most of it lands in a landfill. According to the EPA, more than 17 million tons of textiles were generated as municipal solid waste in 2018, a figure the U.S. Government Accountability Office confirmed was more than 50% higher than in 2000 due largely to the rise of fast fashion. And the recycling rate for clothing and footwear? Just 13%.

Denim is one of the most salvageable things in that waste stream. Because authentic jeans are made mostly from cotton, a natural, biodegradable fiber, they can be recycled into building insulation, pet bed inserts, and thermal packaging, or given a second life through resale and creative reuse.

Here are five ways to put your worn-out jeans to work, and have some fun doing it.

1. Your unwanted denim can be turned into insulation.

Cotton Incorporated’s Blue Jeans Go Green program has been recycling denim into insulation since 2006. Since then, the program has collected more than 5 million pieces of denim and diverted over 2,290 tons of textile waste from landfills. That recycled fiber gets processed into UltraTouch™ Denim Insulation by Bonded Logic — used in homes, thermal packaging, and pet bedding — with some insulation donated each year to building projects in communities in need.

The program accepts any denim item (jeans, jackets, skirts, shirts) that’s at least 90% cotton, in any condition. Drop off locations include Anthropologie, which has committed to diverting 10 tons through the program, and a rotating list of retail partners you can find on the Blue Jeans Go Green recycle page.

You can also mail denim directly to the program at Cotton’s Blue Jeans Go Green™ Program c/o Phoenix Fibers – CIMI, 400 East Ray Road, Chandler, AZ 85225 (a free prepaid label program ended in August 2025, so you’ll need to cover shipping).

Madewell’s denim trade-up program is one of the most practical ways to close the loop on old jeans, regardless of the brand. Drop any pair of jeans of any cut, color, or condition at a Madewell store and receive $20 off a full-priced pair of Madewell jeans. The program is year-round with no limit on how many pairs you bring in.

The program has collected more than 2.3 million preloved pieces. Gently worn jeans are resold through Madewell Forever, the brand’s resale platform with ThredUp; jeans beyond repair are recycled into housing insulation and sustainable packaging via the Blue Jeans Go Green partnership.

You can also mail in denim with a free Clean Out Kit or shipping label if you don’t have a Madewell nearby.

2. Turn your denim into a pair of shorts.

This is probably the easiest way to repurpose a pair of jeans. Even if you don’t sew, you can make long jeans into shorts. Get a pair of sharp scissors, figure out where you want to cut, and then enjoy your new shorts. Remember the old saying, “measure twice, and cut once.” If you’re a sewer (or good with a glue gun), check out this tutorial by Craft & Creativity for some adorable additions to cutoffs.

3. Upcycle your denim into a reusable bag.

One of my favorite ways to upcycle denim is by making reusable bags. You can use the bags as an adorable way to package a gift, as a purse, and as a reusable grocery carrier, just to name a few. I also found this creative phone charging bag. This is another project that could be done simply with a glue gun or, if you don’t have one, some craft glue.

4. Upcycle your denim into some sweet friendship bracelets.

One of my girls’ favorite projects is to upcycle material, including denim, into friendship bracelets. They are able to use their creativity and make each bracelet a special work of art. First, gather supplies like fun buttons, embroidery floss, and any other embellishments you may have on hand. Then cut the denim into strips.

Next is where the fun really begins. Let your kids use their imaginations to dream up some adorable ways to decorate their friendship bracelets. They could even begin by sketching out their ideas so you know how to help them make their vision a reality.

Your kiddos can wear their bracelets proudly and give them as gifts.

Need more ideas on how to upcycle your worn denim? Visit this helpful Pinterest board.

5. Make a craft supply holder with your unwanted jeans and some cans from the recycling bin.

This is a great idea for anyone who wants to organize their craft supplies in one spot. You could make it a kid-friendly craft supply holder by including washable markers, colored pencils, safety scissors and glue sticks. Add a handle and this could be a great way to bring craft supplies on the road with you. I found this example at 8Trends.com.

Denim scraps also work well as ties for garden plants, drawer liners, coasters (backed with felt), small coin pouches, and journal covers. Because denim frays attractively rather than looking ragged, even imperfect cuts tend to look intentional. There’s also a growing community of textile artists on Pinterest’s denim upcycle boards with ideas organized by skill level and material quantity.

Your old jeans are too valuable to throw away. If they’re still wearable, donate them to a local thrift store or trade them in at Madewell. If they’re worn out, recycle them through Blue Jeans Go Green — or cut them into something new. Use Earth911’s Recycling Search to find textile recycling drop-off spots near you.

Editor’s Note: Originally published by Wendy Gabriel on February 6, 2017, this article was updated in April 2026. Feature image courtesy of Shutterstock.com.

The post 5 Fun Ways To Recycle Your Jeans appeared first on Earth911.

Earth911 inspirations. Print them, post them, share your desire to help people think of the planet first, every day.

Today’s quote is from primatologist and anthropologist Jane Goodall: “The greatest danger to our future is apathy.”

This poster was originally published on May 17, 2019.

The post Earth911 Inspiration: The Greatest Danger to Our Future Is Apathy appeared first on Earth911.

Forty thousand miles of plastic waste wash through the global ocean every year, enough to wrap the Earth at the equator. But walk into the right store, and you can personally shorten that pipeline by a few feet, returning a pair of worn sneakers, a dead laptop, or a piece of furniture destined for the dumpster.

Some retailers have built genuine end-of-life infrastructure for the products they sell — not just a PR line, but real systems with documented results. The seven below have the numbers to back it up, updated for 2026.

Patagonia

Patagonia’s Worn Wear program remains one of the most comprehensive take-back systems in retail apparel. In 2025, customers made more than 137,000 trade-ins — almost 71,000 of them from return and warranty claims — and the online Shop Used feature launched in September 2024 has expanded the secondhand market significantly. Items deemed wearable are cleaned, repaired, and resold through Worn Wear; those beyond repair enter a recycling pipeline.

On the material innovation side, Patagonia partnered with Eastman in 2024 to process 8,000 pounds of pre- and post-consumer clothing waste through molecular recycling — breaking apparel down to chemical building blocks for reuse as new fiber. The brand has also moved aggressively on materials: by fall 2025, over 90 percent of Patagonia’s fabrics were recycled, organic, or traceable. Its 2025 Work in Progress Report disclosed that reducing hang tags by over 40 million pieces has avoided 170,000 pounds of packaging waste. The structural challenge — mechanically recycling blended fabrics — remains unsolved at industrial scale, and Patagonia acknowledges it openly.

Apple

Apple’s trade-in and recycling program sent 15.9 million devices to new owners through refurbishment schemes in 2024 alone. Devices that cannot be refurbished are processed by Daisy, Apple’s disassembly robot, which can now break down 36 models of iPhone into discrete components to recover aluminum, copper, rare earth elements, and other materials. A second robot, Dave, disassembles Taptic Engines to recover rare earth magnets, tungsten, and steel.

The material-recovery numbers are striking. In 2024, 24 percent of all materials shipped in Apple products came from recycled or renewable sources, up from 10 percent in 2019. Recycled aluminum accounted for 71 percent of the aluminum Apple purchased. The company avoided 6.2 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by using recycled and low-carbon materials in 2024, according to its 2025 Environmental Progress Report. Apple has also surpassed 99 percent on its 2025 goal to use 100 percent recycled rare earth elements in all magnets and 100 percent recycled cobalt in all Apple-designed batteries. Customers can drop devices off at any Apple Store or ship for free.

Best Buy

Best Buy has collected 2.7 billion pounds of electronics and appliances since launching its recycling program in 2009, making it the nation’s largest retail collector of e-waste. The program accepts most consumer electronics at more than 1,000 stores regardless of where items were purchased, collecting more than 400 pounds of product every minute stores are open.

The program has expanded: a mail-in recycling service now lets customers without easy store access ship old tech in purpose-built boxes. A home haul-away service launched for customers who cannot transport large items. Best Buy requires all recycling partners to comply with rigorous environmental management standards and holds them to regulatory compliance and responsible workforce practices. TVs and monitors carry a $25 fee; most other electronics — phones, laptops, tablets, cables — are accepted free.

Nike

Nike’s original Reuse-a-Shoe program launched in 1995 to recycle worn athletic footwear into Nike Grind material for surfaces and new products has evolved into the Recycling + Donation (RAD) service, now available globally.

The program accepts athletic footwear and apparel from any brand and inspects each item to determine donation or recycling eligibility. Wearable items go to nonprofit partners including Soles4Souls for redistribution to communities in need; worn-out footwear is ground down into Nike Grind, which goes into playground surfaces, running tracks, and new Nike products.

Part of Nike’s Move to Zero initiative, targeting zero carbon and zero waste across the supply chain, the  Participating stores accept shoes of any brand — athletic footwear only; no cleats, boots, or sandals. Nike also runs Nike Refurbished, which cleans and resells gently worn or slightly imperfect footwear and apparel at select factory and community stores, extending product life before material recovery.

Staples

Staples pioneered national retail recycling in 2007 as the first U.S. retailer to offer a universal e-waste takeback program. Today the program accepts over 50 types of materials including computers, printers, phones, cables, batteries, crayons, and coffee machines from any brand. Since 2021, Staples has recycled 7,000 tons of e-waste and 19 million ink and toner cartridges, helping HP reach a milestone of 1 billion cartridges recycled.

Staples’ Easy Rewards program currently gives members 500 points (equivalent to $5 back) per month for tech recycling. Ink and toner cartridge recycling earns $2 per cartridge for members spending at least $30 on ink over the previous 180 days, up to a monthly limit. Staples uses certified recyclers whenever possible, and recycled toner material gets routed into road construction aggregate. The company accepts electronics in-store at customer service desks at all U.S. Staples locations.

IKEA

Furniture is the United States’ largest category of discarded household goods, with Americans throwing away approximately 12 million tons of it each year. IKEA’s Buyback & Resell program addresses the problem at the point of sale: customers fill out an online form, receive a value estimate, and bring gently used IKEA furniture to any participating store in exchange for store credit. Items that pass inspection enter the As-Is section for resale; those that cannot be resold are recycled under IKEA’s zero-waste-to-landfill policy.

The U.S. program now runs in 33 stores and, as of 2025, accepts more than 5,000 product types, including tables, chairs, storage units, lamps, and kids’ furniture among many. Globally, IKEA’s circular initiatives contributed to a 24.3 percent reduction in the company’s climate footprint while revenue grew 30.9 percent. Sofas, mattresses, and modified products are not accepted. IKEA Family members currently receive 50 percent more in store credit through May 2026.

REI

REI’s Re/Supply program sold nearly 1.4 million items of used outdoor gear in 2024, double the volume from 2019. The program accepts trade-ins of gently used REI-brand and name-brand gear including backpacks, sleeping bags, tents, and apparel. Members receive store credit; items are inspected, cleaned, and resold at a discount. Selling a used item through Re/Supply emits at least 50 percent less carbon than selling a new equivalent, even accounting for shipping, cleaning, and remerchandising.

REI also became the first major U.S. retailer to reach 90 percent operational waste diversion, achieving zero-waste certification in 2024 that audited and independently verified — ahead of Walmart and Target. Three of its distribution centers hold TRUE Zero Waste certification. In 2024, about 52 percent of the polyester and 45 percent of the nylon in REI Co-op products came from recycled sources. REI also charges brand partners a recycling fee to discourage individual plastic poly bags, and the majority of brands it carries have eliminated them as standard practice.

Related Reading

• Where Is the Circular Packaging Economy in 2026?
• How to Recycle Ink Cartridges
• Close the Loop: A Primer on Circular Economy
• How Patagonia Is Recycling Bottles into Jackets

Editor’s Note: Originally written by Sarah Lozanova on April 10, 2017, this article was substantially updated in April 2026.

The post 7 Retailers With Impressive Recycling Programs appeared first on Earth911.

More than 400,000 tons of release liner waste are generated in the United States every year — and the vast majority ends up in the landfill. You know these slick sheets: they’re the backing on address labels, shipping labels, postage stamps, and every sticker you’ve ever peeled. They look like paper, they tear like paper, but your recycling bin can’t process them like paper.

Label backing sheets, known in industry as release liners, are a hybrid material that confounds conventional recycling systems. Understanding why helps you avoid contaminating your curbside bin, and points toward where real solutions are emerging.

What Makes Release Liners So Hard to Recycle

The paper component of most label backing sheets is called glassine, a highly processed, translucent paper whose fibers have been flattened and aligned to create a smooth surface. Glassine has uses in food wrappers, pastry bags, and envelopes, but its compressed fibers yield very little usable pulp in the recycling process. The paper market runs on fiber strength, and glassine simply doesn’t have it.

The second problem is the coating. Release liners are treated with a release agent — almost always silicone — that prevents labels from permanently bonding to the backing. This silicone layer is what allows you to peel cleanly. It’s also what makes recycling nearly impossible at most facilities; the coating can’t be removed without specialized processing, and when it contaminates paper recycling streams, it degrades the quality of the resulting pulp and can jam machinery.

A third issue is material variation. Some liners use plastic film made from PET (#1 plastic) or polypropylene (#5 plastic) instead of paper as their base, adding another layer of complexity. Without knowing what type of liner you have, there’s no reliable way to route it into a specialized program.

Industry data suggests that historically only about 1–1.5% of liner waste has been recycled. More recent label industry reports put the overall global recycling rate at around 35%, but that figure is heavily skewed by industrial-scale programs in Europe and at large commercial facilities.

For the consumer peeling address labels at home, the recycling rate is effectively zero.

The Bottom Line for Consumers: Not Curbside

Label backing sheets from home use, such as the backing sheet from a page of address labels, the liner from a sheet of postage stamps, the wax paper-like sheet from a roll of stickers, do not belong in curbside recycling. Placing them in the recycling bin contaminates cleaner paper streams and does not help the material reach an appropriate end market.

The exception is if you can verify that your liner is an uncoated, matte paperboard with no silicone feel. That type may be recyclable as regular paper in some municipalities, but it’s uncommon for consumer label products. When in doubt, trash it — a wrong recycling choice is worse than no recycling choice.

Don’t put silicone-coated liners in composting either. The coating prevents biodegradation and will contaminate the compost.

The Label Industry Responds

The past two years have brought significant movement on release liner recycling, almost entirely at the commercial and industrial scale — so, still not helpful for curbside recycling but it promise more mail-in options.

The Tag and Label Manufacturers Institute launched its Liner Recycling Initiative (LRI) in 2024, partnering with paper mill Sustana Fiber. Sustana’s mills in De Pere, Wisconsin and Levis, Quebec can process white silicone-coated paper release liner and remove silicone alongside inks and other contaminants. The LRI is running regional pilots in Chicagoland and the Northeast U.S., with aggregation drop-off locations in Boston, Buffalo, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Wallingford CT, and three Canadian cities.

Avery Dennison’s AD Circular program, which connects commercial label brands and large businesses in the U.S. with vetted recycling providers for liner waste, is designed to kickstart a circular economy in label backing. The company has also partnered with Mitsubishi Chemical’s Polyester Film division for a closed-loop PET liner recycling program. These programs are designed for businesses generating consistent volumes of liner, not for household use.

UPM Raflatac’s RafCycle program provides a similar commercial liner recycling network in the U.S. and Canada, converting used liners into recycled paper, insulation material, and other products.

In 2025, labeling company SATO launched a recycling program at its Kitakami, Japan facility to recycle approximately 19 tons of silicone-coated release liners annually.

Sustainable Alternatives Are Growing

The most direct solution to the release liner problem is eliminating the liner altogether. Linerless label technology applies a special release coating directly to the face of the label, allowing rolls to wind without sticking to adjacent layers. These labels generate no backing waste, and rolls contain significantly more labels per roll, reducing material use and shipping weight.

For consumers who buy labels directly for home organizing, shipping, or small business use, EcoEnclose offers a patent-protected Zero Waste Release Liner made from 100% post-consumer waste that is curbside recyclable alongside regular paper. Their shipping labels, product labels, and sticker sheets use this liner. It’s the only liner of its kind currently available at consumer scale.

What You Can Do

• Do not put label backing sheets in curbside recycling or compost — silicone coatings contaminate both paper and compost streams.
• If you produce label liner regularly at a business, check the TLMI Liner Recycling Map at com for aggregation sites near the Northeast or Midwest U.S. pilots.
• Look for linerless label options when purchasing labels for shipping, home organization, or small business use. They cost roughly the same and eliminate the waste problem entirely.
• If sustainable sourcing matters to you, EcoEnclose‘s Zero Waste Liner products are curbside recyclable, a rare consumer-accessible option.
• Reuse intact backing sheets as non-stick craft surfaces, interleaving material, or temporary labels before discarding.

Related Earth911 Articles

• How to Recycle Paper
• Where Is The Circular Packaging Economy In 2026?
• How to Recycle Cardboard

The post Recycling Mystery: Label Backing Sheets appeared first on Earth911.

More Americans than ever think the environment is in bad shape, and they want the government to do something about it. According to a new Gallup poll released last week, only 35% of U.S. adults rate the overall quality of the environment as good or excellent. That’s the lowest number Gallup has recorded since it started asking the question in 2001.

It’s not just one or two things people are worried about. Drinking water, rivers and lakes, climate change, air pollution, endangered species. Concerns are on the rise across the board.

What People Are Most Worried About

Water is the top concern, and it has been for over two decades. More than half of Americans — 56% — say they worry “a great deal” about drinking water pollution. Another 53% say the same about the country’s fresh water supply. Half are deeply worried about pollution in rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.

Climate change isn’t far behind. A companion Gallup climate report finds that 44% of Americans worry “a great deal” about global warming, close to the all-time high of 46% recorded in 2020. Two out of three Americans say they worry at least “a fair amount.”

The poll also found that 57% of Americans now think the government is doing too little to protect the environment. That’s up from 50% just a year ago, a significant jump in a short time and in the face of an administration dedicated to dismantling U.S. environmental regulations.

While Democrats worry more than Republicans on nearly every issue, independent voters — often the key swing group in elections — have shifted sharply toward deep concern about the nation’s direction: 61% now say the government isn’t doing enough, up from 52% last year.

So What Has Congress Actually Done?

While public concern has been rising, the 119th Congress, which took office in January 2025 with Republicans in control of both chambers, has been rolling back environmental protections at a record pace.

The main tool has been the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a law that lets Congress cancel recently issued regulations with a simple majority vote. In 2025 alone, Congress passed 22 CRA resolutions into law, more than the total number of successful CRA rollbacks in the entire prior history of the law. Most targeted the EPA.

Among the protections eliminated: a rule charging oil and gas companies for methane pollution, standards regulating hazardous air emissions from rubber tire manufacturing, and California’s authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards, overturned despite a determination by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that those waivers weren’t even legally subject to repeal.

Meanwhile, pro-environment bills have gone nowhere. The Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act, which would require fossil fuel companies to pay into a $1 trillion climate fund, has gone undebated in committee since January 2025. The Clean Competition Act, a bipartisan carbon border adjustment that would reward cleaner American manufacturers, has also stalled.

The public says it wants more action on the environment. Congress has delivered less.

Tell Your Lawmakers How You Feel

The good news: this is exactly the kind of issue where public pressure can matter. Here’s how to make your voice heard:

• Find your senators and representative and contact them by phone or email.
• Check your lawmakers’ environmental voting records at the League of Conservation Voters Scorecard.
• Ask specifically whether they support fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund and passing the Clean Competition Act.
• Share the Gallup poll results with friends, neighbors, and on social media. Public awareness drives political action. Take a stand for the environment you want.

The post Most Americans Are Worried About the Environment. Is Congress? appeared first on Earth911.

Each year, the U.S. discards 38 to 40 percent of its food, a stubbornly high figure. Yet, other countries like the Czech Republic, Israel, and Denmark show promising solutions that American cities are beginning to adopt.

The global challenge is similarly daunting. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about one-third of all food produced for people worldwide is lost or wasted each year. This is not just a moral issue, since so many people go hungry, but also a big climate problem. Project Drawdown lists cutting food waste as one of the top three ways to fight climate change. Some countries have been working on this for years and offer lessons for others.

Czech Republic: Rooted in Preservation Culture

Home-grown produce from backyard vegetable gardens supplements family meals throughout the Czech Republic. Residents tend fruit trees, greenhouses, and chicken coops. Many rent municipal allotment plots to use as supplemental gardens. Home composting is common and deeply normalized.

Czechs don’t just eat what their gardens yield—they savor the adventure! During mushroom and wild garlic season, families head outdoors to forage together. Extra produce finds a second life as jams or pickles, or gets frozen and fermented into tangy cabbage. Got leftover fruit? Send it to a local distillery for a splash of homemade liquor. Even stale bread avoids the bin, reborn as crispy breadcrumbs straight from your kitchen.

Apps like Nesnězeno let Czech restaurants, bakeries, cafés, and grocery stores sell extra food as discounted ‘rescue bags,’ priced 50 to 70% below retail — for pickup before closing. This connects surplus food with local buyers looking for a good deal. By the end of 2024, Nesnězeno had 1,487 partner businesses, a 132% increase from the year before, and had expanded across all Czech regions. Prague led with 239,000 rescued packages (41% of the total), followed by South Moravian and Pilsen, according to MediaGuru.

The app has been downloaded by more than 3 million users and has saved over 3 million packages of unsold meals overall.

The Czech Republic’s recycling rate for municipal waste went up from 32% in 2017 to 44% in 2021, just below the EU average. However, separating and collecting food waste is still inconsistent. A new national program for collecting kitchen animal-based waste, starting in 2026, aims to fix this.

Israel: Food Rescue as National Resilience

Food and water security in Israel are inseparable from politics. Leket Israel, the country’s largest food bank, pursues a mission of “food rescue” that serves Israelis regardless of background, coordinating with farms, packing houses, hotels, and catering operations to redirect surplus food to 200 nonprofits serving those in need.

Bustling outdoor food markets are traditional fixtures in Israeli cities, bringing consumers closer to the source of their food. In such busy places, edible food regularly ends up on the ground. Volunteers with Leket collect leftovers to distribute to people in need.

Leket released its 10th annual Food Waste and Rescue Report in late 2025. The report showed that Israel threw away 2.6 million tons of food, or 39% of what it produced, similar to the U.S. This wasted food was worth about $7 billion, or 1.3% of the country’s GDP. Still, there has been progress: food waste per person dropped 13.3% over the last ten years, from 300 kg to 260 kg per year. This improvement is thanks to more public awareness, serving food on individual plates in cafeterias, and more online food orders. But population growth and higher food prices have kept the total amount of wasted food high.

Leket and its partners now rescue about 45,000 tons of food each year, 2.25 times more than a decade ago. Still, this is only 5% of the food that could be saved in Israel. The Food Donation Encouragement Law, first passed in 2018, was updated in 2024 to give more legal protection to donors and require large public institutions to donate food.

In September 2025, Israel released its first national plan to cut food loss and waste, written by the Ministries of Environmental Protection and Agriculture. This was a big step toward better policy coordination. Israeli AgTech companies are also known worldwide for using technology to reduce food waste. For example, Sufresca makes edible coatings to keep produce fresh longer, and Taranis uses drones and AI to spot crop problems early.

Denmark: Culture as Infrastructure

In Denmark, people often leave free food in boxes on the sidewalk. Signs in front of homes might offer free apples or potatoes, or eggs for sale using the honor system. There are also Facebook groups in every major Danish city for dumpster diving, where people collect edible food that supermarkets throw away after the best-by date.

Supermarkets in Denmark lower prices on food that is close to its best-by date, especially baked goods, which are marked down every evening after 7 or 8 p.m. Food producers and supermarket chains work with groups like Too Good To Go and WeFood, Denmark’s first surplus food supermarket, to sell rescued food at big discounts. Chains like REMA 1000, Coop, and LIDL have also stopped offering bulk-buy discounts that encouraged people to buy more than they needed.

Too Good To Go started in Copenhagen in 2015 and has grown quickly. In 2023, the app saved 121.7 million meals worldwide, up 46% from 2022, and helped prevent about 362,000 tons of CO2 emissions. The app now works in over 17 countries and has more than 85 million users.

The WeFood surplus grocery network, which began as a single location in Copenhagen in 2016, has grown to six stores across Denmark. And a voluntary national commitment, “Denmark Against Food Waste,” united more than 25 food producers and retailers behind a shared goal of halving food waste by 2030. An independent third party measures and publishes annual progress.

What the U.S. Has Borrowed

Some of the ideas first used in these three countries are now catching on in the United States. However, there are still big challenges slowing progress.

Too Good To Go started in the U.S. in late 2020 and has been growing ever since. By mid-2025, the app was available in almost half of U.S. states, including cities such as Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle. The number of meals saved grew by 67% each year. In 2024, Circle K convenience stores joined the app nationwide. Too Good To Go now also works with big chains like Whole Foods, Peet’s Coffee, and Just Salad.

Since 2020, most progress on food waste in the U.S. has happened at the state level. In 2024, 29 states introduced 100 distinct food waste bills, and 18 passed. California’s SB 1383, which started in 2022, brought organics collection to 94% of communities and rescued 217,000 tons of surplus food in 2023. Washington state also passed a major law in 2022, requiring businesses that generate large amounts of organic waste to compost or arrange for collection.

Federal legislation has moved slowly. As of 2024, 13 pending federal food waste bills were before Congress, including the bipartisan Food Date Labeling Act of 2023, which would standardize confusing “best by” and “sell by” date labeling  — but none had passed. The lack of national date-label standards is a key driver of household waste, as consumers discard food that is still safe to eat.

In 2015, the U.S. promised to cut food waste in half by 2030. But a 2025 study in Nature Food found that the amount of food wasted per person in 2022, at 328.5 pounds, was about the same as in 2016. The study said that no state is on track to meet the federal goal with current policies. It also pointed out that the U.S. focuses too much on recycling food waste instead of preventing or rescuing it. In contrast, Denmark and the Czech Republic work to keep food from becoming waste in the first place, while U.S. policy mostly deals with food after it’s already lost.

What You Can Do

• Download Too Good To Go or a similar app to save extra food from restaurants and grocery stores in your area.
• Volunteer at a local food bank to help get rescued food to people who need it. You’ll also learn more about food inequality in your community.
• Check out local CSAs and farmers’ markets to help cut down on food lost in big supply chains.
• Composting at home is a simple way to recycle food scraps. If you live in an apartment, see if your city has a compost drop-off program.
• Ask your supermarket to start marking down food that is close to its best-by date. This is common in Denmark but not in the U.S.
• Reach out to your congressional representatives and ask them to support the Food Date Labeling Act. Standardized date labels could make a big difference at the national level.
• Use the Earth911 recycling search tool to find recycling and food drop-off options near you.

Editor’s Note: Originally written by Chloe Skye on March 10, 2020, this article was substantially updated in April 2026.

The post 3 Countries’ Food Waste Strategies: What Can They Teach Us? appeared first on Earth911.

EarthDay.org encourages everyone to invest in the Earth. While that might mean buying stock in sustainable companies, it’s not the only way. Investing in our planet means everyone—governments, businesses, and individuals—doing their part. It’s about building a sustainable green economy, similar to how the world shifted from analog to digital after the space race. Even if you don’t own stocks, you can still support a green economy as a consumer, a citizen, and a community member.

“Everything has to be reinvented in a world of shrinking resources. So why not teach it? Why not embrace it? Why not say we’re going to the moon?” asked Kathleen Rogers, president and CEO of EarthDay.org, in 2022.

Consumers

It’s a common myth that companies only sell what consumers want. If that were true, advertising wouldn’t be such a huge industry. Still, consumers do have influence. If more people chose electric vehicles over SUVs, car companies would offer more EVs and fewer gas-guzzlers.

Consumers can learn more and pick sustainable options. Websites like this one offer tips for finding greener products, from mattresses to shampoo. Every small choice helps, but we can’t solve climate change just by shopping differently.

“We all have hard choices to make and can’t do everything right,” says Rogers. We just have to do the best we can, starting with the most obvious improvements.

“Don’t buy pesticides,” says Rogers. Simply eliminating the intentional purchase of poisons makes a big difference. After that, prioritize choices that either require little effort, like recycling, or that make a big difference in your impact.

But as Michael Maniates, author of The Living-Green Myth, said recently on Sustainability In Your Ear, “It seems to me that our best chance for making a difference is to start thinking, or maybe just thinking harder, about how to be a citizen in community with others, not as a solitary consumer in the checkout line.” He believes green choices are good, but they aren’t enough without getting involved in politics.

Citizens

“Being a conscious citizen is the political piece. It’s register and vote for candidates who have really good plans that will not just promote the economy, but a green one. Because that’s the future,” Rogers said. “There’s some great Republicans on the environment, great Democrats, great Independents. Find them. Find them and vote for them. For the health of our kids, vote green.” If you can’t find a good candidate, become one yourself and run for office.

Don’t underestimate the importance of local elections. EarthDay.org is campaigning for universal climate education in classrooms because schools determine whether kids develop the 21st-century skills that will allow them to make green innovations and discover sustainable climate change solutions.

“If you don’t have an educated public and workforce, who’s going to make the stuff? If you don’t build green consumers, who’s going to buy the stuff? If you don’t educate the kids, who’s going to vote for green politicians?” asks Rogers. If you have kids in school, get involved in the PTA and help ensure kids have access to climate literacy education.

Citizens are also responsible for holding their elected representatives accountable. Write or call your representatives about environmental issues often.

Community

Whether you decide to run for office or prefer to keep your involvement to voting, you can still be an active member of your community. You can join local cleanups, support local businesses—especially regenerative farmers—and plant trees.

EarthDay.org’s Canopy Project primarily works with communities in developing countries. But you can be part of urban reforestation in your own neighborhood.

“We urge people to take tree cover seriously,” says Rogers. Many homeowners see trees as a nuisance because they block views or damage sidewalks. But trees offer much more than just beauty. They provide habitat, store carbon, help reduce the heat island effect—which matters more as summers get hotter—and even filter pollutants.

Even if you can’t plant a tree, you can grow a tomato plant in a pot by your front door or herbs in an apartment window. “It connects us to the natural world in a way nothing else can, and it’s a great educational tool for kids,” says Rogers.

Your workplace is part of your community too, so individuals also play a role in making businesses greener.

“Every industry has opportunities,” says Rogers. Take a look at how your workplace operates. Try to encourage greener choices in your company’s processes and purchasing decisions.

If you can’t manage green consumer choices, citizenship, and community action all at once—or even at all—don’t be hard on yourself.

“Stop blaming us and look at the combination of issues,” says Rogers. No one person has to do it all; we all just have to do the best we can.

Financial and Charitable Investments

One of the most direct ways to back your environmental values is with your investment portfolio and your charitable giving. The sustainable investment market has grown dramatically: assets under management in global sustainable funds reached $3.9 trillion in Q4 2025, up 15% from the prior year, even as ESG investing faced political headwinds in the U.S. That growth reflects a structural shift, not a trend: 88% of global individual investors express interest in sustainable investing, according to a Morgan Stanley survey, with younger generations leading the way.

The options have also expanded well beyond socially responsible mutual funds. Here are several ways to align your money with your values.

Causeway Impact

Doug Heske, founder of Newday Impact Investing and a frequent guest on Earth911’s Sustainability In Your Ear podcast, has built one of the more thoughtful platforms for deploying investment capital to advance environmental and social priorities.

The company’s newest offering, Causeway, brings together high-quality investment portfolios and direct links to vetted nonprofits, so you can see your financial returns and charitable giving in one place. Newday’s portfolios focus on six impact areas: climate action, air and water quality, biodiversity and conservation, healthy soils regeneration, and human equity. A personal impact timeline gives real-time updates from nonprofit partners, letting you track results—from carbon emissions reduced to wells built—alongside your financial performance.

ESG and Clean Energy ETFs

If you want broad market exposure with an environmental focus, ESG exchange-traded funds are the easiest place to start. Large index ETFs from Vanguard (ESGV) and iShares screen for environmental, social, and governance factors while keeping fees low. Expense ratios for major ESG index funds are now between 0.08 and 0.15% per year. Thematic clean energy funds, like the iShares Global Clean Energy ETF and Invesco Solar ETF (TAN), give you more focused exposure to renewable energy, but they are more volatile and work better as smaller parts of your portfolio.

Green Bonds

Green bonds support specific environmental projects such as renewable energy installations, energy-efficient buildings, and sustainable water systems. They have become a major type of fixed-income investment. By 2025, global green bond issuance passed $600 billion each year, with forecasts of about $950 billion in new bonds in 2026. The iShares USD Green Bond ETF (BGRN) offers easy access to investment-grade green bonds for investors who want less risk than stocks but still want to support the environment.

Donor-Advised Funds for Environmental Giving

If charitable giving is your primary goal, a donor-advised fund (DAF) lets you make a tax-deductible contribution now and direct grants to environmental nonprofits over time. Funds like Tides Foundation and Environmental Defense Fund’s giving programs can help channel charitable dollars toward proven climate and conservation organizations. For a more integrated approach, Causeway’s platform (above) connects investment portfolios directly with nonprofit partners, letting impact-oriented investors support both at once.

A quick warning: not all “green” funds are the same. Read fund documents closely, look for clear impact reporting along with financial results, and be wary of ESG labels that don’t have third-party verification. If an investment claims to be sustainable but doesn’t explain how it chooses its holdings, it could be greenwashing.

Related Reading

• Sustainability In Your Ear: Doug Heske on Responsible Energy Investing
• Invest in the Earth This Earth Day and Every Day
• Regenerative Agriculture to Restore Our Earth
• How to Combat the Urban Heat Island Effect

Editor’s Note: Originally authored by Gemma Alexander on March 18, 2022, this article was substantially updated in April 2026.

The post How You Can Invest in Our Planet appeared first on Earth911.

The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970 — 56 years ago — and, goodness, how the world has changed since then. We’ve come a long way since the days of burning our trash and pumping our gas guzzlers with leaded gasoline. In honor of those 56 years, here are 56 important changes and milestones since the first Earth Day.

Legislation

The U.S. government has led much of the environmental charge, starting with the implementation of the EPA (1) in July 1970. Later that year, the Clean Air Act (2) targeted air pollutants, followed by the Clean Water Act (3) in 1972 and the Endangered Species Act (4) in 1973.

Some lesser-known national laws included the Safe Water Drinking Act (5) in 1974, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (6) in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (7) in 1976, the National Energy Act (8) in 1978, and the Medical Waste Tracking Act (9) in 1988.

In some cases, states have led the charge. Oregon passed the first bottle bill (10) in 1971, Minnesota’s Clean Indoor Air Act (11) was the first law to restrict smoking in public places (1975), and Massachusetts required low-flush toilets (12) for construction and remodeling in 1988.

Green Innovations: The Early Years

In order to comply with all the laws from the 1970s, we needed new technology to ensure consumers could adhere to the new standards. Consider:

• The “Crying Indian” PSA debuts in 1971 (13)
• Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) gets banned in 1972 (14)
• The energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulb launches in 1973 (15)
• Cars begin displaying fuel economy labels in the mid-1970s (16)
• In 1975, all cars are manufactured with catalytic converters to limit exhaust emissions (17)
• Chlorofluorocarbons are banned from aerosol cans starting in 1978 (18)
• The first curbside recycling program begins in New Jersey in 1980 (19)
• In 1986, McDonald’s switches from foam to paper food containers (20)
• Mercury is removed from latex paint in 1990, providing a viable alternative to banned lead paint (21)
• Earth911 launches the first U.S. recycling directory in 1991 (22)
• Energy Star certification debuts in 1992 for appliances and electronics (23)
• The U.S. Green Building Council begins in 1993 (24)

The Political Movement

The Green Party (25) launched in 1984, which was just the beginning of green issues entering the mainstream. One Percent for the Planet (26) was founded in 2002 to challenge businesses to donate to environmental causes, and the ISO 14001 standard (27) established environmental management. Companies are now facing pressure to allow employee telecommuting (28).

Things really developed after the release of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (29) in 2006. NBC debuted Green Week (30) in 2007. Carbon offsets (31) alleviated corporate green guilt. Bisphenol A (32) made us all question plastic purchases. Hybrid vehicles (33) generated tax credits and gas savings. Plastic bag bans gave rise to a reusable bag (34) craze. Fracking (35) and the Dakota Access Pipeline (36) were two of the most hotly contested news stories of the decade, at least until the 2016 election.

Green Tech: The Next Wave

In the past 10 years, emerging green tech has made eco-friendly a way of life, including:

• LED light bulbs (37)
• Portable solar panels on backpacks and watches (38)
• Plant-based plastics (39)
• Motion sensor lighting (40)
• Faucets with automatic shut-off (41)
• Low volatile organic compound (VOC) paint (42)
• Recycled plastic clothing (43)
• Ride-sharing mobile applications (44)
• Natural cleaning products (45)
• Biodiesel engine vehicles (46)
• Food waste composting (47)
• Portable air purifiers (48)
• Europe’s Green Deal introduced global recyclables shipping regulations to reduce pollution in low-income nations (49)
• Corporate borrowers headed toward $500 billion in bond financings for the renewables transition (50)
• President Biden rejoins the Paris Climate Accord on his first day in office. (51)

The Latest Five: 2022–2026

The pace of innovation has not slowed. Five more milestones have reshaped the environmental landscape since that 51st Earth Day:

• The Inflation Reduction Act (52), signed into law in August 2022, became the largest climate investment in U.S. history, directing roughly $370 billion toward clean energy tax credits, EV incentives, methane reduction, and domestic clean manufacturing. Analysts projected it will drive more than $4 trillion in cumulative capital investment over a decade and put the U.S. on track for a 40% emissions reduction by 2030. Sadly, many of its key provisions have been defunded or eliminated by the Trump Administration.
• The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (53), adopted by 188 governments in December 2022, set the most ambitious biodiversity protection commitment in history. Its headline “30×30” target calls for conserving 30% of the planet’s land, freshwater, and ocean areas by 2030, a goal that would require doubling current protected land coverage and quadrupling marine protections.
• America’s first commercial direct air capture plant (54), opened by Heirloom Carbon Technologies in Tracy, California in November 2023, marked the arrival of atmospheric carbon removal at commercial scale on U.S. soil. The plant uses limestone to absorb CO₂ directly from the air, with the captured carbon injected into concrete for permanent storage. In May 2024, Climeworks activated the world’s largest direct air capture facility, the Mammoth plant in Iceland, with a design capacity to remove 36,000 tons of CO₂ per year.
• Solid-state batteries (55), a next-generation alternative to conventional lithium-ion technology, moved from laboratory promise toward commercial reality between 2022 and 2026. Unlike liquid-electrolyte batteries, solid-state versions are less flammable, achieve higher energy density, and degrade more slowly. In early 2025, Mercedes-Benz began road-testing a prototype EV powered by a lithium-metal solid-state cell that extended driving range 25% over comparable liquid-battery models. Multiple automakers and cell manufacturers now target commercial production between 2027 and 2030.
• Perovskite and tandem solar cells (56), a new photovoltaic technology that pairs conventional silicon with thin perovskite layers, pushed solar efficiency into territory once considered theoretical. By 2024, tandem cells in laboratory settings exceeded 34% efficiency — well above the roughly 22% ceiling of standard silicon panels only a few years ago. manufacturers in Asia and Europe began scaling pilot production lines. Because perovskite cells can be printed on flexible substrates, they open the door to solar surfaces on buildings, vehicles, and everyday objects that conventional panels cannot reach.

The past 56 years have been huge when it comes to saving the environment. Expect more to come, including a resurgent EV industry, nuclear fusion, regenerative agriculture, restorative forestry, and more, as costs and the cool factor improve.

Editor’s Note: Originally published on April 18, 2018, this article was most recently updated in April 2026.

The post 56 Environmental Innovations in the 56 Years Since Earth Day Began appeared first on Earth911.