How do you reduce your digital life’s environmental impact? Making changes to reduce your environmental impact around the house is straightforward — you can eat less meat, reduce your purchases of single-use plastic or turn down the thermostat by a few degrees to make a difference. But when you go online, there aren’t many obvious choices to cut your impact. Enter Ecosia.org, which has planted more than 143 million trees to offset the environmental impact of web searches. Ecosia remains a stalwart of ecologically responsible tech four years after this interview.

Christian started Ecosia in 2009 after seeing the devastating impact of deforestation first-hand while traveling after graduating from college. The company was also the first B Corporation in Germany. While the search engine does produce CO2, the trees planted offset more emissions than ecosia.org creates — they estimate that the trees planted result in a net reduction of CO2 of 2.2 lbs. per search. To put that in context, Ecosia estimates that if it had the same volume of searches as Google, it could plant enough trees to remove 15% of humanity’s CO2 emissions each year. You can search, plant trees, and learn more at ecosia.org.

• Subscribe to Sustainability in Your Ear on iTunes and Apple Podcasts.
• Follow Sustainability in Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube

Editor’s Note: This episode originally aired on February 16. 2022.

The post Classic Sustainability In Your Ear: Ecosia.org’s Christian Kroll on Planting Trees With Every Web Search appeared first on Earth911.

In 2024, the global market for eco-labeled products crossed $500 billion. Electric vehicles, bamboo toothbrushes, compostable packaging — the shelves are full of ways to shop your way to a better planet. And yet global carbon emissions hit another record high that same year, and atmospheric CO₂ now stands above 429 parts per million. Decades of research have produced a finding that the sustainability industry doesn’t want to talk about: buying green products doesn’t drive the systemic change we need. It might not even be moving the needle. That’s the core argument of Michael Maniates, an environmental social scientist and author of The Living Green Myth: The Promise and Limits of Lifestyle Environmentalism. Michael has spent more than 30 years studying why well-intentioned environmental choices at the checkout line fail to add up to real-world emissions reductions, and what kinds of action actually do. In this episode of Sustainability In Your Ear, he makes the case that the most powerful thing an eco-conscious person can do isn’t swap their products. It’s to become an active citizen.

The resulting cycle has a name in Michael’s framework: the trinity of despair. Earnest effort. Negligible impact. Creeping anxiety that we can’t turn the corner. People try hard, see little result, feel guilty when they can’t maintain perfection, and eventually burn out — or conclude that meaningful change requires getting every single person on board first. He is a sharp critic of what sociologist Elizabeth Shove has called the ABC model of social change: shift Attitudes, change Behavior, and better Choices will follow. It’s the backbone of most sustainability communications — and, he argues, it’s empirically fragile. Pro-environmental attitudes don’t reliably produce pro-environmental behavior. Yet the model persists in education, marketing, and environmental organizing alike. Why does it keep coming back? Maniates identifies two reasons. First, it’s deeply embedded in the educational system. Second, it sanitizes a genuinely gnarly problem of power and politics into a communication challenge: if we just get more information out there, people will make better choices. That framing shifts blame onto consumers, hides the structural drivers of high-carbon living, and makes life easier for politicians who don’t want to touch the structural stuff.

Find Michael Maniates’ work, including his email to ask your direct questions, at michaelmaniates.com. His book, Consumption Corridors: Living a Good Life Within Sustainable Limits is available as a free download. The Living Green Myth: The Promise and Limits of Lifestyle Environmentalism was published in November 2025 by Polity Press.

• Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
• Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube

Interview Transcript

Mitch Ratcliffe  0:00

Hello, good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are on this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society, and I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation. Today we’re going to explore how to have a genuine green impact — whether that stops at making small changes or must involve active political engagement. In 2024, the global market for eco-labeled products crossed the $500 billion mark. Sales of reusable water bottles hit $10 billion. Plant-based meat alternatives, electric vehicles, bamboo toothbrushes, compostable phone cases — the shelves are groaning with ways for conscientious consumers to buy their way to a better planet.

And yet global carbon emissions still hit another record high that same year. The concentration of atmospheric CO₂ passed 427 parts per million, and it currently stands at 429 parts per million as I speak. Microplastics are turning up in human brain tissue. So the gap between what we’re buying and what’s actually changing has never been wider — and that gap is exactly where our guest today has spent his career.

Michael Maniates is an environmental social scientist, a senior fellow with the Story of Stuff project, and the author of The Living Green Myth: The Promise and Limits of Lifestyle Environmentalism, published by Polity Press in November 2025. He’s also the co-author of Consumption Corridors: Living a Good Life Within Sustainable Limits. Before that, he spent more than 30 years teaching environmental studies at Allegheny College, Oberlin College, and the Yale-NUS College in Singapore, where he was the inaugural head of the Environmental Studies program. Right now he’s writing a new book called Stop Wasting Time: Four Paths to Deep Sustainability in Higher Education.

Michael’s central argument is provocative and well-evidenced: the story that we’ve been told about saving the planet through better consumer choices — what sociologist Elizabeth Shove has labeled the ABC model, for Attitudes, Behavior, and Choices — is empirically fragile and strategically dangerous. Decades of research document what scholars call the attitude-behavior gap and the behavior-impact gap. Pro-environmental attitudes don’t reliably produce pro-environmental behavior, and when they do, the aggregate impact on emissions is in most cases negligible.

Michael calls the resulting cycle of earnest effort, negligible impact, and our creeping anxiety that we can’t turn the corner the “trinity of despair.” He proposes a framework of minimum and maximum consumption standards — a floor below which no one should fall, and a ceiling above which individual consumption begins to destroy others’ chances at a good life — and those should be arrived at through democratic deliberation, not expert decree.

Now at Earth911, we publish a lot of green living advice every day: how to recycle, reduce food waste, choose better products, compost, fix what you have, make it last longer. We also consistently urge our audience to engage their elected representatives at every level, because we’ve long recognized that individual action without systemic change only salves individual concerns without actually moving the societal needle on climate. Michael’s research is a sharper version of that perspective, and I invited him to talk with you all because we want every person who reads Earth911 to have the greatest possible impact. If the social science says there are more effective places to invest our environmental energy alongside our daily choices, we want to understand where those places are and how we can get there. Open minds, try more ideas — and trying more ideas is how we will eventually get to less waste overall.

You can find Michael and his work at michaelmaniates.com — that’s all one word, no space, no dash. So is the living green story we’ve been telling ourselves helping us, or standing between us and the systemic changes we actually need? Let’s find out right after this quick commercial break.

Mitch Ratcliffe  4:26

Welcome to the show, Michael. How are you doing today?

Michael Maniates  4:28

I’m doing great, Mitch. Thank you so much for having me.

Well, thank you for joining me. Your work is fascinating, and I can appreciate the challenge of trying to speak to people who want to do the right thing but are not necessarily taking all the steps they need to in order to enact change in the world. So I want to start with a basic question. You don’t argue that making small changes in lifestyle or embracing green products isn’t making a difference — but that it isn’t enough. What is your advice for having a genuine positive impact on the environment?

Yeah, I think buying green and living lean — which is something that so many of us do — can make a difference in our lives for a whole host of reasons. It can help us be more aware of our surroundings. It can help us walk our talk. It often helps us protect our families or friends from toxins, especially if we’re big users of organic foods. But what it can’t do, despite what we often hear as consumers or what we may sometimes say as marketers, is drive that fundamental social transformation for sustainability.

There are a whole lot of reasons for that — reasons I describe in my book, and that others have called out as well. The impact of these green gestures is too small. They don’t deliver meaningful, consistent benefits. What benefits do arise are quickly swamped by expanding economic growth. And oftentimes, the changes we really need to be making just aren’t for sale. So our ability as consumers to drive those changes is difficult at best.

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. That means working with others, where and when we can, to try to shift everyday patterns of life in genuinely sustainable directions, so that acting sustainably becomes, as entrepreneur Paul Hawken once said, natural and normal — as easy as falling off a log — rather than the product of intentionally virtuous acts that are often difficult to sustain. This is really a call for community connection, for becoming a citizen-expert in a particular issue, drawing on one’s own expertise and working with others to try to create new ways of living.

Mitch Ratcliffe  7:01

That suggests that the first step is really to see yourself as part of a system. You use vivid metaphors — like “it’s the maze, not the mouse” — and thinking about it from that perspective, how do you suggest someone make that transition? Let’s say somebody who currently invests their environmental energy toward purchases. How should they transform that into a broader, more meaningful response?

Michael Maniates  7:31

Well, it could be — and I do not want to in any way denigrate people’s efforts as consumers. I came up as an energy guy and helped run a community energy project for many years in a small Rust Belt town in Pennsylvania. But at the end of the day, lots of these issues are beyond our ability to address as consumers.

What it really depends on, as I argue in this little book I’ve written, is that one needs to identify where one’s passion is. Let’s say your passion is energy. You’ve outfitted your house, you’re using all the best appliances, maybe you’ve got some solar panels on the roof — you’re doing what you can as an individual consumer. But to really make a difference, to get at that playing field that’s fundamentally tilted toward fossil fuels and an expansionist carbon-emitting economy, it does mean trying to find like-minded people. That can be in your own community, it can be at the national level, it can be networked globally.

The task is to find those people and then begin to experiment — often in your own community initially, but perhaps beyond that — to try to shift subsidies, taxes, the default settings of everyday society. To begin to shift the maze, if you will, rather than blaming individuals for being insufficiently educated or having bad values. I have a chapter in my book titled “Why Environmentalists Don’t Get Invited to Parties.” Nobody wants to have their finger wagged at them.

The goal is to begin to think about how to re-jigger everyday life so that we unconsciously act sustainably, even when we don’t realize it, because that’s just how things are set up.

Mitch Ratcliffe  9:51

I’m put in mind of Neo starting to see the Matrix and then being able to interact with and really change it. Your background is interesting — you ran a yogurt shop in Berkeley before becoming an academic, and you worked for Amory Lovins and later Pacific Gas and Electric. How has that non-academic career arc shaped the way you think about systemic change versus individual virtue?

Michael Maniates  10:17

I came up as an adult in the environmental movement in the mid-to-late ’70s as an undergraduate student at Berkeley. My first job, before going to Pacific Gas and Electric, was working for Amory Lovins in San Francisco — for the International Project for Soft Energy Paths.

This tension between systemic change and individual virtue — as I recall it in the late ’70s and early ’80s, they were actually one and the same. Individual virtue around the environment involved brainstorming with others, maybe over coffee or a beer, about how to work together to shift change. There were no green products really to purchase back then. Enacting your environmental concerns as a consumer just wasn’t on the table.

This separation of individual virtue in the checkout line versus thinking about systemic change begins to emerge in the late ’80s, and I think it’s fully entrenched now — to the point where what we’re really looking at is not so much a crisis of democracy but a lack of familiarity with the arts of citizenship. Now we typically don’t know our neighbors. We’re on our devices. We tend to be more isolated. The whole ecosystem of groups that folks might have joined — from the PTA to bowling leagues — has atrophied.

What I’m really calling for, as others are as well, is a reinvigoration of community connection. These days, around environmental issues, the most prominent environmental story is often “get off the grid, take care of yourself, and shut down.” And surveys show that actively pursuing green behaviors often demobilizes people in terms of their civic engagement.

Mitch Ratcliffe  12:59

That seems so counterintuitive — but what you’re saying suggests that we’ve simply oriented ourselves toward ourselves rather than toward the rest of the system we live in, at least around environmental issues.

Michael Maniates  13:14

This really begins to take hold in the mid-to-late ’80s. By ’89 or ’90, the number of consumer goods on the shelf with a “buy this and save the world” green pitch had doubled — and then it doubled again in ’92. And that led us into this isolated, take-care-of-yourself perspective.

Now my students — and folks older than them — find that the easiest way to imagine acting on the environment is by buying green products, and perhaps feeling guilty when they slide off that path of perfection, because you just can’t be perfect.

In the mid-to-late ’80s and early ’90s, I was convinced that if you could just get people to screw in an energy-efficient light bulb today, they’d become energy activists tomorrow. But what academics and marketers both have discovered is that if you come to environmental issues as a consumer first, there is a strong tendency to believe you’ve done your bit by buying green — and so there’s no need to engage in the messier business of meeting new people and trying to find a group to work with. It also separates you from the collective. Political scientists call these “solidarity benefits” — you don’t really get that when you screw in a light bulb.

And finally, this is where my survey and interview work has added something to the literature: if you try to save the world in your own small way through these acts of environmental stewardship, it can lead you to the conclusion that social change happens when you get everybody on board. Because if we’re saving the world through the cumulative effect of small consumption acts, in order to have any appreciable impact, you’ve got to get a lot of people on board. But this view — that you need large majorities before you can drive change — is empirically untrue. That’s not at all how social change happens. In reality, you need 10, 15, 20 percent working strategically, and you’re off to the races.

Mitch Ratcliffe  17:06

In fact, I’ve seen research that suggests that if you get to 3.5 percent, you’re well on your way.

Michael Maniates  17:12

Exactly. And I share a variety of these reports and data with students — smart, committed, passionate students both in the US and in Singapore — and they are stunned. They never really got this in their education.

I can appreciate that, because I have an eight-year-old son who, just yesterday for a school assignment, was instructed to write an essay about how we need to reduce our use of single-use plastics in the household in order to address the microplastics problem. But if we really want to get at the microplastics problem, it probably requires some set of agreements on production and on the creation of alternatives, which is beyond what households can drive with their consumption choices. We drive that as citizens, not consumers.

Mitch Ratcliffe  18:47

The activism you’re describing is interesting to me because I was involved in early privacy discussions and the founding of the Electronic Frontier Foundation — and the EFF made a very conscious decision to focus on thought leadership and not build a broad constituency. That seems to be the modern approach many activist organizations take. How do you recommend an individual engage with companies, or conversely, companies engage with individuals, in order to begin to influence policy? For instance, to reduce the incidence of microplastics?

Michael Maniates  19:14

Well, I don’t think there’s a recipe. I teach a course on this, and the first thing we discuss is that there really are no hard-and-fast recipes in the policy sciences for how to translate one’s own energy — whether that’s an individual or an organization — into policy change.

That said, I think there are first principles. We know that people become engaged as citizens when they identify with groups that are pushing the ball downfield. They engage when there’s a moral claim or a sense of injustice. And they engage when there is some sense that there’s a goal that can be realized and they can be part of reaching it. When you get those three things together, it is like magic.

So with that in mind, individual businesses and entrepreneurs want to be thinking: What problem are we actually trying to solve? And they want to stay completely clear of any narrative that says “engage with my product, get all your friends to do it, and the cumulative effect will be transformative change” — because that kind of narrative propagates a theory of social change that can be debilitating. They need to think about whether there are stakeholder groups they can point people toward, whether there are ways to educate their consumers to think more strategically. I’ll give you one example from the book, which is IKEA.

Michael Maniates  22:22

IKEA does a lot of survey work and publishes the results. In their most recent report, they identified that the two primary reasons people buy green at IKEA are to save money and to drive change. Now, I’m okay with the saving-money part. It’s the “process of social change” framing that I think gets pretty wonky.

What I would say to IKEA is: if you think the problem is climate change, then don’t sell your consumers this living green myth — the idea that they’re part of change by doing these small things. Instead, begin to think strategically about how you can provide information with each purchase, or how through email memberships you can direct people to organizations doing good work, or how you can create a community conversation at the local IKEA store on a Saturday morning — feed everybody a free breakfast and talk about how we try to make a difference in our community.

Mitch Ratcliffe  23:42

I mean, Swedish hot dogs — just bring them in.

Michael Maniates  23:45

Or those meatballs would be awesome. But if you really want your commercial enterprise to drive a difference rather than just fatten the bottom line, then you need to be thinking about those kinds of things. There’s no guarantee it’ll succeed, but you’ve got to be committed to it.

Mitch Ratcliffe  24:16

What you’re describing is, in a way, movement marketing. And you’re a critic of the ABC model of social change — shift Attitudes, change Behavior, and you get better Choices. Why does it keep coming back? What’s the shift we need to make in our thinking?

Michael Maniates  24:38

Sociologists have been scratching their heads for some time about why this ABC model persists. It has been shown again and again, at least around environmental issues, to be woefully inadequate. Education doesn’t reliably lead to changes in attitudes. Changes in attitudes more often than not don’t lead to behavior change, especially if you’re in an environment that privileges a particular way of living. And even if you do change your behavior and make different choices, these are typically too small to make a difference.

So why does it persist? I think it’s deeply ingrained in our educational system. But more importantly, this focus on people’s attitudes and values and behaviors turns a gnarly problem around power and politics and influence into something sanitized: we just need to get more information out there. It shifts blame, hides responsibility, turns consumers into scapegoats, and makes politicians’ lives easier. You can’t blame anyone for wanting to make their life easier — but the sum total is an approach to problem-solving that just isn’t cutting it.

Mitch Ratcliffe  27:03

Well, the maze is showing signs of stress, and you were relating that you’re in Abu Dhabi today. Tell me what happened in the neighborhood. How do you see the old system — the maze — falling apart?

Michael Maniates  27:16

There are always going to be cracks. We live in complex systems, and these systems have emergent properties. Things happen, opportunities arise. What we see now with the escalation of energy prices is a renewed interest in renewables, EVs, and other possibilities, and a reminder that we remain dependent on the Middle East for oil, directly or indirectly.

My argument all along is that if people are looking for these opportunities — these cracks in the maze — they’ll be surprised at how many they see in their community, their state and nation, and in the world. My concern is that if we’re too busy trying to figure out the best sustainable product to buy, we’re not looking for these larger possibilities.

The systems we live in are actually less stable and less permanent than they seem. Which I think invites all of us to ask: What am I most interested in? Is it food? Is it energy? Is it transportation? And then, how can I begin working with others to figure out where the cracks in the wall are, and try some new things?

There’s probably nothing more rewarding than working in common for the common good. Working with others isn’t always a lovely experience, but more often than not, people will tell you that some of the best experiences of their lives have been joining with others to try to make things happen. It’s that joy of participation, that joy that comes with citizenship, that I’ve tried to talk up as a way of inspiring people to look for action as citizens, rather than as consumers.

Mitch Ratcliffe  31:44

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Let’s return to my conversation with Michael Maniates. He’s the author of The Living Green Myth. Michael, before we continue, I want to ask about something you said in the last segment — it sounds like you’re saying that saving money from energy or water efficiency innovations on offer at places like IKEA isn’t necessarily a good thing. Can you break that down for us?

Michael Maniates  32:14

Yeah, I don’t mean to sound dismissive of energy or water efficiency improvements. It would be crazy to argue for a more inefficient system. The point is simply that increased efficiency in resource use almost always produces, over time, greater consumption — not less — either in that resource or as increased consumption elsewhere in the economy that swamps the initial gains. Economists have called this for some time the Jevons Paradox.

When thinking back to IKEA: these resource-efficiency gains are a good thing, and they may put a little lid on consumption for a bit. But at best, that buys us time to be thinking about more fundamental transformations — ones that hardwire reduced material throughput in the economy and give us higher standards of living and better environmental outcomes.

Mitch Ratcliffe  34:05

You propose both a floor — a minimum consumption necessary to live a good life — and a ceiling, the maximum at which one’s choices begin to destroy others’ opportunity to make similar choices. The floor sounds easy to sell. How do you make the case for an upper limit in societies that treat unlimited consumption as synonymous with freedom?

Michael Maniates  34:32

That’s the million-dollar question. You’re referring to the book Consumption Corridors, published back in 2021 and available as a free download from the University of Münster. This idea of a corridor — a minimum and a maximum — is moving forward, particularly in Europe, especially around housing and transportation.

The argument isn’t, right off the bat, an environmental one. It says: if we want to pursue the good life — to know we’re living the best life we can in a way that doesn’t hurt other people — then most people would be down with that. No one rolls out of bed in the morning wanting to be complicit in environmental degradation or in making life awful for others.

To your question about how to talk about limits without sounding like you’re taking away people’s freedom: the first thing I’ve learned is that you just need to remind people of what they already know. I have a limit on the amount of chocolate I eat each day or the amount of wine I drink each week — I know if I exceed that limit, it’s not going to be great. My son wants more screen time than I allow him. So I think we’re all kind of aware of that already.

The task is then helping people — as facilitators, not as policymakers talking down to them — begin to think about how floors and ceilings in particular contexts might actually make everybody’s life better. Limits on vacation properties in housing-scarce cities. Congestion pricing. Residential parking permit limits. All of these show that limits can actually help us navigate life in a way that feels just.

Mitch Ratcliffe  38:33

In a lot of ways, this is not radical at all. Adam Smith — both Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments — makes these arguments over and over.

Michael Maniates  38:43

Yes. But a lot of Americans perceive these self-imposed limits as constriction, as preventing them from exercising their full freedom. I was really taken by a David French piece in the New York Times about why Americans are so unhappy, even though they’re so rich. When you have a lot of inequality, a portion of consumption becomes relative comparison. If you see somebody else getting a better deal — he uses the example of an airplane where someone cuts the line because they’re a super-tier member — whatever you have starts to feel like not enough.

Inequality, empirically, is one of the major drivers of the overconsumption machine. And yet our level of happiness has stayed flat or declined over the last 20 to 25 years, even as per-capita consumption has risen. If we were consuming more and we were happier, at least we’d be destroying the planet with a little happiness. But that’s not happening.

This is where the consumption corridor notion comes from — which is really beginning to take off in Europe. We may not be talking about hard limits at the top, but rather a set of regulations or incentives that greatly discourage people from continuing to climb the consumption ladder. If you can do that, you begin to reduce the overall disparity in consumption levels, which can slow down this tendency to compare ourselves against one another.

Mitch Ratcliffe  42:15

I’ve been reading the philosopher Omri Boehm’s book Radical Universalism: Beyond Identity, which anchors on the idea that the recognition of personal dignity is a foundation on which society can be rebuilt inclusively. What would you suggest the foundational value we embrace as a society should be, and how would you integrate that into your relationship with customers, if you were a company?

Michael Maniates  43:07

If we were thinking about human dignity and some degree of justice that we could all sort of get behind, then I think the environmental protection piece takes care of itself to a great degree. Because so much of what we think of as environmental disruption or pollution is really the crap — whether it’s carbon, toxins, or sludge — produced by some people who are consuming a great deal and don’t see the consequences of their actions. That waste flow inevitably gets deposited on less powerful, more defenseless people.

If we take human dignity seriously, we want to create systems whereby the consequences of my consumption choices come back to me, rather than being deposited on others. Then I think that takes care of the business case as well. We don’t want to be creating what economists call “externalities” that are hidden away. Instead, we want to be thinking about modes of production and consumption that embrace circular economy thinking, and that in particular aren’t just driving the consumption machine but are embracing notions of sufficiency as much as efficiency.

Michael Maniates  44:45

Consumption Corridors argues that the minima and maxima should be designed through very deliberative democratic processes — not imposed on us — and you outline a three-stage process for doing that kind of community deliberation. Has it been tried anywhere?

Michael Maniates  45:10

That three-step process: first, pull together people who represent your community and talk about what you care about — your visions and goals for the good life. Step two: let’s think about how we get there for everybody, and that will often focus on not “What do I want?” like a McMansion, but rather “What do I actually need?” The third component is talking about what the community does to get there — through regulation, peer pressure, or taxes — in order to move us toward those goals.

In the Consumption Corridors book, this three-step process is put forward as largely aspirational. But the huge aha moment for me was around the proliferation of citizen assemblies across Europe on climate change. As of 2023, there were more than a dozen EU countries that have consistently run these assemblies — 30 to 200 people, reflecting the heterogeneity of the country, given scientific and technical advice but not told what to do by experts.

What you see again and again is that when you bring regular people together across class and ideological lines and ask “What do we care about?”, most people care about the same things: family, community, love, connection, having a meaningful life. And then when you ask “How are we going to get there?” you find a much higher degree of support for sufficiency measures than experts predict — measures that would really dampen upper-level consumption and redirect those benefits toward people at the bottom.

Mitch Ratcliffe  47:57

Do we have the right political systems or approaches to political deliberation now that we are a deeply connected planet? Could it be radically decentralized while at the same time enabled by global coordination of resources?

Michael Maniates  48:17

One thing that pains me when I travel — I still read books, look out the window, and people-watch, old-fashioned that way — is that everyone is on their devices, completely removed from the people next to them. I love chatting people up on the train or the plane or the bus, and that just doesn’t really happen much anymore.

So the task is for each of us, in our own way, to put the screen down, as I say in my book, and just join a group or a club. I’m inspired by Robert Putnam, who wrote Bowling Alone and lamented the loss of social connection. Just put that screen down, go join a group. It doesn’t need to be environmental. Just begin to develop social connections. And then, as you do that, if there are ways of connecting with eco-local initiatives — which are often networked globally but happening locally in your community — being drawn into that can open up lots of possibilities.

The systems of governance we live in have remained largely the same for the last couple of hundred years. But it’s how we have understood our role in that governance system that needs to change. If we care enough to be super-shoppers in the market for the planet, then we need to care enough to bring that energy to bear on actions that are likely going to be more effective for the planet, and in the long run, better for us.

Mitch Ratcliffe  51:04

Based on the way your students behave today — their engagement with these ideas and their approach to developing solutions — what would the world look like in 2040 if they get the resources they need to put their vision in place?

Michael Maniates  51:31

I’m going to be a little bit of a downer here, and that’s not my natural thing. I’ve never belonged to the apocalyptic camp of environmentalism. I take a page out of Kim Stanley Robinson’s book — the Hugo Award–winning sci-fi writer many of your listeners may know from The Ministry for the Future.

I was on a panel with Stan some years ago at the Worldwatch Institute, and he was making the case that whether it’s “too late” depends entirely on your time horizon. If you’re thinking about the next 10 years, the trajectory on ice loss, climate change, biodiversity erosion, and global market forces that poorly account for ecological goods and services — it’s probably going to get worse before it gets better. But if you take the long view — if you say that in four or five generations, things are going to be much better, and we understand ourselves as beginning to set in motion ideas, technologies, business practices, values, and governance systems that will bend the arc of human experience toward a peaceful coexistence with the nonhuman world — if you think of it that way, then we are blessed to be on the planet at this point.

We are in a situation where our progeny, four or five generations from now, will say: “Those people living in 2024 and 2025 — they had a lot on their plate, but despite that, they still rolled up their sleeves and got the ball rolling. They took the long view, and they made things happen.”

I don’t preach this perspective to my students, but when they come to me knowing about the trends we’re seeing converge, I share that perspective with them: hope is a verb. Make something happen, knowing that down the line, people will thank you for that.

Mitch Ratcliffe  54:42

It puts me in mind of meeting Jane Goodall, who radiated that active hope — and it’s so important to keep that in mind as we continue to move through this process of losing what we currently have, while building something that’s profoundly better. Michael, it’s been a great conversation. How can folks follow along and reach out to you?

Michael Maniates  55:20

If they want to go to my website, michaelmaniates.com, they’ll see my email information. They can also Google me. Feel free to drop me a note — it would be my pleasure to respond to folks and assist anyone with questions: regular people looking to make a difference, businesses or entrepreneurs trying to figure out what the academic literature might tell them about how to put their aspirations into tangible action, or anyone else. I’d be delighted to chat.

Mitch Ratcliffe  56:00

Well, Michael, thanks so much for your time today.

Michael Maniates  56:03

Thank you, Mitch.

Mitch Ratcliffe  56:09

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Michael Maniates. He’s an environmental social scientist, senior fellow with the Story of Stuff project, and author of The Living Green Myth: The Promise and Limits of Lifestyle Environmentalism, published by Polity Press. You can find it online at Amazon, Powell’s Books, and other fine booksellers. You can also find Michael’s work at michaelmaniates.com.

This conversation might feel uncomfortable for anyone who’s ever felt kind of proud while recycling — and I include myself in that group. Michael has spent decades looking at the evidence and has reached a conclusion that many in the sustainability community avoid: changing consumer behavior alone is not an effective environmental strategy. Aspiration is not enough. Real impact requires action combined with policy to create widespread change. In other words, you have to redesign society, not just start rebuilding it from the inside. We actually have to do both.

Global carbon emissions reached another high in 2024, and atmospheric CO₂ at this moment is at more than 429 parts per million — even with a $500 billion market for eco-labeled products, the climate trends have not improved. Michael explains that this is not because people lack the right values. The real issue is the system, not the people. The maze, not the mouse.

Europeans tend to act more sustainably because they live in cities with good public transit and strong recycling programs — in other words, the maze is configured for sustainability. By contrast, Americans live in a system that makes sustainable choices harder, and yet they’re still blamed for their decisions when they don’t make the right ones. So they’re caught in a kind of double bind.

Michael points to what he calls the deepest failure: the fact that people put in real effort, then see little impact, and feel growing anxiety as the gap between effort and results remains wide open. The reason this gap remains is the belief at the heart of consumer sustainability — the idea that if enough people make the right purchase, their choices will add up to real change. Michael’s research shows that this idea is not supported by evidence. It leads to burnout and distracts from the more effective work of active citizenship.

Michael’s argument isn’t that individual action is worthless. It’s that individual action in community with others, oriented toward shifting what he calls the default settings of everyday life, is more powerful than individual action in the checkout line alone. Social change research consistently shows that committed minorities of 10 to 20 percent of a population, working strategically, can drive structural transformation. What keeps that full potential from being realized is the competing narrative that you need super-majorities and overwhelming consensus before anything can change — a theory that conveniently lets the system off the hook while exhausting everyone who’s trying to change it.

The Consumption Corridors framework — built on democratic deliberation over the floor below which no one should fall and the ceiling above which individual consumption begins to compromise everyone else’s opportunity — may sound radical until you notice where it’s already happening: congestion pricing, vacation home restrictions, residential parking permit limits. Citizen assemblies in more than a dozen European countries have repeatedly shown that when ordinary people cross class and ideological lines to discuss what they actually care about, they tend to converge on the same things — family, community, connection, and a decent life — and with that in common, they tend to produce stronger sufficiency measures than experts predict.

Michael’s closing thoughts stuck with me: in four or five generations, people are going to look back and wonder if those of us who understood the stakes actually took action. Kim Stanley Robinson’s view — that it’s not too late if we think in terms of generations instead of the decades immediately ahead — this kind of hope can become real, not just a slogan, because long-term thinking always asks us to do more, not less. And that’s why human society makes progress.

So stay tuned. We’re going to keep talking with thinkers and doers who are rewriting the rules of what’s possible. And I hope in the meantime you’ll take a look at the archive of more than 550 episodes of Sustainability In Your Ear and share a few of them with your friends. Take some action. Write a review on your favorite podcast platform — that will help your neighbors find us. Because folks, you’re the amplifiers that can spread more ideas to create less waste.

Please tell your friends, family, co-workers, and the people you meet on the street that they can find Sustainability In Your Ear on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or whatever purveyor of podcast goodness they prefer. Thank you for your support. I’m Mitch Ratcliffe. This is Sustainability In Your Ear, and we will be back with another innovator interview soon. In the meantime, folks, take care of yourself, take care of one another, and let’s all take care of this beautiful planet of ours. Have a Green Day.

The post Sustainability In Your Ear: Author Michael Maniates on Why Green Shopping Isn’t Enough appeared first on Earth911.

Subscribe to receive transcripts by email. Read along with this episode.

What if the solution to the retail industry’s $890 billion returns crisis wasn’t better logistics, but better logic? Disney Petit, founder and CEO of Liquidonate, is proving that the most sustainable return skips the trip back to a warehouse and goes directly to a community in need. Americans returned nearly 17% of all retail purchases last year, generating 2.6 million tons of landfill waste and 16 million tons of CO2 emissions. Each return costs retailers between $25 and $35 to process, yet 52% of consumers admit to participating in return fraud at least once. Petit witnessed this broken system firsthand as employee number 15 at Postmates, where she built the customer service team and created Civic Labs, the company’s social responsibility arm. Her food security product Bento, which allowed people without smartphones to access free food via text message, won Time Magazine’s 2021 Invention of the Year Award. Now Liquidonate has earned recognition as one of Time’s Best Inventions of 2025.

Liquidonate integrates directly with retailers’ existing warehouse and return management systems. When a product comes back and can’t be resold—open box, slightly damaged, or simply unwanted—the platform automatically matches it with a local nonprofit or school that needs it. “It’s the same reverse logistics workflow they already use,” Petit explains. “It’s just redirected toward community good instead of going to the landfill.” The platform handles everything: shipping labels, pickup coordination, and tax documentation so retailers can write off donations. Retailers recover logistics costs through tax benefits while communities receive quality products, and millions of pounds of goods stay out of landfills.

To date, retailers using Liquidonate have diverted over 12 million items from landfills, working with more than 4,000 nonprofits across the country. Liquidonate also tackles return fraud by eliminating “keep it” returns, when customers claim they want to return something but are told to keep the item and still receive a refund. “One hundred percent of the time we’re producing a shipping label for a nonprofit who wants that product,” Petit says. “We completely eliminate that keep-it return option, so we eliminate the returns fraud option.” With $900 billion worth of inventory potentially available for redirection, Petit approaches the business through the lens of environmental justice, building a for-profit company designed to prove that doing good and doing well aren’t mutually exclusive—they’re interdependent.

Nonprofits and schools can sign up for free at liquidonate.com. Retailers interested in partnering can reach out to partners@liquidonate.com.

• Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
• Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube

Editor’s Note: This episode originally aired on November 17, 2025.

The post Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Liquidonate CEO Disney Petit On Solving The Retail Returns Crisis appeared first on Earth911.

40 pounds of paper towels per American per year. The United States is the world’s most committed buyer of single-use towels, by a margin no other country approaches. Americans alone consume nearly half of all paper towels produced globally, and Europeans use roughly 50 percent fewer than we do.

Paper towels, facial tissues, toilet paper, and napkins together make up a quietly enormous share of American household disposable spending and a startlingly large share of global forest pulp demand. The U.S. uses about 13 billion pounds of paper towels each year, and producing them consumes roughly 110 million trees and 130 billion gallons of water.

The financial cost lands quietly on households, in $5 four-packs and $20 jumbo packs that add up to hundreds of dollars annually. The environmental cost lands somewhere else entirely: the boreal forest of Canada.

What 13 Billion Pounds Looks Like at Home

The average American household spends meaningfully more than the headline average suggests. Statista’s 2022 data put per-consumer-unit spending on cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels, and napkins at $114.41. Paper towel users spend closer to $200 per year on disposable towels alone, with many families spending $400 or more. Toilet paper adds another $182 per year on average per household, with that figure rising during and after the pandemic.

Add facial tissues, napkins, and the kitchen-roll runs that don’t show up in pantry inventory, and a typical American family is spending $400 to $700 a year on products designed to be used once and thrown away. Over an adult lifetime, the math compounds: roughly $10,500 on paper towels and $9,500 on tissues per person. Think about that in relation to your monthly salary the next time you shop.

The volume side is just as striking. Americans throw out roughly 3,000 tons of paper towels every single day. Used paper towels can’t be recycled because they’re contaminated with food, grease, cleaning chemicals, or simply too short-fibered after one use, so essentially all of that volume goes to landfill or incineration. EPA’s most recent breakdown shows tissue paper and towels accounting for 3.8 million tons of municipal solid waste, or about 1.3 percent of total MSW generation. While that is a small percentage of total trash, it is a large percentage of single-use, single-purpose throwaway products.

The Boreal Forest Connection

Most of the trees used to make American at-home tissue products come from the Canadian boreal forest, one of the largest intact forest ecosystems on Earth and a globally significant carbon sink. Clear-cut logging for tissue manufacturing now consumes more than one million acres of boreal forest each year, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

These forests store roughly twice as much carbon per acre as tropical rainforests. Each clear-cut releases that carbon and degrades habitat for boreal caribou, billions of migratory birds, and Indigenous communities whose traditional territories overlap with logging concessions.

The NRDC has tracked the paper products supply chain for six years through its Issue with Tissue scorecard, and the 2024 edition shows real movement at the top of the rankings — and continued failure at the bottom.

P&G’s continued reliance on virgin pulp for its flagship at-home brands matters because Charmin, Bounty, and Puffs together command a substantial share of the U.S. retail market. The grade isn’t an abstraction; it tracks the proportion of each brand’s fiber that comes from intact, climate-critical forests rather than recycled content or alternative sources like wheat straw.

Why “Tree-Free” Doesn’t Always Mean “Impact-Free”

Bamboo tissue has become the most visible alternative to virgin pulp in U.S. retail, and it is meaningfully better than virgin forest fiber on most environmental metrics. It is not, however, the most sustainable option available — recycled content is.

NRDC’s hierarchy puts 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper at the top: it requires no new fiber, diverts paper from landfills, uses about 15 gallons of water per roll, and has the lowest carbon footprint. Bamboo uses about 25 gallons of water per roll, requires more processing, and carries a real risk of being grown on land that was previously primary forest, a problem the FSC certification system is meant to address, but which still requires consumers to read labels carefully.

Recycled-content paper towels are widely available, including from Seventh Generation, Marcal, and Trader Joe’s, and they perform competitively with virgin towels for most household uses. The case for switching is straightforward: same function, lower cost over time when bought in bulk, and dramatically lower environmental impact.

What You Can Do

The interventions here are unusually high-leverage at the household level, because per-capita consumption in the U.S. is so far above the baseline of comparable countries.

Replace the highest-volume product first:

• Switch out paper towels for washable cloth towels, microfiber rags, or bar mops for an estimated 80 percent of household uses. Keep a small roll of recycled-content paper towels for genuinely unpleasant tasks ( like wiping up after raw meat, pet accidents, or automotive work.
• Choose 100 percent post-consumer recycled toilet paper brands when available (Seventh Generation, Marcal, Who Gives A Crap recycled line, ARIA). If recycled isn’t available, FSC-certified bamboo is a strong second choice.
• Replace paper napkins with cloth. A set of 12 cotton napkins costs roughly the equivalent of two months of paper napkin spending and lasts for years.

The math on switching is more favorable than the sticker price suggests. Who Gives A Crap’s recycled toilet paper subscription runs roughly $1.03 to $1.29 per double-length roll, comparable to or below mainstream supermarket pricing per sheet. The premium framing of “eco-friendly” tissue products often reflects packaging and marketing more than per-use cost.

Push retailers and manufacturers:

• The NRDC tissue scorecard is updated annually and is the single best public reference for which brands deserve which share of the market.
• Retailer pressure has worked: the 2024 scorecard shows movement at Kimberly-Clark and Georgia-Pacific in direct response to consumer and shareholder advocacy.
• For the cardboard tubes and outer packaging, Earth911’s recycling search tool confirms local acceptance; most curbside programs take them, but not all.

Don’t flush, rinse

A modest bidet attachment costs $30 to $80, installs without a plumber on most U.S. toilets, and reduces toilet paper consumption by an estimated 75% or more in households that use it consistently. The water cost of a bidet is roughly an eighth of a gallon per use, vastly less than the embedded water in the toilet paper it replaces.

Paper-product consumption is one of the few household waste categories where a typical American family can cut its environmental and financial footprint by half or more with relatively small behavior changes. The leverage is unusually direct.

The post Paper Towels, Tissues, and Napkins: America’s 13 Billion-Pound Waste Habit appeared first on Earth911.

Americans throw out 81.5 pounds of clothing a year; two-thirds of it ends up in landfills. That’s no accident—it’s a fast fashion design principle that many have embraced.

A December 2024 U.S. Government Accountability Office report found that textile waste grew by more than 50 percent from 2000 to 2018, while federal agencies still lack a coordinated strategy. As a result, consumers seeking sustainable options carry the burden of finding responsible brands.

Look good and reduce your footprint—you don’t have to choose. The brands below carry recognized certifications, use lower-impact materials, and often sell via Amazon. We’ve updated this list since 2021 to reflect brands still delivering and those raising the bar.

Throughout this list, you’ll see references to GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard), Fair Trade Certified, and SA8000. GOTS covers the entire supply chain from farm to finished garment, requiring organic fibers and strict environmental and social standards. Fair Trade and SA8000 focus on worker wages, safety, and conditions. These aren’t marketing claims, they require third-party audits.

This article contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase through these links, we may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. This supports our independent work but does not influence our recommendations or coverage.

1. Pact — GOTS-Certified Organic Cotton Basics and Dresses

Pact offers women a strong foundation for building a sustainable wardrobe. Each garment is crafted from GOTS-certified organic cotton in Fair Trade Certified factories, with certifications updated as recently as 2025. The brand partners with SimpliZero to measure and offset the carbon footprint of individual products, investing in reforestation and renewable energy.

Their organic cotton process uses 81% less water and 62% less energy than conventional cotton farming, a meaningful difference given that a single conventional cotton T-shirt typically requires around 2,700 liters of water to produce.

Standout Pact picks on Amazon:

• The Pact Organic Cotton Women’s Ruffled Maxi Dress is made from 100% organic cotton double gauze and is machine washable.
• Pact’s Organic Cotton Women’s Fit & Flare Halter Dress, which features 95% organic cotton and 5% elastane
• The Organic Cotton Women’s Lightweight Jacket, featuring 97% organic cotton, is a great layering piece.
• Check out Pact’s Organic Cotton Women’s Gauze Wide Leg Pantsmade from 100% organic cotton with a smocked elastic waistband

2. Girlfriend Collective — Recycled Activewear with Radical Transparency

Seattle-based Girlfriend Collective leads in sustainable activewear. Its fabrics are made from post-consumer plastic bottles, fishing nets, and fabric scraps. They are OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certified and BPA-free, making them safer if they end up in a landfill. The brand uses eco-friendly dyes and provides washing bags with each purchase to help reduce microfiber pollution.

On the labor side, Girlfriend Collective holds SA8000 certification, which independently verifies safe working conditions and fair wages. They also run ReGirlfriend, a take-back and recycling program that gives you store credit for returning worn-out pieces. That circular loop — buy, wear, return, recycle — is still rare in activewear.

The brand carries sizes XXS to 6XL and has an Amazon storefront with frequently updated inventory.

Standout picks:

• Girlfriend Collective High-Rise Skort is crafted from recycled polyester sourced from certified post-consumer plastic bottles and features useful hidden pockets.
• Browse Girlfriend Collective’s full Amazon store for leggings, sports bras, and shorts.

3. Eileen Fisher — Circular Fashion and B Corp Commitment

If any brand embodies “timeless,” it’s Eileen Fisher. Since 2013, the company has championed circularity through its Renew take-back program—one of the longest-running garment recycling efforts in American fashion. Send back your worn Eileen Fisher pieces, and they’re cleaned, repaired, and resold or upcycled into new textiles.

As of 2025, 75% of Eileen Fisher’s products use lower-emissions or certified materials, including organic linen, organic cotton, regenerative wool, TENCEL lyocell, and deadstock fabric. The brand holds certifications from GOTS, GRS (Global Recycled Standard), RWS (Responsible Wool Standard), Bluesign, and FSC. It’s also a certified B Corp with published emissions targets.

Eileen Fisher acknowledges it is not currently on track to hit its science-based emissions reduction targets. That’s a candid admission that distinguishes genuine transparency from greenwashing. Their organic linen and TENCEL pieces are particularly durable and environmentally benign: linen requires no irrigation in most growing conditions and generates roughly a quarter of the carbon emissions per pound of fiber as conventional cotton.

Eileen Fisher sells direct at eileenfisher.com with free shipping on U.S. orders.

4. Reformation — Carbon-Tracked Dresses and Recycled Cashmere

Los Angeles-based Reformation publishes quarterly sustainability reports that break down water, energy, and carbon footprint per product — a level of granularity that almost no other fashion brand offers. Their key fabrics include TENCEL™ Lyocell, produced in a closed-loop system that recycles 99% of its non-toxic solvent, low-irrigation linen, and Forest Stewardship Council-certified viscose.

In late 2024, Reformation launched its first 100% recycled cashmere sweater line — a blend of 95% recycled cashmere and 5% recycled wool. The brand reports these sweaters produce 96% less carbon and require 89% less water than conventional cashmere. That’s a significant claim, and the brand backs it with third-party verification.

Reformation also partners with ThredUp and Poshmark so you can resell verified purchases directly through those platforms. It also offers a take-back program for Ref sweaters, shoes, denim, and outerwear.

Reformation sells direct at thereformation.com.

5. Amour Vert — Made in California, Plant a Tree With Every Tee

Amour Vert (“green love” in French) produces 97% of its garments in California, collaborating with mills to create signature sustainable fabrics such as beechwood modal, GOTS-certified cotton, OEKO-TEX silk, TENCEL, and cupro from cotton waste. The brand recycles nearly all byproducts at its factories.

For every T-shirt purchased, Amour Vert plants a tree in North America through its partnership with American Forests, and has planted more than 220,000 trees to date. Products are made in small batches to limit overproduction, and the brand offers an upcycled clothing collection that transforms discarded materials into new pieces.

Key pieces for the Spring and Summer of 2026 include:

• Victoire Wide Leg Pants feature organic cotton and a TENCEL blend, a versatile year-round foundation for your look.
• The Verona Blazer is made from organic cotton and TENCEL to deliver an office-appropriate, seasonless look.
• The Sloan Skirt uses TENCEL from sustainably sourced wood pulp to provide moisture-wicking comfort.

6. Warp + Weft — Size-Inclusive Denim Under $100

A traditional pair of jeans takes roughly 1,500 gallons of water to produce. Warp + Weft, a family-owned brand, produces jeans using less than 10 gallons of water. By operating a vertically integrated denim mill, Warp + Weft controls every step: utilizing onsite solar panels, a heat recovery system, recycling and treating 98% of water used, and employing dry ozone technology instead of chemical bleaching.

The brand is fully size-inclusive (through 3X for women), and prices stay under $100. Their compliance with International Social and Environmental & Quality Standards is auditable, not self-reported. Warp + Weft has expanded from denim into matching sets, tops, and jackets, making it easier to build a full outfit around their sustainable denim base.

Shop at warpweftworld.com and Amazon.

7. Karen Kane — Ethical Production and TENCEL Chambray

Karen Kane stands out for its transparent, energy-efficient operations, including LA-based manufacturing, hangar reuse, and sustainable fabric initiatives. The Asymmetric Hem Wrap Top, a signature design, is crafted from 100% TENCEL soft chambray made with FSC-certified wood pulp. This closed-loop process recaptures and reuses solvents, greatly reducing chemical waste compared to traditional rayon methods.

Karen Kane offers a broader range of wardrobe essentials beyond the wrap top, and its women’s collection is available on itssite and select Amazon listings.

8. Mango — Organic Denim and a Declared Sustainability Road Map

Mango is a larger brand, which warrants more scrutiny, but it can also make a positive impact through its environmental commitments. The brand publicly committed to using 100% organic cotton and 50% recycled polyester by 2025, and 100% cellulose fibers with verified sustainable origins by 2030. Their organic cotton pieces, including several denim options, are genuinely certified organic, meaning no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers are used in cultivation.

Mango describes its sustainability journey as ongoing, and it is. Organic cotton still requires significant water input, and a large global retailer faces supply chain complexity that smaller brands avoid. Good On You rates the brand as making progress but “Not Good Enough.” That said, Mango’s organic denim line is worth considering for shoppers who want accessible price points alongside high-quality materials. Organic Mango pieces are available through mango.com.

What You Can Do To Lower Your Impact

Individual purchasing choices alone won’t fix a 17-million-ton textile waste problem. But they shape markets, and markets respond. Here’s how to shop with more impact:

• Look for GOTS, Fair Trade Certified, or B Corp status. These require third-party audits, not just brand claims.
• Prioritize longevity. A $90 Eileen Fisher linen shirt, worn 200 times, has a far lower footprint than a $20 fast-fashion top, worn 7.
• When you’re done with clothes, resell on ThredUP, Poshmark, or TheRealReal before donating. Secondhand marketplaces keep clothing in circulation longer.
• Use Earth911’s recycling search to find textile recycling options in your area. Only about 15% of U.S. textiles are currently recycled.
• Check takeback programs before you throw anything out. Eileen Fisher Renew, Girlfriend Collective’s ReGirlfriend, and Reformation’s takeback initiative all exist for exactly this reason.

The post 8 Sustainable Women’s Fashion Brands for Spring & Summer 2026 appeared first on Earth911.

About 14.7 million American children under age 6 have all their parents working, so most spend their days outside the home, usually in child care. These settings have an environmental impact that many parents never notice, including diapers, food waste, cleaning products, art supplies, packaging, and the indoor air children breathe for hours each day.

Daycare is one of the most important places in a young child’s life. The habits children learn there, like how they deal with waste, connect with nature, and what they expect from their food, often come home with them. This means a daycare’s approach to sustainability matters for families, not just for the center itself. The good news is that about 70% of a typical preschool’s waste can be reused, recycled, or composted, so most centers can make big improvements without spending a lot.

This guide explains what to look for in a daycare, how to encourage changes at your child’s current center, and which areas—like diapers, food, indoor air, and outdoor time—parents can influence most.

The Footprint Nobody Talks About

Diapers are a huge part of the problem. Americans throw away about 20 billion disposable diapers each year, adding up to around 3.5 million tons of landfill waste. They are the third most common consumer item in U.S. landfills. The EPA says each diaper can take up to 500 years to break down and releases methane as it decomposes.

Food waste is also a big issue in early childhood settings. One U.S. study found that childcare programs throw away about 43% of the food they serve. A Finnish study showed that childcare centers waste more food per meal than restaurants or schools. When you add this up across thousands of centers, the loss of resources like carbon, water, and money is huge.

The largest U.S. study to measure environmental contaminants in childcare facilities found formaldehyde levels exceeded California’s chronic exposure guideline in 87% of centers tested, and indoor particulate matter exceeded 24-hour standards in nearly half. Sources include cleaning products, air fresheners, off-gassing furniture, art supplies, and pesticides used inside the building. Children, who breathe more air per pound of body weight than adults do, absorb more of the toxins they inhale. Most daycares have limited budgets and staff who are already busy. Still, small changes across many centers can make a big difference. Parents who notice these problems can help centers that want to improve but need support.ds an ally.

If You’re Still Choosing a Center

A center’s commitment to sustainability during licensing often shows how they operate every day. When you visit, ask clear questions. For example, “Do you compost food scraps?” gives you more information than asking, “Are you eco-friendly?”

Questions worth asking on a tour:

• How is food waste handled — composted, donated, or trashed?
• What cleaning products do you use, and are they third-party certified?
• How much time do children spend each day outdoors, and in what conditions?
• How are art supplies, books, and toys sourced — new each year, or rotated and shared?
• Do you have a recycling system the children participate in?
• What’s your policy on pest control and air freshening?

One credible signal to look for is the Eco-Healthy Child Care endorsement, a national program from the Children’s Environmental Health Network that has endorsed more than 1,500 facilities across the U.S., Canada, and Australia. Endorsed centers comply with at least 24 of 30 best practices covering pesticides, lead, art supplies, plastics, cleaning chemicals, and outdoor exposure. The program’s standards have been adopted by the National Association for the Education of Young Children as part of its accreditation criteria, and several states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Utah) recognize it within their quality rating systems.

If a center can’t give specific answers to your sustainability questions, that tells you something. It doesn’t mean you should rule them out, but it suggests that any green changes may need to start with parents.

If Your Child Is Already Enrolled

Begin by talking to the director, not the classroom teacher. Directors make decisions about purchases, vendors, and staff training. Bring specific suggestions instead of general concerns. For example, asking, “Would you consider switching to a third-party-certified cleaning product?” is helpful, while “Can you be greener?” is too vague.

It helps to assume the director wants to improve but faces real limits. Offer to help with the work. Most centers will accept support that they don’t have time to organize on their own.

Rethinking the Diaper Question

If your center only allows disposable diapers, ask for the reason. Some states have strict rules about cloth diapers in group care, but many centers use disposables simply out of habit, not because of regulations.

Cloth diaper services, which handle laundry and delivery in bulk, address most of the staffing and hygiene worries that make centers choose disposables. More centers now accept plant-based or biodegradable disposables, which use less plastic but still go to landfills. These are better, but not a complete solution.

If your center won’t change its diaper policy, try suggesting a diaper recycling program if one is available nearby. Industrial diaper recycling is still uncommon in the U.S., but it exists in some parts of Europe and is growing.

Food Waste and What Kids Actually Eat

Food waste reduction is the single most effective change centers can make. It saves money, lowers methane emissions from food in landfills, and, when done openly, teaches children about food sources and the meaning of waste. Centers usually overestimate how much children eat and underestimate how much is thrown away. Simply starting to measure food wasted each day alone tends to drive a 20–30% reduction. A few tips can help:

• Serve family-style. Children who serve themselves take less and eat more of what they take, compared to pre-portioned meals.
• Compost on-site or partner with a local hauler. Many municipalities now have small-business composting service.
• Source from local farms when seasonal and affordable. CACFP-funded programs have flexibility here that many directors don’t realize.

When packing food from home, stick to the basics: whole fruit is better than packaged slices, reusable containers are better than single-use bags, and a thermos of water is better than a juice box. The goal isn’t perfection, but to cut down on single-use packaging, which makes up a big part of a center’s daily waste.

The Indoor Air Conversation

Improving indoor air is where parent advocacy can make the biggest difference for children’s health. Most directors are open to change once they understand the issue. Children spend over 90% of their time indoors, and the air quality depends on choices about cleaning products, furniture, art supplies, and pest control.

Concrete requests that work:

• Switch to Green Seal- or EPA Safer Choice-certified cleaning products. They cost roughly the same as conventional products and dramatically reduce exposure to volatile organic compounds.
• Eliminate air fresheners and scented plug-ins. “Fragrance” can include hundreds of undisclosed chemicals, and the underlying odor problem is almost always solved better by ventilation.
• Adopt integrated pest management instead of routine pesticide spraying. IPM uses traps, sealing, and sanitation first; pesticides are a last resort.
• Choose water-based, low-VOC paints and finishes during any renovation.
• Open windows when the weather allows. Mechanical ventilation in older buildings is often inadequate; outdoor air, even in mild urban areas, is usually cleaner than indoor air, which is often laden with cleaning residues and off-gassing from furniture.

These changes are inexpensive, easy to implement, and directly improve children’s breathing health. They also usually lower the number of sick days, which directors appreciate.

The case for getting children outside has shifted from a wellness argument to a developmental one. A 2022 review of nature-based early childhood education found consistent positive associations with self-regulation, social-emotional development, nature-relatedness, and play interaction. A 2024 study at the University of Minnesota Duluth found that nature-based preschool practices supported self-regulation development, particularly for children from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

This is important because outdoor time is often the first thing dropped when schedules get busy. Speaking up for outdoor time and helping make it easier for the center supports both sustainability and better education.

Practical contributions parents can make:

• Help build raised garden beds. Children who grow food eat more of it and waste less.
• Donate weather gear. Many centers cite “the kids don’t have rain boots” as a real barrier.
• Organize a parent work day. Remove invasive plants and add native species to outdoor play areas.
• Source loose parts for playgrounds. Logs, stumps, and large stones support unstructured nature play.

What You Can Pack from Home

What you do as a parent may not have as much impact as center-wide changes, but you can control it. The goal is to reduce single-use packaging in your child’s daily routine.

• Stainless steel or silicone snack containers. They survive being dropped, kicked, and chewed.
• A reusable water bottle. The juice-box equivalent in landfill waste over a daycare year is striking.
• Whole fruit instead of pre-cut packaged fruit cups.
• Cloth napkins or beeswax wraps in lunchboxes.
• Send clearly labeled hand-me-down clothes. Daycares go through clothing faster than almost anywhere else.

Helping the Center Help Itself

Most U.S. daycares are small, independent, and have limited funding. The average child care worker earns about $14.60 an hour. Free help and materials are not just appreciated; they are often the only way a center can start a sustainability project.

Donations that make the biggest difference include:

• Children’s books about nature, recycling, and food systems for the classroom library.
• Clean recyclable materials — cardboard tubes, egg cartons, glass jars — for art projects and sorting activities.
• Compost bins, indoor recycling stations, or rain barrels.
• Native plant starts from your own garden in spring.

But don’t forget to donate time:

• A Saturday building or repairing outdoor play structures.
• Running a parent fundraiser specifically for a sustainability upgrades, such as air purifiers, a compost system, and raised beds.
• Connecting the director with your municipal recycling or composting program.

When the Center Pushes Back

Some directors will see your interest as helpful, while others may feel it questions their judgment. Both responses are understandable. How you frame the conversation often decides whether it is productive or not. What tends to work is an offer, not a demand: “I’d love to help with this — what would make it easier for you?

If a center keeps refusing to discuss sustainability and it’s important to your family, that tells you something about whether it’s the right fit. Choosing a daycare is a major decision about your values, so it’s worth careful thought.

No single parent or center can solve the issue of daycare sustainability alone. But when parents ask good questions, offer real help, and choose centers that care, it adds up. This is already changing the industry.

Editor’s Note: Originally published on May 21, 2021, this article was substantially updated in May 2026.

The post How To Help Your Child’s Daycare Be More Sustainable  appeared first on Earth911.

Cement and concrete production accounts for about 8% of global carbon dioxide emissions, which is twice as much as in 1990 due to increased construction worldwide. The surfaces under your patio, walkway, or driveway contribute to this, especially when rainwater runs off instead of soaking into the ground.

Since Earth911 first published this guide seven years ago, it has become much easier to find information about sustainable paving. Permeable paver systems made from recycled plastic are now easy to find online and in stores. Carbon-cured concrete pavers are being used in more commercial projects, and there are more recycled-glass and recycled-rubber options than before. While some information is still missing, homeowners now have real choices. Here’s what to look for, what to avoid, and what’s worth buying.

This article contains affiliate links. If you purchase an item through one of these links, we receive a small commission that helps fund our work.

Why Pavement Choices Matter More Now

Two environmental problems converge underfoot. The first is embodied carbon. Cement is responsible for roughly 90% of concrete’s carbon emissions, and the world produced more than 4 billion metric tons of it in 2022. The second is stormwater. Conventional impervious paving funnels rain into storm drains, picking up oil, metals, and tire residue along the way. Permeable pavement can reduce surface runoff by up to 85% compared to traditional pavement, and EPA-monitored studies have documented removal efficiencies of 82–95% for sediment, 65% for total phosphorus, and 80–85% for total nitrogen.

Some U.S. cities now require a certain amount of permeable paving in new parking lots and walkways. Many also offer stormwater fee credits or tax incentives for homeowners who install permeable surfaces. Before starting your project, check with your local stormwater utility. You might be able to save money.

The Greenest Paver Is Often the One You Don’t Buy

Using reused materials is still the most environmentally responsible choice. Salvaged brick, reclaimed flagstone, and broken concrete (also called “urbanite”) were made long ago, so their manufacturing emissions are already accounted for. You can find these materials at architectural salvage yards, through demolition contractors, or at Habitat for Humanity ReStores.

If you can’t use salvaged materials, look for options with three key features: high recycled content, permeability, and enough durability to last for decades and spread out the carbon impact.

How To Compare Pavers

Permeability

Pavement that lets rainwater Pavement that allows rainwater to pass through helps prevent flooding, refills groundwater, and filters out pollutants before they reach streams. The words pervious, permeable, and porous are often mixed up, but they mean different things. Pervious concrete and asphalt let water go through the material itself. Permeable pavers are solid blocks with gaps filled with gravel. Porous or open-cell pavers use grids that hold gravel or grass.specifics, not adjectives. “Eco-friendly” means next to nothing in legal terms, but “made from 100% post-consumer recycled HDPE” is a claim you can evaluate. Reputable manufacturers will state the percentage and source of recycled material on the product page or a downloadable spec sheet.

Embodied Carbon

Carbon-cured concrete pavers are a newer option. Companies like CarbonCure and Solidia add captured CO₂ to the concrete as it cures, locking it in permanently. A study in the journal PNAS found that each kilogram of these pavers keeps about 0.07 to 0.21 kg of CO₂ out of the air. This is helpful, but not as much as some “carbon-negative” marketing suggests. The same study found that pavers made with carbonated aggregates, from companies like Blue Planet and Carbon8 Systems, do even better, storing about 0.4 to 0.77 kg of CO₂ per kilogram.

End-of-Life Recyclability

Pavers can last for decades, but eventually they need to be replaced. HDPE plastic pavers can be recycled in some areas, depending on local programs. Concrete and brick can be crushed and reused as aggregate. Composite pavers made from mixed plastic and rubber are the hardest to recycle because most facilities can’t process them, and most manufacturers don’t have take-back programs.

Paver Types: 2026 Update

Permeable Plastic Grid Systems

Open-cell grids made from recycled HDPE or polypropylene are now the easiest sustainable pavers to find. They can flex with frost, support vehicles if installed correctly, and can be filled with gravel for a solid look or with soil and grass for a softer appearance.

Notable products available on Amazon:

• TRUEGRID PRO LITE: Made in the USA from 100% post-consumer recycled HDPE, they are rated for 120,000 lb loads, and their surface infiltration rates exceed 800 inches per hour.
• TRUEGRID PRO PLUS: Heavier-duty 1.8″ depth version rated for 250,000+ lb loads. These pavers are suitable for parking lots and equipment yards.
• Vodaland EasyPave: 100% recycled PPE plastic available in 2″ depth in black, gray, or green, these pavers can be filled to handle up to 80,000 lbs., depending on base.
• Vodaland HexPave: These hexagonal recycled-plastic grids feature an abrasion-textured top to prevent slips on slopes. They run shallower with a 1″ depth and support only a 27,000 lb load capacity.
• ModuTile Permeable Pavers: Made with recycled HDPE, ModuTile are rated at 87% porosity and work well as grass or gravel pavers.

Permeable Concrete Pavers

Solid concrete blocks separated by aggregate joints. Best for homeowners who want a traditional paver look, these are solid concrete blocks with gaps filled by gravel. They are a good choice if you want a classic paver look while also managing stormwater. Unilock still offers permeable options on the East Coast and Midwest. Belgard now shares some sustainability data on its website, but details about recycled content are limited.

County Materials’ REJUVENATE pavers (launched in June 2025) and Techo-Bloc’s systems are also worth a look, and they allow water to drain through. GraniteCrete uses pre-consumer recycled aggregate, gypsum byproduct, fine clays, and organic pigments; the spent material can be pulverized and remixed. These materials perform best in moderate climates. To learn more bout pervious concrete in general and find local craftspeople, visit the American Concrete Pavement Association‘s contractor directory.

Carbon-Cured Concrete Pavers

CarbonCure’s technology is licensed to dozens of precast manufacturers in North America. Solidia’s low-lime cement is licensed to producers including CalPortland and is used in pavers and blocks across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.

A note on claims: Peer-reviewed analysis is the most reliable filter for environmental claims. Carbon-cured concrete pavers are typically sold through commercial precast suppliers rather than retail; ask local masonry yards whether they stock CarbonCure-licensed product.

Recycled-Glass Pavers

More pavers are now being made from discarded glass. FilterPave’s Glass Series, for example, uses 40% recycled glass and 60% local stone, held together with a polymer binder. Each square foot of these pavers reuses about 40 beverage bottles. They have porosity rates of 38% to 48%, can handle foot traffic and light vehicles, and add a unique look to your yard. Wausau Tile’s Washed Glass and Blasted Glass series and Tile Tech’s Recycled-Glass pavers also use crushed glass in concrete, which can help your home or building earn LEED credits.

Recycled Rubber Pavers

These pavers are made from old tires. They are lightweight, slip-resistant, and comfortable to walk on. You can find them easily on Amazon.

• Rubberific Dual-Sided Square Pavers feature 16″ x 16″ x 3/4″ tiles made from 100% recycled rubber, sold individually for small patios and walkways.
• Aspire Pavers (formerly AZEK Pavers) are made from up to 95% post-consumer recycled tire rubber and plastics. The company reports diverting 500 tires and 1,500 plastic containers per 1,000 square feet of installed pavers. They are sold through DecksDirect and authorized dealers; also available in a permeable variant.

Recycled tire products carry an environmental and health asterisk. Peer-reviewed research published in 2024 showed that end-of-life tire materials, including pavers and crumb rubber, can release polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and 6PPD-quinone, a tire additive byproduct that is acutely toxic to salmon.

Two practical takeaways: don’t install tire-rubber pavers near vegetable gardens or salmon-bearing waterways, and choose rubber products that are tested and labeled for low VOC and metal release. The EPA’s tire crumb research is the most-cited federal source.

Reclaimed Brick and Stone

Reclaimed brick and stone are still the best low-carbon option. They are easier to find now at architectural salvage yards, through demolition contractors, and on online marketplaces. Try to find reclaimed materials from your area to cut down on transport emissions.

Buying Guide: Quick Comparison

What You Can Do

• Salvage first. Check architectural salvage yards, Habitat ReStores, and local demolition contractors for reclaimed brick and flagstone before buying anything new.
• Choose permeable when stormwater is the issue. For driveways and parking pads in particular, permeable plastic grid systems filled with gravel are the most cost-effective DIY option.
• Read recycled-content claims carefully. Demand specifics: percentage, source (post-consumer vs. pre-consumer), and material type. Vague “eco-friendly” labels aren’t enough.
• Ask about end-of-life handling. Pavers last for decades, but eventually come up. Single-material pavers (HDPE, concrete, brick) are easier to recycle than composites.
• Avoid tire-rubber products near food gardens or fish-bearing streams. The leaching risk is small but documented; site them where runoff doesn’t enter sensitive systems.
• Check for stormwater incentives. Many municipalities offer fee credits or rebates for permeable installations. Call your local stormwater utility before you start.
• Ask about carbon-cured concrete locally. CarbonCure and Solidia have licensed producers in many U.S. regions. Your local masonry supplier may carry it without prominently advertising it.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally authored by Gemma Alexander on May 20, 2019, and substantially updated in May 2026.

The post The Search for Sustainable Pavers appeared first on Earth911.

Project Repat, founded by Ross Lohr and Nathan Rothstein, had prevented more than 11 million T-shirts from landfills while bringing some sewing work back to the United States when we talked with them in 2019. They’re still going strong. Tune into a classic conversation as Earth911’s Mitch Ratcliffe talks with Rothstein about the inspiration behind Project Repat and the massive changes in U.S. T-shirt manufacturing over the past 30 years. After migrating to Mexico, T-shirt printing jobs have gone overseas and few American companies still make them.

Project Repat has a better idea: turn old shirts into keepsake quilts hand-sewn using T-shirts sent by customers. Instead of tossing a T-shirt in the donation bin, it can be turned into a part of a memorable and snug quilt. Love a sports team? Make a quilt of the team T-shirts and jerseys you’ve purchased over the years. Want to remember a school or a company where you worked? In all likelihood, you have the makings of a Project Repat quilt. Reasonably priced  based on the size, Project Repat takes your order and receives your shirts by mail, then turns them into fleece-backed quilt.

• Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes.
• Follow the podcast on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube.

Editor’s note: This epsiode originally aired on October 7, 2019.

The post Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Project Repat Is Saving US Jobs & T-Shirts From Landfills appeared first on Earth911.

A single load of synthetic laundry can shed hundreds of thousands of plastic microfibers into wastewater. Multiply that by the roughly 300 wash cycles an average U.S. household runs each year, and the case for rethinking laundry gets concrete fast—not just the detergent itself, but the chemistry that rinses out, the plastic that carries it home, and the residue that stays on fabric after the cycle ends.

We’re Orange House, a plant-based cleaning brand built around food-grade orange oil. We wanted to share how we think about the trade-offs in sustainable laundry—concentration, packaging, residue, and third-party testing—because the answers aren’t always the obvious ones, and because consumers deserve more than a “natural” label to go on.

Why we built our formulation around orange oil

We chose orange oil as a primary active ingredient because of its natural performance as a grease-cutting and stain-removing agent. For us, it represents a conscious move away from chemical-heavy conventional systems while still delivering the cleaning results families expect. Plant-based doesn’t have to mean underpowered.

But we also know that sustainability in laundry isn’t defined by a single ingredient. Every wash cycle contributes to environmental pressure in two main ways: the chemical substances released into wastewater, and the residues that stay behind on fabric in direct contact with skin. A good formulation has to address both.

Some laundry additives—especially fabric softeners and certain enhancers—can coat fabric surfaces and remain even after rinsing. The American Cleaning Institute has published guidance on how these products interact with fibers. We optimized our detergents to clean effectively and rinse away thoroughly, which reduces residue build-up over repeated washes.

Trace impurities: why we test for 1,4-dioxane

Product safety isn’t just about what goes into a formula—it’s also about what slips in during manufacturing. 1,4-dioxane is a well-known example. It’s not an ingredient; it’s a byproduct that can form during the production of certain surfactants and foaming agents, and the EPA classifies it as a likely human carcinogen.

Since December 31, 2023, New York State law has required that finished household cleansing products sold in the state contain no more than 1 ppm of 1,4-dioxane—the strictest such limit in the country. We test against that benchmark.

Our finished-product testing was performed by Intertek Testing Services Taiwan Ltd. using a method aligned with USP-NF 2023 <467> for residual solvents, analyzed by Headspace Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (Headspace GC-MS). Testing was conducted between March 20 and March 27, 2026, with a limit of quantitation of 0.5 ppm. Under those conditions, 1,4-dioxane was not detected in our final formulation.

For us, sustainable laundry means more than a “natural” label. It’s a commitment to minimizing total material usage and reducing cumulative chemical exposure over time—and being willing to publish the data that shows it.

The packaging trade-off most brands skip

Packaging is where a lot of laundry sustainability claims fall apart. Every detergent bottle eventually becomes waste, and highly diluted formulas compound the problem: more bottles per year, more transportation weight, more emissions per wash.

We addressed this with a concentrated format—including our 4-liter design—that delivers more washes per container. Increasing efficiency per use reduces the number of bottles a household goes through annually, which is a straightforward way to cut plastic waste without asking consumers to change their routines.

We’ll be candid about a trade-off other brands sometimes obscure. Paper-based detergent containers can appear more environmentally friendly, but many of them require internal plastic linings that make them difficult to recycle in practice. A single-material plastic that actually gets recycled in local infrastructure can have a better real-world outcome than a multi-material paper container that ends up in landfill. Neither option is perfect; we chose the one we believe performs best in the waste stream most of our customers live in.

Testing for sensitive skin

After washing, trace detergent components can remain embedded in textile fibers. For people with sensitive skin or atopic dermatitis, residual detergent has been linked to skin barrier irritation. That’s why residue behavior matters as much as the active ingredient list.

We subjected our detergent to a Human Repeat Insult Patch Test (HRIPT), a standard dermatological evaluation. The test ran for six weeks across 108 participants, including people with sensitive skin, and used repeated exposure followed by a controlled challenge phase. Under the test conditions, no signs of irritation or sensitization were observed.

Our goal isn’t to eliminate chemistry—it’s to optimize it. Our micellar orange oil technology combines citrus oil with molecular structures that encapsulate and remove dirt using less detergent per wash. Orange House detergents are dermatologically tested and carry the USDA Certified Biobased Product label at 85% biobased content, verified through the USDA BioPreferred Program’s ASTM D6866 testing protocol.

What to look for in any sustainable detergent

The broader point we want to leave you with: choosing a better detergent comes down to informed decision-making, not marketing claims. Whether or not you choose Orange House, these are the questions worth asking about any product on the shelf.

• Concentration: How many loads per container? More concentrated formulas mean less plastic, less shipping weight, and lower emissions per wash.
• Packaging honesty: Is the container actually recyclable in your local system—or is it multi-material packaging that sounds greener than it performs?
• Residue and rinse-out: Does the formula rinse cleanly, or does it coat fibers with additives you’ll end up wearing?
• Third-party testing: Has the finished product been tested for trace contaminants like 1,4-dioxane by an accredited lab? Is the data published?
• Independent certifications: Look for labels that require third-party verification—USDA Certified Biobased Product, EPA Safer Choice, or dermatological testing with disclosed protocols.

Innovation in formulation and packaging design can align real cleaning performance with environmental responsibility. We built Orange House to prove that. But even if the detergent you choose isn’t ours, asking these five questions pushes the category in the right direction—one load at a time.

About the Author

This sponsored article was written by the Orange House team. Orange House is a plant-based cleaning brand whose products are formulated around food-grade orange oil and tested to meet New York State’s 1,4-dioxane standard. Learn more at orangehouse.com.

The post Guest Idea: How to Choose a Laundry Detergent That’s Better for the Planet appeared first on Earth911.

We would all like to buy the most environmentally friendly appliances available. But in real life, energy efficiency is only one of many factors we need to consider when we’re making major purchases. If you’re dealing with a narrow galley kitchen, living in a tiny house, or dealing with any number of awkward kitchen configurations, the dimensions of your new refrigerator might be your top priority. Fortunately, if a counter-depth refrigerator is non-negotiable, there are extremely efficient options.

The refrigerators in the original 2021 version of this guide are either discontinued, superseded, or now five years into an appliance lifecycle that averages 10–14 years. A lot has changed — and not just the model numbers.

Counter-depth refrigerators have closed much of the capacity gap with standard-depth models. In 2024, LG and Samsung introduced counter-depth models reaching 26.5–27 cubic feet, nearly matching standard-depth capacity without jutting past your cabinets.

Even better, refrigerant reform is also essentially complete: R-600a, which has a global warming potential 500 times lower than previous refrigerants, is now the industry standard across virtually all new household refrigerators sold in the U.S. You no longer need to check the door sticker for refrigerant type — it’s almost certainly R-600a. One new nuance: R-600a is flammable. This doesn’t create meaningful safety risk in normal use, but it does mean sealed-system repairs must be performed by a technician with hydrocarbon-rated recovery equipment. Ask before scheduling service.

This article contains affiliate links. If you purchase an item through one of these links, we receive a small commission that helps fund our Recycling Directory.

How to Choose a Counter-Depth Refrigerator

Counter-depth isn’t a single spec, it’s a range. True counter-depth refrigerators, which are 24- to 25-inches deep, offer a counter-flush look but are relatively rare. Most models marketed as counter-depth run 27–30 inches deep are still meaningfully shallower than standard-depth units, which range from 32 to 36 inches. Be sure to measure your space carefully before shopping.

1. Fit first. Measure the opening width, depth (including door swing clearance and handle protrusion), and height. Leave at least 1 inch on each side and top for ventilation. Note any door swing obstructions, such as islands, adjacent cabinets, dishwasher handles.
2. Right-size for your household. The commonly cited rule is that each person needs 4 to 6 cubic feet of total capacity. A household of two can usually work with 16–20 cubic foot fridge; three to four people generally need 20–26 cubic feet. Don’t oversize, as a mostly empty refrigerator is less efficient than one that’s three-quarters full.
3. Freezer configuration. Top-freezer models remain the most energy-efficient configuration per cubic foot. Bottom-freezer designs put fresh food at eye level but add mechanical complexity. French-door models are most popular and offer the widest variety but use more energy and generate more service calls than simpler designs.
4. Energy consumption, not just certification. Energy Star certification means a model uses at least 10% less energy than the federal minimum. That’s a floor, not a ceiling. Check the yellow EnergyGuide label on the appliance for estimated annual kWh; typically the difference between the best and worst Energy Star-certified counter-depth models can be 200+ kWh per year, a $20–$40 annual gap at annual utility rates.
5. Refrigerant. As of 2025, R-600a is effectively universal in new U.S. refrigerators. Verify on the data plate inside the fresh-food compartment.
6. Features that raise energy use. Through-door ice and water dispensers, in-door ice makers, anti-sweat heaters, and smart screens all increase electricity consumption. If you don’t need them, the most efficient models skip them. Internal water dispensers are a reasonable middle ground that provide convenience without an exterior mechanism that uses electricity.
7. Reliability data. French-door models with ice makers generate significantly more service calls than simpler designs. Yale Appliance’s 2026 service data, based on 33,190 service calls, ranks LG and GE as the most reliable counter-depth French-door brands, with Bosch leading on temperature stability. Consumer Reports members can find long-term predicted reliability rankings by brand at consumerreports.org, where GE brands and Bosch consistently rank near the top for long-term predicted reliability.
8. Service access. A reliable brand is only as good as the technicians who can fix it. GE has the broadest national service network. Bosch and LG are well-supported in most metros. Samsung has historically had longer repair wait times, a real consideration for a decade-long appliance relationship.
9. Don’t forget disposal. When your old refrigerator goes, the R-600a refrigerant must be recovered by a certified technician before recycling. Use Earth911’s recycling search to find appliance recyclers near you, and confirm that they are an EPA Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD) partner to ensure proper refrigerant handling.

The Best Counter-Depth Refrigerators in 2026

The original article featured models from 2021, most of which are discontinued. Here are current alternatives organized by configuration, prioritizing Energy Star certification, current availability, and documented reliability.

Best for Energy Efficiency: Frigidaire FFTR1835VW (Top Freezer)

Top-freezer models remain the most efficient configuration available. The Frigidaire FFTR1835VW is an 18.3 cu. ft. Energy Star–certified top-freezer with a 30-inch depth, which is significantly shallower than standard models. It uses approximately 369 kWh/year, forgoes energy-intensive features like an ice maker and through-door dispenser, and includes humidity-controlled crisper drawers and an auto-defrost function. It’s also garage-ready (tested from 38°F to 110°F) and ADA compliant. No smart features, no ice maker; just efficient, reliable cold storage.

Depth: 30 in. | Capacity: 18.3 cu. ft. | Est. energy: ~369 kWh/yr | Price range: $600–$750

Best Value French Door (33″): Samsung RF18A5101SR

For smaller kitchens that want a French-door design without a full 36-inch footprint, the Samsung RF18A5101SR is a 33-inch-wide counter-depth model with 17.5 cu. ft. total capacity. Its Twin Cooling Plus system uses two independent evaporators to keep refrigerator and freezer air separate to extend food life and limit odor transfer. It includes an ice maker, Wi-Fi connectivity via Samsung’s SmartThings app, Power Cool and Power Freeze modes, and Energy Star certification. The 33-inch width is a significant advantage for kitchens with narrower openings. Note: Samsung’s service network can have longer wait times in some regions — check availability before purchasing.

Depth: 28.5 in. | Capacity: 17.5 cu. ft. | Est. energy: ~448 kWh/yr | Price range: $1,100–$1,500

Best Large-Capacity Counter-Depth: LG LRFLC2706S (Counter-Depth MAX)

The LG LRFLC2706S resolves what was long the core counter-depth trade-off: it delivers 26.5 cu. ft. of storage in a counter-depth footprint — previously only achievable with a standard-depth unit. The Counter-Depth MAX uses thinner walls and advanced insulation to achieve this. It includes an internal water dispenser (no exterior mechanism, which reduces complexity), an ice maker, Door Cooling+ for even temperature distribution, a PrintProof stainless finish, and Wi-Fi via LG’s ThinQ app. Energy Star certified. Yale Appliance’s 2026 reliability data ranks LG as one of the top performers for first-year service rates in this category.

Depth: 29.25 in. | Capacity: 26.5 cu. ft. | Est. energy: ~632 kWh/yr | Price range: $1,700–$2,200

Best for Food Preservation: Bosch 800 Series B36CT80SNS

No other freestanding counter-depth refrigerator matches Bosch’s food preservation system. The B36CT80SNS uses dual compressors and dual evaporators, keeping refrigerator and freezer air completely separate to prevent humidity fluctuations that accelerate produce spoilage and limits odor transfer. Bosch’s FarmFresh System includes VitaFreshPro automatic temperature and humidity balancing for different food types and SuperCool/SuperFreeze modes for rapid chilling of new groceries. The adjustable FlexBar adds organizational flexibility. Energy Star certified. Yale’s 2026 service data shows Bosch’s first-year service rate at 12.7% — higher than LG but with notably fewer cooling failures; its strength is sustained temperature stability rather than low failure probability.

Depth: 24 in. (case); 29 in. with handles | Capacity: 21 cu. ft. | Est. energy: ~530 kWh/yr | Price range: $2,800–$3,500

Best Premium Option: GE Profile PVD28BYNFS (4-Door French Door)

The GE Profile PVD28BYNFS is a 4-door, 27.9 cu. ft. French-door model with a door-in-door design for quick-access storage without opening the main compartment — reducing cold air loss on high-traffic items. GE’s TwinChill dual evaporators maintain optimal humidity and temperature in fresh-food and freezer sections independently. Includes a hands-free, sensor-controlled AutoFill water dispenser, an adjustable-temperature middle drawer with four preset modes for meat, beverage, snacks, and wine, as well as an LED light wall and Wi-Fi. Energy Star certified with an estimated operating cost of approximately $91/year. GE has the widest service network of any major appliance brand, which matters over a 10+ year ownership horizon.

Depth: 36.75 in. (standard depth; counter-depth version also available) | Capacity: 27.9 cu. ft. | Est. energy: ~760 kWh/yr (est. $91/yr operating cost) | Price range: $2,400–$3,200

Counter-Depth Refrigerator Comparison

*GE Profile PVD28BYNFS is primarily standard-depth; a counter-depth version is available at select retailers.

Getting the Most From Your Refrigerator

The most efficient refrigerator you can buy is the one you already own, as long as it’s working properly. To make your fridge last longer, take these simple steps:

• Set the refrigerator to 35–38°F and the freezer to 0°F. These are the optimal food-safe temperatures.
• Clean condenser coils 1–2 times per year. Dusty coils force the compressor to work harder.
• Check door seals. If a dollar bill slides out easily when the door is closed, the gasket needs replacing.
• Keep it three-quarters full. Both overfilled and mostly empty refrigerators are less efficient.
• Turn off the anti-sweat heater if your climate doesn’t require it, as it’s one of the bigger phantom draws.

Editor’s Note: Originally published on March 24, 2021, this article was substantially updated in April 2026.

The post Buyer’s Guide: Most Efficient Counter-Depth Refrigerators appeared first on Earth911.

The average American household uses about 150 pounds of glass containers each year, but more than two-thirds of that glass never gets recycled into new bottles. This isn’t because people aren’t trying. Glass is now the only common packaging material that costs recycling facilities more to process than they make from selling it, and the U.S. recycling system has been adapting to this problem for the past twenty years.

According to the EPA, the U.S. has recycled about 31 percent of its glass containers for the past ten years. In contrast, the European Union collected 80.8 percent of its glass containers in 2023. This gap isn’t because of how people act, but because of differences in infrastructure, policies, and the fact that glass is heavy, breakable, and not very profitable. As a result, glass no longer fits well in the single-stream recycling system most Americans use.

The math that broke glass recycling

Cullet, which is the industry term for crushed and sorted recycled glass, is a permanent material. It can be melted and reused over and over without losing quality. Adding 10 percent more cullet to a furnace reduces energy use by 2.5 to 3 percent and lowers CO₂ emissions by about 5 percent. If a furnace uses only cullet, it produces about 58 percent fewer emissions than making glass from raw materials like sand, soda ash, and limestone.

These numbers show that glass should be valuable to bottle makers. However, manufacturers want cullet that is color-sorted, clean, and ready for the furnace, which is rarely what comes out of single-stream recycling facilities.

A 2017 analysis by the Closed Loop Foundation found that single-stream glass costs U.S. recycling facilities $150 million each year in equipment damage, transportation, and disposal. On average, a facility loses about $35 for every ton of glass it handles. For example, a transfer station in Washington, D.C. spends about tens of thousands of dollars a year replacing screen baskets damaged by glass shards. When trucks unload, glass shards also get stuck in paper and cardboard, making those materials less valuable.

This is known as the negative-value problem. The glass itself isn’t worthless, because high-quality cullet can be sold. But the way glass is collected usually produces a dirty, color-mixed load, so it often ends up being used as road base, landfill cover when ground into sand-like consistency and laid over the day’s waste, or just thrown away.

How we built a system that loses money

The current U.S. glass recycling shortfall is largely the story of two infrastructure decisions made decades apart.

The first decision was moving to single-stream collection in the 1990s and 2000s. This change increased overall recycling rates but mixed glass with other materials. As a result, glass often arrived at recycling facilities already broken, contaminating other recyclables and damaging equipment designed for paper and plastic.

The second decision was to close glass-only drop-off programs as city budgets tightened. Without dedicated collection routes, like the ones used in Italy, Belgium, and Germany to recycle 90 percent of glass containers, American glass no longer had a clean way to be collected.

The exception is the 10 states with container deposit laws. These states, known for their bottle bills, recycle about 70 percent of beverage containers, which is more than twice the national average of 33 percent. Oregon’s deposit system achieved an 87 percent redemption rate in 2024, the highest in the country. Glass returned through deposit programs is typically clean, sorted, and unbroken — exactly what manufacturers want.

What does glass costs your household?

Consumers end up paying for glass twice. First, the cost of the bottle is included in the price of products like wine, beer, sauce, or seltzer. Second, people pay municipal recycling fees through property taxes, garbage bills, or both. These fees cover the average $ 62-per-ton landfill tipping fee in 2024, plus the extra cost of glass contamination that affects other recyclables.

The exact dollar figure varies wildly by region. New York City’s Department of Sanitation has estimated curbside recycling collection at $686 per ton, a number that includes labor, fuel, and equipment that reaches beyond what households see on their utility bills, but shows up in tax rates.

In states with bottle bills, the economics are different for households. A 5- or 10-cent deposit can be fully recovered, and if the home doesn’t recycle, others can generate income picking it up.

Glass that would have cost the city money instead becomes a small refund for the household and a clean material for manufacturers. This system covers the cost directly through fees for using glass, rather than spreading it across all taxpayers.

Glass emissions matter

Glass furnaces use a lot of energy compared to other packaging processes. Making 1 ton of container glass produces between 0.5 and 1.6 tons of CO₂, depending on the furnace’s efficiency and the amount of cullet used. Each ton of cullet used instead of raw materials saves about 0.67 tons of CO₂ and 1.2 tons of mined sand, soda ash, and limestone. soda ash, and limestone.

If you apply these numbers to the 6 million tons of glass containers that were landfilled in the U.S. in 2018—the most recent year for which the EPA provides data—the country misses out on about 4 million tons of avoided CO₂ emissions each year, plus more than 7 million tons of raw materials that could have been saved. This is a climate cost that the recycling rate alone cannot capture.

The Glass Packaging Institute and Boston Consulting Group have created a plan to raise the U.S. glass recycling rate to 50 percent by 2030. It focuses on expanding deposit programs, building dedicated glass processing facilities, and moving away from single-stream collection where possible. Reaching this goal would nearly double the current recycling rate without requiring people to change what they drink or how often they recycle.

What’s changing, and what isn’t

Seven states, including California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington, have passed extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws for packaging. These laws shift the cost of recycling from cities to the companies that sell the bottles. Oregon started enforcing its program in July 2025, and Colorado, Minnesota, and Maryland will phase in their programs by 2028.

EPR is the policy most likely to change the economics of glass recycling in the next decade. When producers pay recycling costs directly, they have to deal with contamination from single-stream recycling, not the recycling facility. This makes dedicated glass collection much more appealing. The European experience shows that this approach works, but it has not yet been tried on a large scale in the U.S.

What you can do

• Check if your state has a bottle bill. If it does, redeem your deposit for a clean recycling stream and a small refund. If not, look up your local recycling options using the Earth911 recycling search before putting glass in your curbside bin.
• If your area has glass-only drop-off sites, use them. Many cities offer free drop-off locations at transfer stations or grocery store parking lots. The glass collected from these sites is the type manufacturers prefer.
• Rinse your bottles instead of crushing them. Whole bottles are easier to sort than broken pieces. Take off metal lids and recycle them separately.
• Buy refillable bottles when possible. A refilled bottle does not use any cullet, raw materials, or the recycling system. Programs for returnable beer, milk, and water bottles are slowly becoming more common in the U.S.
• Support extended producer responsibility and bottle-bill laws in your state. Most glass that gets recycled in the U.S. today comes from the 10 states with deposit programs. Expanding these programs is the most effective policy change available.

The post Glass: Recycling’s Negative-Value Problem appeared first on Earth911.

An average big-budget movie creates about 3,370 metric tons of CO₂, according to the Sustainable Production Alliance’s 2021 report. That’s like driving over 700 gas-powered cars for a year, or about 33 metric tons of CO₂ for each day of filming. A single TV season can have the same impact as 108 cars. With thousands of productions happening every year in North America, Hollywood’s environmental impact is hard to overlook. Zena Harris, founder and president of Green Spark Group, has spent more than ten years helping the industry turn sustainability goals into practical steps that productions can track. On this episode of Sustainability In Your Ear, she shares how to build sustainable practices into film and TV projects from the very start, instead of adding them at the end when most waste has already been created. Zena started Green Spark Group in 2014 after earning a master’s in sustainability and environmental management at Harvard. She pitched Vancouver’s major studios on a simple idea: sustainability can save money. Her first big project, the X-Files reboot, managed to divert 81% of its waste across 40 filming locations. Since then, her certified B Corp consultancy has worked with Disney, NBCUniversal, Amazon, and other major studios, and she founded the Sustainable Production Forum, which is now in its tenth year.

This conversation comes at an important time. Soon, California’s climate disclosure laws will require studios to report emissions from every vendor in their production supply chain, both before and after filming. Zena points out that while studios are getting ready, most of their suppliers—like small companies that rent generators, handle waste, or provide lumber on tight schedules—are not prepared. The Sustainable Entertainment Alliance has released Scope 3 guidance for productions, and updated Scope 1 and 2 guidance came out in August 2025, but there is still no single tool that everyone uses. The real challenge over the next two years will be closing the gap between what studios must report and what their suppliers can provide. Zena also makes a bigger point about culture. After 12 years in the industry, she sees sustainability experts facing the same obstacles again and again because the way content is made hasn’t changed. The day-to-day work is important, but the bigger opportunity is in climate storytelling. Only about 13% of recent top-rated films mention climate change at all. Tracking the carbon footprint of a TV season is important, but what really matters is how a billion viewers see what’s normal on screen. That’s the influence Hollywood hasn’t fully used yet.

To follow Zena’s work, visit greensparkgroup.com. You can also learn more about the conference she started at sustainableproductionforum.com, or listen to her podcast, The Tie-In, which she co-hosts with Mark Rabin.

• Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
• Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube

Interview Transcript

Mitch Ratcliffe  0:00

Hello, good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are on this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society, and I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation today.

We’re going to talk about film and television, because every film and TV production starts the same way: with a creative vision, a budget, a shooting schedule, and a huge amount of stuff. Generators burn diesel all day and night at shooting locations. Trucks idle as they wait to move between locations. Sets are built from raw materials only to end up in the landfill when filming ends. Craft services rely on single-use items for literally everything that’s placed on the table for the production team.

Now multiply that by the thousands of productions happening in North America each year, and the scale of the problem becomes clear. The average feature film emits 3,370 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is like driving more than 700 gas-powered cars for a full year. And a single season of a TV show can match the emissions of 108 cars — and that’s not even counting the supply chain, everything that comes onto a set and everything that leaves. Hollywood has promised to be more sustainable many times, and our guest today has spent the last 10 years figuring out what it really takes to make these promises come to life in practice.

Zena Harris is the founder and president of Green Spark Group, a certified B Corp sustainability consultancy that she launched in 2014 with a mission to change the environmental impact of entertainment. She holds a master’s degree from Harvard in sustainability and environmental management, and she came to this work not as an environmentalist, but as a systems thinker — someone who spent her early career in engineering and HR identifying where organizations were leaking efficiency and money. But when she moved to Vancouver and discovered that nobody was focused on sustainability in what had become one of North America’s largest film production hubs, she saw a gap and filled it.

For more than a decade, she’s worked with major studios — including Disney, NBCUniversal, and Amazon — helping them embed sustainable practices in video production projects, and she’s developed measurable goals and built cross-industry collaborations that make lasting change possible.

She also founded the Sustainable Production Forum, which is now in its 10th year and has become the industry’s premier gathering place for turning sustainability talk into coordinated action.

We’ll talk with Zena about what it looks like when a production plans for sustainability from the very beginning, instead of adding it on at the end of the process like we usually do with all of our waste. And she’ll explain her idea of radical collaboration and why making real progress in Hollywood requires everyone — that includes unions, guilds, city governments, power companies, and those top-talent stars — to work together. We’ll also discuss how she uses the circular economy on set, the accountability gap that remains even as California’s new climate disclosure laws start to roll out, and whether the same systems-thinking approach can help business outside the film world.

To find out more about Zena’s work and Green Spark Group, visit greensparkgroup.com — that’s all one word, no space, no dash. Hollywood has the power to change how people think about sustainability, but can it also change how it works behind the scenes? Zena Harris is tackling both challenges at the same time. Let’s see what she’s discovered, right after this brief commercial break.

Mitch Ratcliffe  3:49

Welcome to the show, Zena. How you doing today?

Zena Harris  3:50

Hi. Thanks for having me. I’m doing great. The sun is shining in Tacoma, Washington, and I’m happy to be talking with you.

Mitch Ratcliffe  3:59

Well, I’m so happy to hear that you live in Tacoma. I lived there for almost 50 years. It’s a beautiful place, and I’m glad you’ve inherited it. I really like it. But you started your sustainability career in Vancouver, and you had no entertainment experience, and your first project was helping The X-Files reboot series divert material at 40 shooting locations — and you reduced their waste by 81%. What gave you the confidence to, you know, just call and say, ‘Hey, can I make you more sustainable?’

Zena Harris  4:31

It was a little more than that. You know, there was a lead-up to it. I had studied the film and TV industry in graduate school — I did my master’s thesis on it — so I had a little bit of a background. And the reason I studied it in grad school: I was in a sustainability master’s program, and I wanted to figure out how to shift culture. The first thing I thought of was, okay, people watch TV, we all love movies — that’s where I should start digging in to see what they’re doing. And they weren’t doing a ton. They were doing a little bit, but not too much.

So I talked to all the studio reps and found out what was going on and created a whole framework, like you do in graduate school, and wrote it all up. And then I pitched it to every studio. I sent out a white paper, essentially, to all the studios, and I was like, ‘Hey, let’s talk about this.’ Flew to LA, met with people in person. And I’m like, ‘I’m in Vancouver. I know it’s a major film hub. Put me to work.’ And one person did. She said, ‘Hey, you know, The X-Files is coming. It’s a big show. We have room in the budget to make this great. Let’s see what we can do.’ And that’s what really got me going.

One of the first people I met in the industry was Kelsey Evans. She is the owner of Keep It Green Recycling, which is a local vendor in Vancouver. Now, I had studied the film and TV industry, I know management practices and sustainability and the science, and she knew — like, really knew — the industry. So we worked together on that production, and we still work together today. She’s a friend of mine. She’s fantastic.

We got a lot of stuff done on that show, and that was my introduction into the film industry in practical terms. Vancouver, because it’s a major film hub, has — let’s just say — 20 shows filming at any given time. Sometimes it’s a lot more. But I knew that the work I was doing on that one show could scale. We needed to do it on all the shows. We needed to engage the industry. We needed to train people. So I started Green Spark Group as a vehicle to do this in the industry more broadly.

I think my past experience — prior to even going to grad school — in HR for a multinational company, and I was also an executive director at an international nonprofit where we had working groups and people from all over the world coming together to solve problems and create programs, all that gave me confidence to step into the film industry, look around, learn from others, apply my skills, and build this momentum locally. The company, locally, ended up — now we work across North America and even in other countries. So it’s been a journey.

Mitch Ratcliffe  7:52

Well, you point out that they said, ‘We’ve got room in the budget to make this great,’ but that isn’t always the case. So what’s the pitch to a new client?

Zena Harris  8:00

Yeah, yeah. Well, those are the magic words: ‘We can save you money.’ That is it. That’s it. I mean, look, this has been a movement over the last, let’s say, 12 years — that’s how long I’ve been working in this space. And it’s rare for folks to say, ‘Yeah, we can figure this out in the budget.’ Sometimes it happens, but most people want to know how they can save money. So if you can show them very clearly that they can save money, that pushes the door open. And then you can talk about lots of other things too.

Mitch Ratcliffe  8:43

So tell us about The Amazing Spider-Man 2. You saved them a lot of money. How’d you do it, and how much did you save them?

Zena Harris  8:48

I did not work on that. A colleague of mine, Emellie O’Brien, worked on that. That was actually one of the first productions publicized for saving a lot of money. I think they saved something like — well, I have the number here — $400,000. The cool thing about what happened with that, and also what happened with The X-Files and some others shortly thereafter, is that the studio recorded behind the scenes. They interviewed crew members to talk about what they had done. Then they published some of the stats in a case study and a video.

People in our industry love watching videos, right? So we did a behind-the-scenes for The X-Files, which caught lightning in a bottle — really created a whole movement in Vancouver. We showed that little five-minute behind-the-scenes video to everyone, and they saw their peers in that video because they were crew members speaking about what they had done. Things like that really sparked action in people and this excitement that, ‘Wow, things I have seen and kind of felt uncomfortable with — like waste, nobody likes seeing waste — people saw solutions in those videos. People saw themselves, saw their peers, and that inspired action, awareness, intrigue — like all the stuff you would want to create a movement. I can’t say enough about those early videos. They really helped kind of put us on a trajectory for more awareness and more action.

Mitch Ratcliffe  10:42

A set is kind of like a microcosm of a city. A lot of stuff comes together and then disperses again. We actually did some consulting a few years ago with Hollywood about recycling the material on site — they use the PCs for the first time and then send them to recycling. It’s amazing how wasteful it could be. Tell us about what happens on a set. What’s the input, and what’s the output?

Zena Harris  11:10

Yeah, you are right. It is definitely akin to a city. I mean, if you think about it, for a large film or TV series, there can be 20 different departments working together to make that project happen. Each of those departments brings in some kind of material, some kind of input. The production office will have lots of office supplies, equipment, office equipment, furniture for the office — that kind of thing. Those things are coming in, and then you use them, and then they go out.

Then you can think of production design and construction. These two departments work really closely together, and they’re the ones creating and then building the sets in the sound stage. You can think about all the materials that might be associated with that. Construction is a big input department, where we’re bringing in lots of wood — and other types of material. It’s not just wood, but essentially we’re building a village inside a sound stage to shoot. And it’s all the wood and any other material that goes into that: wallpaper, paint, all sorts of props, set dressing that will go into that space.

So all that’s coming in, and then we use it for a short period of time, and then we have to do something with it. A lot of times, set walls are kind of standard — they can be reused. These are things that, if we recognize the patterns here, we’re using these things all the time. We’re breaking them down, and then we do something with them. A lot of times the breakdown is fast. You don’t have a ton of opportunity to really think. But if we know that there’s a pattern associated — prep, production, and wrap every single show — we know that we can disrupt that pattern. We can plan for it.

This is where thinking ahead and planning like, ‘Hey, we can reuse these walls. Got a lot of doors here — we’re going to reuse these doors. We’re going to send them to a place that will hold them temporarily, like a reuse center, and then those can be redistributed back into the industry.’ Some productions will store this stuff on their own if they have reshoots they think they might have, or another series they might come along. So all of these are options.

The default historically has been — because this is a dynamic industry, because timelines are short, people need to get out of their stage space — to use it, break it down, put it in the dumpster, get that thing out of here, and move on. So we’re saying there’s another way to do it, and just that alone saves the production a lot of money, because those big dumpsters at the end of it all are expensive to haul away. If we can reduce even a few of those, that is a cost savings, and then that material can be diverted and reused. So everything coming in — food, big material like construction material that people think a lot about, anything coming in — has an opportunity to be diverted, redistributed on the back end. And then that action saves money.

Mitch Ratcliffe  14:59

Well, you describe what’s needed as radical collaboration. I’m wondering if you can explain what that means, because Hollywood’s going through a lot of changes right now, and it sounds like sustainability may be the keystone of some new talent or new careers during the production process. So what are the hardest stakeholders in that radical collaboration to get to move from where they are today?

Zena Harris  15:22

Yeah. I think, like I said, I’ve been doing this for a really long time, and one of the things that I’ve picked up over the years is that people in the industry have been conditioned to point fingers. There are different stakeholders in the industry. Crew will point to the union or the studio, for example, and say, ‘You know, those folks need to do something so that I can integrate sustainable practices.’ The unions will point to crew or studios. The studios will point to production or unions. And so at the end of the day, that doesn’t get us anywhere. We’re kind of swirling in this finger-pointing. And nobody really knows what to do. They’re waiting for something. So progress is slow when you do that.

In order to move the needle, I think one of the things we need to do is actually work together in ways that might seem unconventional or radical. I keep reminding myself of the saying, ‘What got us here won’t take us forward.’ So we have to get over ourselves and do something differently. We know that there’s no single organization that’s going to solve all the problems or change the existing system. We need a different approach, a different narrative around all of this — not just kind of deferring to another stakeholder.

This is what I call radical collaboration, because it’s different. Collaboration between crew and unions and studios and creatives and suppliers and industry organizations — in ways that have been different than we’ve tried before, that really haven’t worked so well, or not to the degree we wanted them to work. So instead of reinventing the wheel on that, we need a whole different tack. I think that in order to see success, we need positive reinforcement for people. We need to actually say, ‘Yes, this worked,’ and in increments too — not just the big things. When people see that positive reinforcement, they actually lean in. They actually have more confidence in what they’re doing. And then this increases momentum. That’s kind of my view of radical collaboration and what I think is needed to keep the ball rolling.

Mitch Ratcliffe  18:07

Well, you’re making a really interesting point, which is that people don’t dislike change. They may be a little afraid of it, but they want to see that the extra effort involved in making the change actually is paying off. As the orchestrator of the sustainability activities on set, how do you communicate that to them so that the Teamsters and the members of the Screen Actors Guild all say, ‘Oh, I’m in’?

Zena Harris  18:37

Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, it’s interesting. You mentioned a couple of different positions there — Teamsters and actors and these sorts of things. Everybody is coming to the production with a different perspective, a different viewpoint, kind of a different mandate within their department. Like, their job is to do this. So everybody sees sustainability in a slightly different way.

One of the things we really strive to do — and I would say this is kind of a standard practice, but what we’re trying to do as a team at Green Spark Group — is go beyond surface-level conversations. Not just say, ‘Here are a few things you could do,’ but really try to have a deeper conversation with people in each of these departments and ask them what they see, what they need to be successful in doing any one of the things that they might want to do differently, and really help them get there. If they’re afraid to talk to someone, well, we’ll help them do that. We will have their back. We will go with them and be a backstop for anything they may not know or feel confident talking about. If it is finding a vendor and they don’t have time to look around, we’ll help them do that.

You know, people say, ‘Meet you where you are.’ But it’s really going beyond surface-level conversations. It’s really tapping into people’s wants, needs, level of confidence, and helping them grow that and helping them shine in their role — whatever it is. I think that sort of human-centric approach is really helpful, and what really moves the needle, or actually builds trust. Because at the end of the day, we can go in there and talk about all sorts of gear. There’s a lot of gear out there. There’s a lot of batteries out there that are going to save emissions. But I have seen multiple times where batteries have been rented, they sit in the gear truck, and people are afraid to use them. Why is that? Let’s talk about that. Let’s really unpack it, and let’s find a safe space to do it. Maybe it’s that lightweight one over there, and we want to just test it out. Totally cool. Let’s make that happen. What’s it going to take to get there?

Mitch Ratcliffe  21:24

This very meta moment — talking about telling stories to storytellers to get them to change their behavior — is a great place to take a quick commercial break. Folks, we’re going to be right back to continue this really interesting conversation.

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Let’s get back to my conversation with Zena Harris, founder and president of the Hollywood sustainability consultancy — although Vancouver, too — Green Spark Group. Zena, your mission is to change the climate of entertainment, and that has a double meaning that clearly was deliberate. But I’m wondering, in the current environment and thinking about the stories we tell about why we do things, with all the whiplashing political winds of the last couple of years, how has that changed your message and your perception of what Hollywood’s trying to accomplish?

Zena Harris  22:16

Yeah, I mean, I’ve said this a few times. We have a lot of momentum. Right now, in 2026, there are more organizations, there are more people thinking about sustainability, there are more tools out there for people to use. There’s a lot of momentum in the industry. So for us at Green Spark Group, we are on a mission to change the climate of entertainment, and it’s incremental, year over year, year over year — and so we’re still working on it. It’s very relevant for us today.

We have had a hand in changing a lot in the entertainment industry over the last 12 years. We started programs, we’ve created strategic plans for industry organizations and training in the C-suite, and started the industry’s first conference. We’re uplifting people and trying to give a platform to people to collaborate and share their ideas. But there’s a lot of opportunity out there. There are still a lot of people who are new to sustainability, and they need someone to help them make sense of it all. It’s taking all this wonderful information that’s been created by various organizations — and we’ve contributed as well — and distilling it and helping them make sense of it all, make decisions that are in line with their values, and implement the things that they want to implement. Save the money that they can save, that they know they can, when they start doing the math.

Mitch Ratcliffe  24:11

Is the money the key thing right now? Is it the sustainable savings, or is it still a commitment to the climate, in the context of, again, all the backlash against the idea of environmentalism?

Zena Harris  24:24

Yeah, I mean, the idea of environmentalism, I think, is kind of in the broader ethos. I think when you get down to talking to people one on one, they want solutions to things — waste they’ve seen, or emissions they’ve encountered on production, or food waste, or whatever it is. Whether they call themselves an environmentalist or they just are a caring and concerned person, everybody wants a positive working experience. And they don’t want that tension internally between, ‘I’m doing this great, creative, wonderful thing in my job, and then I look over here and some negative thing is happening environmentally or whatever.’ People want a holistic, positive work experience. So I think that’s core at the end of the day — to tap into that, and, like I said, just go beyond surface-level conversations and really help people figure that out.

Mitch Ratcliffe  25:35

Let me ask about the other side of that equation, about changing the climate of entertainment. Hollywood has enormous cultural reach, but we did a little research and found that only about 10%, 13% was the number we came up with, of recent top-rated films even acknowledge the idea of climate change on screen. Do you hear creatives on the content side talking about climate? Do they ask you? Do they say, ‘You know, this is interesting, I’d like to learn more, and I might tell a story about it someday’?

Zena Harris  26:05

Yeah. I mean, this idea that the industry reach is certainly enormous — the cultural influence of the industry, wherever you’re interacting with it, whether you love a character on screen, whether you follow an actor in real life and kind of just like what they do, whether you follow — like, I’m an operations kind of person, I like looking at how things work and trying to improve that. But this idea of climate storytelling, a lot of people are thinking about it right now. It’s a huge lever. You will hear that batted around a lot. A lot of industry organizations are doing research on it and trying to get into writers’ rooms and in film schools.

There’s a lot of momentum in that space. We have been engaged a few times in that effort, and it’s proven beneficial. So I would say that 13% — there’s a lot of momentum around this subject, and I can see that number increasing over time. People want stories that reflect the current reality they’re feeling in real life. There are a lot of people working in environmental jobs, or in some shape or form, and I think those kinds of professions will be reflected on screen a lot more in the future. So, yeah, I think there’s a lot of momentum in that space.

Mitch Ratcliffe  27:52

I can see a film about a ranger saving a family from a fire.

Zena Harris  27:57

You can think it, they can do it.

Mitch Ratcliffe  28:00

Let’s turn back to the operational question, as you pointed out you focus on that. One of the common problems that production has, along with every other business, is trying to fully measure what’s going on. Like we were talking about, this set is this midpoint in a very complex supply chain where stuff has flowed in, now it needs to go somewhere in order to either be reused or appropriately recycled, but we can’t fully measure all that. What’s still in the invisible category of information? In the same sense that Scope 3 emissions are hard for a typical corporation to measure, is there a comparable issue with production sustainability?

Zena Harris  28:36

Oh yeah, 100%. Look, there are always more things to measure. As an industry, we have focused a lot on carbon emissions from things like utilities, fuel, air travel, and accommodations. We have a really good handle on that. But those are, like, four categories, right? And, as you said earlier, materials are coming onto production — food, wood, office supplies, you name it, it comes onto production. So those are the things we don’t have a solid handle on. There’s embedded carbon and all that stuff.

There are also lots of industry tools, industry carbon calculators out there — some measure more than others.

Mitch Ratcliffe  (interjects)

Are any of them any good?

Zena Harris  (continues)

Yeah, yeah, they’re good. But some have more inputs than others. Some will only measure those four categories that I mentioned. For years, for example, everybody in the industry wants to know the waste diversion rate, right? But nobody focuses on the carbon emissions associated with that material. We just get a diversion rate, and we call it good. So you have to choose: if you want to know all of that, you have to choose a tool that will allow you to input more of that information. And we don’t have a standard tool yet in the industry that everybody uses, so we can compare apples to apples.

We have guidance in the industry, and that’s really helpful. The Sustainable Entertainment Alliance, which is an industry consortium, has put out guidance on Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3. Their Scope 3 guidance is the most recent, and with new information, new methodology, a lot of people don’t really know what to do with that, and maybe aren’t sure which tool to use to capture some of that stuff. So there’s a lot of uncertainty even around the guidance that’s out there. That’s where you can seek out professionals to help you understand all that stuff.

Mitch Ratcliffe  31:11

One of the characteristics of the change we’re undergoing right now is the recognition of externalities. And in Hollywood production generally — I have some friends who are in the industry — it seems to me that they focused almost entirely on who was in front of the camera and who was behind the camera, and only now are starting to recognize that they’re part of this deeper supply chain. And now California’s new climate disclosure laws are going to require studios to report indirect, upstream and downstream emissions from every vendor by this year. How’s that going to change? And is the industry actually getting the traction on trying to respond to that requirement?

Zena Harris  31:47

The studios are very aware of this. They’ve been preparing for this. The suppliers upstream, downstream are not as [prepared].

Mitch Ratcliffe  31:58

So how are they not prepared? What do we need to do?

Zena Harris  32:00

Well, they haven’t been tracking.

Mitch Ratcliffe  32:10

So they’re the typical company.

Zena Harris  32:13

They are a typical company. These are small companies servicing these projects, these productions. And we’ve been so focused in the industry on pre-production and production — that piece of the content creation process. So if you think of a book that has 10 chapters, we’ve been essentially focusing on one chapter. So you’ve got all of the other ones, and all of the service companies and suppliers and all of that that still incorporates the book, and all of those are contributing in some way.

Now we’ve been collecting data from waste haulers. We’ve been collecting data from people who supply equipment, and even those folks are still trying to get organized with their data. So you can imagine, like every other company, they all have their own operations. So that’s one thing. You can incorporate sustainability into your own company operations, and then you can provide data associated with the product or service that you are providing. And that’s going to matter. Those things roll up into this production reporting, and that production reporting rolls up into the larger studio, who’s going to have to incorporate that into their corporate reporting.

Mitch Ratcliffe  33:54

So do you see this regulation as catalyzing the potential for sustainability at scale in entertainment production?

Zena Harris  34:05

Yeah. I mean, I think it provides people a solid talking point to go up and shake the tree a little bit and say, ‘Hey, we’re going to have to be doing this.’ Look, they’re not going to have all the information they need, probably, in year one. So they’re going to take what they do have, and they’re going to estimate probably across their slate. And then they’re going to work really hard to make that better, more accurate in the coming years. So if you’re not asked in year one as a supplier for certain information, you might be in year two and three. It would be wise, I think, to kind of get your house in order and be able to start reporting on these things, even if you’re never asked. It’s good for you as a company, because you start to understand where your waste is, where your emissions lie, and then you can start making changes accordingly. And yes, that stuff saves money. So it’s good for everyone to be thinking about this, whether you’re asked by a studio or not.

Mitch Ratcliffe  35:16

Well, that’s really the key — that it’s also rewarding to make that kind of additional positive impact, as well as save some money and make more profit in the long run. I mean, that’s what’s rewarding about progress in general.

Zena Harris  35:30

Totally, totally. It’s a ripple effect, right? And then we just get better as an industry, and then an industry that contributes to broader society.

Mitch Ratcliffe  35:40

So after 10 years, how far has the industry come toward the vision that you had when you started Green Spark Group?

Zena Harris  35:50

Oh, gosh. Well, there’s a lot that has happened over these years. Like I said, more people are aware, more people are engaged. But I think that we are swirling within the existing system. Sustainability practitioners that started working on production like I did years ago — we just entered this existing content creation system. And what I’m noticing now is that we’re swirling within the same system. We’re all running up against similar challenges around the world with regard to implementing sustainable practices. So we’re coming up against consistent hurdles, barriers within this system.

For me, that’s an opportunity to look a little bit bigger and say, ‘Okay, well, if we keep running into the same barriers, what if the system shifted? What if the entire system shifted? What are the incentives involved in the system to keep it the way it is?’ And there’s a lot — that’s a whole separate podcast — but all to say, this is where we need to be thinking: how we shift the system, how we have that radical collaboration, how we shift the needle on what suppliers are doing and reporting, and these sorts of things. And that’s what’s going to take us to the next level. We’re going to get over the hump.

Mitch Ratcliffe  37:34

So, given that, imagine that you are Zena, goddess of sustainability, and can put your finger on one thing and change it. What would it be, in order to drive much more rapid transition to a more sustainable production environment?

Zena Harris  37:51

I mean, I think it all comes down to the people — the people in the system that are either allowing or not allowing, either making excuses or open to possibility. It all comes down to that. There are some core elements associated with people, behavior change, these sorts of things. I think mindset is core, absolutely core. I think courage — even to talk about this stuff within your small team or your department, or even in a larger conversation — is pretty critical, to voice some things you’re noticing, or what ideas you have for doing things differently. I think that collective confidence — once you do that, people get on board. They come together. Confidence is critical as well. If you don’t have it, you’re not going to take the next step, right? So there are fundamental human elements that need to be developed, to be encouraged, to be demonstrated. And I think that is going to shift the needle.

Mitch Ratcliffe  39:08

It’s a storytelling challenge in a lot of ways. There’s some carrot, there’s some stick, there’s a lot of nuance to that tale that we need to really make embedded into everybody’s approach to thinking about the work. Zena, thanks so much for your time today. How can folks follow both Green Spark Group and the work you’ve done with the Sustainable Production Forum?

Zena Harris  39:28

Sure. You’re always welcome to check out our website, greensparkgroup.com. We post insights there monthly and have a lot of great information for folks. Also on social media at @greensparkgroup — pick a platform, we’re probably on it. And then the Sustainable Production Forum is online as well, sustainableproductionforum.com, and from there you can get to all of their content, videos, anything you want to know is there too.

And I’ll also just give a quick plug for my podcast that I co-host with my longtime friend Mark Rabin. It’s called The Tie-In, and so folks can also check out stories from crew members, from people doing amazing work behind the scenes. We talk to them all there.

Mitch Ratcliffe  40:21

Zena, thanks so much. It’s been a fascinating conversation. Really enjoyed it.

Zena Harris 

Thank you.

Mitch Ratcliffe  40:31

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Zena Harris, founder and president of Green Spark Group, the certified B Corp sustainability consultancy she launched in 2014 to change the climate of entertainment. You can find Zena and her team’s work at greensparkgroup.com — that’s all one word, no space, no dash. And check out their conference, the Sustainable Production Forum, now in its 10th year, at sustainableproductionforum.com, also all one word, no space, no dash.

I think the headline from Zena’s work is a pitch, not a principle: ‘We can save you money.’ That’s how she opens a conversation with a studio, and it’s why The Amazing Spider-Man 2 became an early case study, based on the work of a colleague of hers at Green Spark who helped that production save roughly $400,000 through sustainable practices. The implications of these savings are clear when you stand next to the dumpster at the end of a chute and watch a village’s worth of lumber, furniture, wallpaper, and props get hauled away to a landfill because the stage needs to be empty by Monday.

The sustainability opportunity in film and TV isn’t a values problem — the industry’s values are already stated on the record. It’s an operational capacity problem, and Zena’s work is translating aspiration into line items a production accountant can track. And that’s to the benefit of the environment, even if it’s not visible on the bottom line.

California’s new climate disclosure laws are about to change the equation, too. Beginning this year, studios will have to report upstream and downstream emissions from every vendor in their production supply chain. That’s the chapter of the book, as Zena put it, that the industry has never actually opened. The studios knew that this is coming, and they’ve been preparing for it. Their suppliers — the small companies servicing productions on short timelines — mostly haven’t. That gap is the real story over the next 24 months in the entertainment sustainability business.

Zena’s advice to suppliers is the same advice my recent guest Steve Wilhite, who leads Schneider Electric’s power management division, offered corporate energy buyers just a few weeks ago: get your house in order now, because even if you’re not asked for data today, you will be in two or three years. The companies that can report cleanly will win work, while those that can’t will become a balance sheet burden to the studios.

A digital nervous system is arriving now in Hollywood, and every waste hauler, every generator rental company, every lumber supplier is becoming a data-producing node in a network that didn’t exist just one or two production cycles ago. California’s environmental policy is forcing that network into being, and once it exists, it will not unbuild itself, because people are going to see the benefits. They’re going to see the savings that we’ve been talking about throughout this conversation.

And after 12 years in the business, I think Zena’s comment near the end of our conversation — that sustainability practitioners in entertainment are ‘swirling within the existing system’ — is important to note. The hurdles they hit on one production look identical to the hurdles they hit on the next, because the content creation system itself hasn’t changed. That’s the green living myth problem I discussed recently with author Michael Maniates, but with a Hollywood accent: individual actors are doing the right thing inside a structure that continues to produce the same outputs by default. And that can easily become disenchanting. On-set greening is necessary and it’s real, but the industry’s deepest cultural lever is the one that we discussed in passing.

Only about 13% of recent top-rated films even acknowledge climate change on screen. The carbon accounting for a single TV season matters, but the cultural accounting — for what a billion viewers see, what they feel is normal, and what film and television characters drive and eat and care about — that’s the lever that this industry hasn’t yet pulled. Production sustainability builds the operational muscle and the credibility, but climate storytelling is where that credibility will be built at scale, because it will spread these ideas, changing not only Hollywood’s practices, but the practices of an entire world. One without the other leaves the most influential narrative engine on the planet running on the old script, and it’s time for a change.

So stay tuned. We’re going to keep talking with people rewriting what’s possible on set and on screen. And could you take a moment to help spread the word about the sustainable future we can build together? You are the amplifier that can spread more ideas to create less waste. So please take a look at any of the more than 550 episodes of Sustainability In Your Ear in our archives. Writing a review on your favorite podcast platform will help your neighbors find us. So please tell your friends, family, and co-workers they can find Sustainability In Your Ear on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or whatever purveyor of podcast goodness they prefer.

Thank you, folks, for your support. I’m Mitch Ratcliffe. This is Sustainability In Your Ear, and we will be back with another innovator interview soon. In the meantime, take care of yourself, take care of one another, and let’s all take care of this beautiful planet of ours. Have a green day.

The post Sustainability In Your Ear: Zena Harris Brings a Green Spark to Hollywood appeared first on Earth911.