About two tons of satellite material burns up in Earth’s atmosphere every day. That is the steady-state exhaust of a single company’s broadband network, SpaceX’s Starlink, operating at its current scale. Each vaporized spacecraft leaves behind aluminum oxide, lithium, copper, and a growing list of metals the upper atmosphere has never had to contained in these quantities before.

We’re following a familiar human pattern. A commons, like the low earth orbit (LEO) region of space, is declared abundant. Commercial activity scales faster than science can measure the consequences. Governance lags by a decade or more. By the time the damage is legible, it is already expensive to reverse.

We did this to rivers in the 19th century, to the atmosphere in the 20th, and to the deep ocean in a quiet accumulation that stretched across both. A new peer-reviewed analysis published in Advances in Space Research makes clear that LEO is now on the same trajectory, and the chemistry is moving faster than the regulation.

An Atmosphere Already Dominated by Human Metal

The paper, an update to a 2021 study, reassesses how much spacecraft material is now being injected into the mesosphere and lower thermosphere as satellites and rocket stages burn up on reentry. The comparison it draws is that for several metals commonly used in spacecraft, anthropogenic injection now rivals or exceeds the natural input from meteoroids.

What was already true in 2021 is more true now. The researchers incorporate direct observations from stratospheric aerosol sampling — work led by Daniel Murphy at NOAA and published in PNAS in 2023 — which confirmed that roughly 10 percent of stratospheric aerosol particles now contain aluminum and other metals traceable to satellite and rocket-stage burn-up. For decades, the natural baseline was micrometeoroid ablation, what space sent naturally toward our planet. Earth sweeps up roughly 30 to 50 metric tons of cosmic dust every day, a steady rain of mostly sand-grain-sized particles left over from comets and asteroids. Those grains hit the upper atmosphere at speeds between 11 and 72 kilometers per second, vaporize in a thin layer between about 75 and 110 kilometers altitude, and seed the mesosphere with iron, magnesium, silicon, sodium, and trace amounts of nickel, calcium, and aluminum. This process has been running for the entire 4.5-billion-year history of the planet. The metal layers it produces in the upper atmosphere are well-mapped; they are the chemistry the stratosphere evolved with.

Aluminum is a useful tracer because it is a small share of the natural input. Cosmic dust is dominated by silicates and iron, with aluminum running on the order of one to two percent by mass. So when researchers began detecting elevated aluminum in stratospheric aerosol particles in the early 2020s, the signal was unambiguous — meteoritic infall could not account for it. The source had to be terrestrial in origin, vaporized at altitude. Spacecraft, in other words.

Human vehicles have become a second, larger source.

The near-term trajectory is worse. Researchers at the University of Southern California documented an eightfold increase in stratospheric aluminum oxide between 2016 and 2022, corresponding almost exactly to the ramp-up of Starlink and other satellite megaconstellations. In 2022 alone, reentering satellites released an estimated 17 metric tons of aluminum oxide nanoparticles — raising total atmospheric aluminum input about 29.5 percent above natural levels.

The Ocean Parallel

Consider the deep ocean in the 1960s. Dumping was legal, monitoring was barely funded, and the prevailing assumption was that the ocean was big enough to absorb anything. We now know the answer to that assumption after finding microplastics in Mariana Trench amphipods, pharmaceutical residues in Arctic sediment cores, and PFAS in polar bear blood.

Low Earth orbit is in the 1960s-ocean phase. The prevailing assumption among launch operators is that satellites that burn up are satellites that disappear. Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in global politics and international law, put this directly in a 2024 interview with Scientific American: “There’s this widespread assumption that something burning up in the atmosphere disappears, but, of course, mass never disappears.”

What it does instead is change form. A 250-kilogram satellite, typically about 30 percent aluminum by mass, generates roughly 30 kilograms of aluminum oxide nanoparticles as it ablates through the mesosphere. Those particles are small enough — 1 to 100 nanometers — that they can drift in the stratosphere for decades before settling. Aluminum oxide is not inert. It catalyzes the chlorine reactions that destroy stratospheric ozone, the same chemistry the Montreal Protocol was designed to stop. Crucially, the particles are not consumed in those reactions; they continue to destroy ozone molecules for the duration of their atmospheric lifetime.

The Scale Is Not Hypothetical

As of April 2026, SpaceX alone operates more than 10,000 active Starlink satellites, roughly two-thirds of all functioning spacecraft in orbit. The company has launched over 11,700 total, with about 1,500 already deorbited and replaced. Starlink satellites are designed for a five-year operational life, which means the constellation is, by design, a continuous churn: launch, operate, burn, launch again.

Amazon’s Project Kuiper, Eutelsat’s OneWeb, and a growing roster of Chinese state-backed constellations are moving toward similar architectures. The European Space Agency now tracks roughly 40,000 objects in low Earth orbit, about 11,000 of them active payloads, the rest debris or derelict hardware. Statistical models from ESA estimate another 130 million fragments smaller than one centimeter, each traveling fast enough to destroy whatever it hits.

Research published in Geophysical Research Letters projects that once currently planned megaconstellations are fully deployed, roughly 912 metric tons of aluminum will reenter the atmosphere every year, producing around 360 tons of aluminum oxide annually. A separate NOAA modeling study published in 2025 found that sustained alumina injection at expected 2040 levels could alter polar vortex speeds, warm parts of the mesosphere by as much as 1.5°C, and measurably impact the ozone layer.

Two Kinds of Pollution, One Commons

The orbital damage is happening on two fronts simultaneously, and they reinforce each other.

Atmospheric injection is the slow-accumulating chemistry problem. Every satellite that completes its mission becomes tomorrow’s stratospheric dust. A newly upgraded lidar system at the Leibniz Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Germany can now simultaneously detect lithium, sodium, copper, titanium, silicon, gold, silver, and lead in the upper atmosphere — each element a chemical fingerprint for specific spacecraft components. On February 20, 2025, the instrument registered a sudden spike in lithium vapor that researchers traced to a Falcon 9 upper stage reentering overhead.

The measurement capability is arriving just as the pollution is scaling.

Orbital debris is the faster-moving physical problem. SpaceX reported that its Starlink satellites executed 144,404 collision-avoidance maneuvers in the first half of 2025, due to collision warnings every couple of minutes, for six months straight — three times the previous rate. Two Starlink satellites have fragmented in orbit in the past four months, each creating a trackable debris field. Space is getting filled with junk that led to the International Space Station performing avoidance maneuvers twice in a single six-day window in November 2024, and again in April 2025.

Darren McKnight, a senior technical fellow at the debris-tracking firm LeoLabs, told IEEE Spectrum that certain orbital altitudes at 775, 840, and 975 kilometers have already passed the debris-density threshold where collisions generate fragments faster than atmospheric drag can remove them. This is known as the Kessler syndrome, proposed by NASA scientists Donald Kessler and Burton Cour-Palais in 1978, and it is no longer hypothetical in every band.

“Some operators in low Earth orbit are ignoring known long-term effects of behavior for short-term gain,” McKnight said, “Some will not change behavior until something bad happens.”

The Governance Gap

There is no body that regulates the cumulative atmospheric impact of satellite reentries. No operator is required to submit an environmental impact assessment for a constellation’s aggregate burn-up.

The FCC licenses spectrum.

National launch authorities license liftoff.

Debris mitigation guidelines from the UN’s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space are voluntary, and compliance is inconsistent. The chemistry of the upper atmosphere is, in regulatory terms, nobody’s jurisdiction.

The United Nations Environment Program took a first step in late 2025, releasing a report titled Safeguarding Space: Environmental Issues, Risks and Responsibilities. It framed space debris and atmospheric injection as “emerging issues” deserving the attention international bodies already give to ocean pollution and transboundary air quality. This is the same framing UNEP used for atmospheric ozone depletion in the 1970s before the Montreal Protocol. Measuring something does not fix it. But it is the necessary precondition for fixing it — and for the first time, the measurement infrastructure is catching up to the pollution.

The Counter-Case, Honestly

Not every specialist agrees the situation is as urgent as the headlines suggest. A skeptical review published in March 2026 argued that the Kessler cascade framing oversimplifies a risk that plays out on timescales of decades to centuries, and in specific orbital bands rather than across all of LEO. The review is right on one narrow point: the ISS has operated continuously at 400 kilometers since 2000, its debris risk is managed in real time, and the environment is not in a runaway state.

What the skeptical case does not resolve is the atmospheric chemistry. The Kessler debate is about whether low-earth orbit becomes unusable. The alumina question is about whether the recovery of the ozone layer — a genuine success story of international environmental governance — is quietly being undone from above. Those are different problems. The first might take a century. The second is already measurable and is projected to worsen within fifteen years.

The post We Are Doing to Low Earth Orbit What We Did to the Oceans appeared first on Earth911.

Trash can? Storage container? The dilemma of what should be done with all types of old batteries may seem trifling, but choosing incorrectly is detrimental to our planet and against the law in many states. As a junior in high school, I chose to help people make the right choice by starting an awareness campaign, the Battery Recycling Initiative.

The first step to starting an awareness campaign is identifying the issue you wish to advocate for. Through research and observation, I noted that many of us, including people in my own community, were unaware of the consequences of improper battery disposal on our environment. In fact, according to Recycling Today, 41% of Americans are unaware of the dangers of improper battery disposal.

The second step is to set the scope of your campaign. Are you planning on only advocating locally, globally, or a mix of both? Which specific areas should you advocate in to effectively spread awareness?

For my campaign, I chose to start locally and move globally. To find out if a local battery recycling campaign would be effective in my community, I decided to survey residents in Houston, TX and found out that more than 50% of the residents did not recycle batteries and about 14% only recycled certain types of batteries.

Step 1: Identify the issue and scope of your initiative

How does one start taking inititative? It is simple. Get people to listen. There were three strategies I used to increase awareness about battery recycling:

1. Provide information digitally and physically
2. Engage people through interaction and face-to-face conversations
3. Provide resources for people to take action.

These strategies tend to work for the majority of awareness campaigns: indirectly educate people (this could be through flyers, websites posts, etc.), directly educate people through in-person events, and give them a convenient method to take action. Why are these strategies effective?

Because through these 3 different ways to reach out to and engage people, you can cover most of the reasons why people may choose not to participate in resolving an issue. For example, the three main reasons why people don’t recycle batteries are:

• people do not know they can recycle batteries.
• recycling batteries is not convenient for some people.
• they do not know where to recycle, or people do not have the will to recycle- they see recycling as insignificant, or they are ignorant of grave consequences for future generations.

All three of these problems can be combatted using the three strategies. Through indirect education, people learn that batteries can be recycled and where they can recycle them. Direct education empowers people to recycle, to take action, which combats the lack of will problem. Finally, providing resources to residents, in my case by placing battery recycling bins at my community clubhouses, combatted the lack of convenience aspect.

Step 2: Use the Three Strategies

Strategy 1 – Indirect Education

The first step to indirectly educating people is to ensure your information is accurate. I did plenty of research and talked to various battery recycling centers- like the Fort Bend County Battery Recycling Center- to ensure my information was accurate. The next step is choosing which methods of indirect education you wish to utilize. I chose to provide information via flyers, and use a QR code to help people locate their nearest battery recycling center, to give people quick and easy means to receive the information. I chose to utilize social media as my 2^nd method to spread my initiative over a more globalized scope.

Strategy 2 – Direct Education

The main goal of direct education is to empower people to take action and to support/join your initiative.  By interacting with people via face-to-face conversations, you retain the person’s attention a lot better than indirect means. By building a connection with the person you converse with, it encourages them to take part in the initiative.

For example, I participated in my community’s Green Day event where I set up a small booth and talked with residents about battery recycling.  I remember having a conversation with this resident who was surprised to learn she could recycle batteries.

Many other residents told me they would just store old batteries in a container, not knowing what to do with them. One of my favorite interactions was with this lady who was so inspired by my initiative; she offered to help me out with anything I needed. While direct education does not reach that large of an audience, every meaningful connection you develop carries a depth of impact that numbers alone cannot measure- it has the potential to ripple out and influence countless others.

Strategy 3 – Providing a Convenient Method to Take Action

Convenience and availability play a big part in people’s will to take action. In fact, according to a study done by the Carton Council, these two factors contributed the most towards people’s will to recycle.

By appealing to people’s need for convenience, you spread awareness more effectively and grow your initiative by influencing people to act. I applied this idea by placing two battery recycling bins at both of my community clubhouses. I ended up receiving around 1,000 old batteries from those bins within two weeks, which I then safely recycled by taping the points of contact- this helps prevent fires due to batteries.

Have the Will and a Vision to Make an Impact

It may seem like you are just one person who cannot make an impact, but with a strong will and right vision you can achieve success. Your age, position, or location does not matter: I am just a Junior in high school living in a suburban area, but what does matter is you care and you have the heart to do something about it.

I urge you to utilize these methods and strategies to spread awareness about issues that matter to you, to make an impact. To quote the well-known, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”

About the Author

Swara Bhatt is a high school junior who loves to paint, read, and watch movies in her free time. She hopes to make the world a better place, one step at a time. If you are interested in seeing updates about the battery recycling initiative, follow the project on Instagram: @batteryrecyclingintitative

The post Guest Idea: How To Spread Awareness About Issues That Matter appeared first on Earth911.

On average, each American throws away about 81 pounds of clothing, shoes, and household textiles every year. That’s roughly a hamper full every month for each person. For a family of four, this adds up to over 320 pounds of textiles tossed or donated each year. Most people don’t realize how much they discard until they actually weigh it over a year.

The number comes from EPA’s most recent, 2018 sustainable-materials accounting, which puts U.S. post-consumer textile generation at roughly 17 million tons and the recovery rate at 14.7 percent. While the EPA has discontinued its reporting, ThredUp’s 2025 Resale Report and the Apparel Impact Institute updates suggest per-capita generation has continued rising. Most of what falls inside that 14.7 percent is downcycled into industrial wiping rags or insulation, not turned into new clothing.

What “donating” actually does

The mental model in most American closets is that the donation bin is the recycling bin. It isn’t. Goodwill, Salvation Army, and the secondhand chains sell what they can on the resale floor, typically only 10 to 30 percent of the clothing they accept as donations. The rest is sold by the pound to textile graders, who export the higher grades to wholesale markets in West Africa, Eastern Europe, and Central America, bale the remainder as wiping rags or insulation feedstock, and landfill the rest.

That export pipeline is under pressure. Ghana, Kenya, and Chile have moved to restrict or refuse low-grade used-clothing imports, citing the volume of unsellable fast-fashion synthetics arriving contaminated and culturally mismatched. The January 2025 GAO report on textile recovery flagged the offshore-disposal pathway as structurally fragile and quietly subsidized by U.S. consumers who treat donation as absolution.

The amount of clothing waste is closely tied to price. Since 1995, clothing prices in the U.S. have dropped by over 30 percent, even as other costs have gone up. This is mainly due to ultra-fast-fashion brands like Shein and Temu. Many clothes, especially those made from polyester-spandex blends, aren’t made to last, be repaired, or recycled. They’re often thrown out after just six wears. According to McKinsey’s State of Fashion report, the average piece of clothing is now worn only seven to ten times before being discarded, much less than in the past.

The household bill

The value of clothing can change a lot, so it’s harder to put an exact dollar amount on waste compared to food. Still, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the average U.S. household spends about $1,900 a year on clothes. If 30 to 40 percent of those clothes are thrown out within two seasons, that means a household is tossing $570 to $760 worth of new clothing every year.

The environmental impact of clothing is even bigger before it reaches your closet. The UN Environment Programme says fashion is responsible for 2 to 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and 20 percent of industrial water pollution. Making just one cotton t-shirt uses about 2,700 liters of water, which is as much as one person drinks in two and a half years.

The policy lever finally arriving

For years, there were no rules holding clothing producers responsible for textile waste in the U.S. That changed with California’s SB 707, the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024, which is the first law of its kind in the country. CalRecycle chose Landbell USA to run the program starting February 27, 2026. Brands selling clothes and household textiles in California will have to help pay for collection and processing, with requirements rolling out through 2030. Other states like New York, Massachusetts, and Washington are considering similar laws that would make clothing manufacturers cover the costs of fast fashion waste.

Fiber-to-fiber recycling — the missing technology piece — is moving, slowly. Circ, Syre, and Reju are at pilot or first-commercial scale. Renewcell, the most visible name in cellulosic recycling, filed for bankruptcy in early 2024 and has since been acquired and restarted as Circulose. Textile recycling technology is real, but the economics of the business still depend on virgin-fiber prices going higher, the development of a sorting infrastructure, and the kind of policy support SB 707 is now beginning to provide.

What You Can Do

At home and while shopping:

1. Focus on slowing down how often you buy new clothes, not just buying less. Choose better quality items and wear them for longer. If you double how long you wear each garment, you can cut its total emissions by about half.
2. Try to fix your clothes before replacing them. Local tailors, Repair Cafés, and repair programs from brands like Patagonia, Nudie Jeans, and Eileen Fisher can help you get more use out of what you already have.
3. Be honest when sorting your donations. Clean, up-to-date, and resaleable items should go to local thrift stores. Items that are stained or torn should go to textile-specific takeback bins at places like H&M or Madewell, where they can be properly processed.
4. Before putting anything in your curbside bin, use Earth911’s recycling search to find local textile drop-off locations by ZIP Code. Most curbside bins don’t accept clothing or textiles.

In your community:

1. Support textile extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws in your state. SB 707 is the example to follow, and the next few states to pass similar laws will help decide if this approach can grow.
2. Ask retailers to clearly label fiber content and recyclability. The EU will require digital product passports by 2027, and U.S. brands selling overseas will have to comply. Whether these labels appear in the U.S. depends on consumer demand.
3. Support and volunteer at local repair and reuse programs. Repair Cafés, Buy Nothing groups, and clothing swaps help reduce waste before it starts, which is the most effective way to make a difference.

The post Where Waste Comes From: Your Closet appeared first on Earth911.

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

The ocean provides half the oxygen we breathe, absorbs 30% of our carbon emissions, and helps control the planet’s climate. By 2030, it’s expected to support a $3.2 trillion Blue Economy. Yet 70% of proven ocean solutions, such as coastal resilience, coral restoration, and marine pollution cleanup, never move past the pilot stage. These projects often win awards and get media attention, but then stall because funding systems don’t connect working ideas with the cities, ports, and coastal areas that need them. Stewart Sarkozy-Banoczy, co-founder and ocean lead at Okhtapus, wants to change that. Okhtapus, named with the Persian word for the octopus, uses a model that links what Stewart calls “the three hearts” of successful projects: innovators with proven solutions, cities and ports ready to use them, and funders looking for solid projects.

The first Okhtapus Global Replicator will launch in 2026. It will bring groups of proven innovators to work on important projects in specific places, such as a single port city like Barcelona, where Okhtapus already has strong partnerships, or a group of Caribbean islands facing similar problems. The aim is to have enough successful projects that funders stop asking “where are the deals?” and start saying “we’ve got enough.” The platform focuses on late-stage startups and scale-ups, not early-stage ideas. Stewart calls these the “Goldilocks zone”—solutions that are proven enough to copy but still need funding and partners to grow. By combining several solutions for different locations, Okhtapus can offer investors portfolios that fit their needs and make a real difference in cities, ports, and island nations.

Stewart has spent 20 years working where climate resilience and policy meet. He was part of President Obama’s Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, led policy and investments at the Resilient Cities Network, and is now Managing Director of the World Ocean Council. “Ten years from now, if this is done fast enough,” Stewart said, “we should have pushed hard enough on the funders and the system to change it. What we don’t know is whether we’ll get to the solution status fast enough for some of these tipping points.”

To find out more about Okhtapus, visit okhtapus.org.

• • 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 December 22, 2025.

The post Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Okhtapus Cofounder Stewart Sarkozy-Banoczy Accelerates Ocean Solutions appeared first on Earth911.

Every year, Americans toss out about 17 million tons of textiles, and most items left in donation bins don’t find a new home. Now, more mail-in programs are stepping in to take your old clothes, keep them out of landfills, and reward you—often with store credit or cash-like rewards you can use at familiar brands.

The programs listed here include options that take any brand or condition—even socks and stained T-shirts—as well as brand-specific trade-ins that give you real money for quality items. While none of these fully solves fashion’s waste problem, and some have fees or important details to check, each offers a more responsible choice than tossing clothes in the curbside bin. With the right program, your rewards can even cover your costs or more.

1. Trashie Take Back Bag — The Any-Brand, Any-Condition Option

Trashie ships a prepaid, prepackaged bag that holds up to 15 pounds of clothing, shoes, accessories, and home textiles from any brand, in any condition, including single socks, worn-through T-shirts, and bedsheets. A single Take Back Bag runs $20, though they are frequently on sale, and earns $5 in TrashieCash redeemable for deals at partners including Sephora, Nike, Starbucks, Allbirds, and Cozy Earth.

If you want to recycle often, Trashie Unlimited costs $68 a year and gives you unlimited bags, plus bigger rewards as you go. You get $5 for your first bag, $15 more at your fifth bag (for a total of $26), and by your tenth bag, you’ve earned back your membership with $68 in TrashieCash. After that, every bag earns you extra. Trashie reports that 95% of what they receive is repurposed, reused, or recycled, sorted into over 600 categories.

Best for: that pile of clothes you’ve been meaning to deal with for months, especially items too worn out to donate.

2. Retold Recycling — Subscription Bags With Curated Partner Rewards

Retold Recycling uses a subscription model. Their annual plan costs $99 and comes with six pre-labeled, prepaid bags—three to start, then one each quarter—each holds about five pounds of textiles. You earn Retold Rewards worth about $15 per bag, which you can use at partners like Dropps, Allyoos, Me Mother Earth, and Plaine Products. There’s also a quarterly plan for $24.75 every three months, with the same rewards per bag.

Retold accepts all textiles, including clothing, household linens, and fabric scraps, from any brand. Its recycling partners sort items by fiber content, quality, and style, with the company stating that items are kept out of landfill except when materials like leather, coated textiles, or neoprene can’t be processed. Consumer Reports said only Retold subscribers earn the rewards credits; one-time bag buyers don’t.

Best for: people who want to recycle regularly and like getting discounts at smaller sustainable brands instead of big retailers.

3. Patagonia Worn Wear — Real Trade-In Value for Well-Made Gear

Patagonia’s Worn Wear offers the best payouts if you have Patagonia items. Go to their website, take a quick quiz to check if your items qualify, print a shipping label, and send in your clean, working Patagonia jackets, fleece, pants, packs, and more. You’ll get credit as a gift card to use online or in Patagonia stores.

Trade-in values are usually about 20% of the original price. According to Patagonia’s FAQ, credits can go up to $180 for high-value items, with jackets earning between $10 and $200, and wheeled bags between $45 and $90. Sometimes, they run promotions that double your credit, so keep an eye out for those.

Keep in mind, Worn Wear only takes Patagonia-branded gear that’s still in good, usable shape. They don’t accept underwear, swimwear, or wetsuits. If your items don’t qualify, they’ll either send them back or recycle them for free.

Best for: people clearing out Patagonia gear they no longer need and who already shop at Patagonia.

4. ThredUp Clean Out Kit — Cash or Credit for What Actually Sells

ThredUp is a consignment service, not recycling: the company pays you for items it can resell, and routes the rest to donation or recycling partners. Order a Clean Out Kit, fill it with women’s or kids’ clothing in excellent or like-new condition, and ship it in. Payouts scale with listing price, from low single-digit percentages on inexpensive items to as much as 80% on premium and designer brands like Lululemon or Gucci.

You can get paid in cash or as store credit at ThredUp or partner brands like Gap, Banana Republic, Athleta, Madewell, Janie and Jack, and Reformation. If you pick store credit, you usually get a 15–20% bonus. Be aware that ThredUp takes a $14.99 processing fee from your earnings per bag, and if you want any rejected items sent back, there’s a $10.99 fee. This program isn’t for fast fashion—items from those brands or heavily worn clothes are usually rejected.

Best for: closets with name-brand, current-season women’s and kids’ clothes in good shape—not for stained T-shirts.

5. ReGirlfriend — Closed-Loop Recycling for Activewear

Girlfriend Collective, an athleisure brand, offers ReGirlfriend—a mail-in program run with SuperCircle. You can send in clean clothes from any brand and get $10 in store credit for each Girlfriend item or $5 for each non-Girlfriend item, up to 10 pieces per shipment. There’s a $15 deposit to print your shipping label, but you get it back if you make a purchase within 30 days.

You’ll get personalized discount codes for up to 30% off your next Girlfriend order. For example, a $30 credit needs at least a $100 purchase to use the full amount. Items are sorted for reuse when possible, or they’re recycled, upcycled into new yarn or fabric, or downcycled for industrial uses if they can’t be resold.

Best for: people who already shop at Girlfriend and want a mail-in option for activewear and basics from different brands.

Quick Comparison

• Accepts any brand in any condition: Trashie, Retold, ReGirlfriend
• Brand-specific only: Patagonia Worn Wear (Patagonia gear), ThredUp (women’s and kids’ name-brand resale)
• Cash payout possible: ThredUp (via consignment)
• Store credit only: Trashie, Retold, Patagonia Worn Wear, ReGirlfriend, ThredUp (credit option)
• Highest potential payout: Patagonia Worn Wear for premium Patagonia items; ThredUp for current-season designer women’s clothing

Get Ready for Mail-In Recycling Success

• Sort your clothes before sending them. Items in good enough shape to resell or donate are worth more on ThredUp, Patagonia Worn Wear, or at a local consignment shop. Clothes that are worn out or off-brand are better suited for Trashie, Retold, or ReGirlfriend.
• Consider whether a subscription makes sense for you. Trashie Unlimited is worth it if you send about 10 bags a year. Retold’s annual plan can earn you up to $90 in partner rewards. If you won’t fill several bags, it’s better to skip the subscription.
• Pick store credit if you already shop at that brand. ThredUp’s 15–20% credit bonus and Patagonia’s double-credit promotions can boost your payout, but only if you were planning to spend there anyway.
• Don’t mail clothes that your city already recycles. Many places offer curbside textile pickup or special drop-off bins. Use the Earth911 Recycling Search to find local options before paying to ship clothes out of state.
• Check the details on fees. ThredUp charges a $14.99 processing fee, Patagonia deducts $7 for shipping, and ReGirlfriend requires a $15 refundable deposit. Make sure to consider these costs before you decide.
• Try to buy less in the first place. No mail-in program can make up for the impact of owning lots of fast fashion. The best thing you can do is choose fewer, longer-lasting clothes.

The post 5 Places to Mail In Your Old Clothes and Earn Rewards appeared first on Earth911.

Today’s quote comes from Pope John Paul II’s message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace, 1990. He wrote, “Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyle.”

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

The post Earth911 Inspiration: A Serious Look at Modern Lifestyle appeared first on Earth911.

Out of 52 climate targets needed to reach net zero by 2050, only six are on track or have been met. The other 46 are behind, failing, or marked as Code Red. This is according to the Speed & Scale tracker, a detailed public scorecard that measures if the global economy is cutting emissions fast enough.

The tracker is part of an initiative started in 2021 by investor John Doerr, known for backing Google and Amazon early on. He used Silicon Valley’s Objectives and Key Results method to tackle the climate crisis. The 2026 edition comes with a new letter from Doerr called “Let’s Build, Friends, Build,” a call to focus on the need to build solutions. As he puts it, pledges alone won’t cool the planet—real progress comes from cutting emissions.

How the Tracker Works

Speed & Scale breaks down decarbonization into 10 main goals, such as electrifying transportation and investing in clean energy. Each goal has measurable key results with targets for 2035 and 2050. Progress is rated on a five-level scale, from Achieved to Code Red. Code Red is the worst rating and is given to areas with over 3 gigatons of yearly emissions and little or no progress.

The 2026 update now uses Climate TRACE, a satellite and AI system, instead of UN country reports to measure emissions. This change raised the baseline from 59 gigatons in 2019 to 74 gigatons in 2024. The increase is not due to a sudden jump in emissions, but because TRACE finds fossil-fuel activity that country reports often miss. Atmospheric CO₂ is now at 429 parts per million, which is about 53 percent higher than before the industrial era.

Where Cost Curves Are Winning

The key results that are on track have one thing in common: clean technology has become the cheaper choice. Electric vehicles show this best. There were about one million EVs on the road ten years ago, but now there are over 50 million. EVs make up more than 20 percent of new car sales worldwide and over half in China. In the first nine months of 2025, enough solar and wind power was built to stop the growth of fossil fuels in electricity. According to BloombergNEF, solar costs have fallen by 84 percent since 2010.

There are now three million more clean-energy jobs than fossil-fuel jobs worldwide, according tothe International Energy Agency. For the 249 Fortune Global 500 companies that report their direct emissions (Scope 1 and 2), those emissions have dropped by 23 percent since 2019. However, Scope 3 emissions, which include supply chain and product use, make up about 95 percent of their total and are not decreasing as quickly.

Code Red: Where the Cost Curve Hasn’t Bent

Methane emissions from oil and gas operations are still going up, even though the IEA says 75 percent could be cut using current technology, often at a net savings. Methane is about 80 times more powerful than CO₂ over 20 years, making it the most cost-effective way to cut emissions, yet progress is going in the wrong direction.

BuildingMost building heating and cooling still relies on fossil fuels, even as a million new buildings are added each month. Heavy industry is also behind: there are no commercial-scale zero-carbon steel plants and only one net-zero cement facility in the world. The tracker says we need 700 steel and 300 cement plants by 2035. Industrial agriculture and livestock are also rated Code Red. Carbon removal is far behind too—by 2025, just over one million metric tons have been removed, according to CDR.fyi, but the plan calls for 14 billion tons per year by 2050.

Where Each Objective Stands

The Build Imperative — and the 1.5°C Verdict

In his new letter, Doerr says the climate challenge is now shaped by three main forces: rising demand for electricity, the global politics of clean-tech manufacturing, and falling costs thanks to market forces. He writes, “We cannot cut fossil fuels without building the alternative.” The updated tracker shows this change. While the 2021 plan focused on percentage reductions, the 2026 version spells out what needs to be built: 600 million EVs, 700 zero-carbon steel mills, and 30,000 TWh of solar and wind power.

Doerr also shares the toughest update: Speed & Scale now says keeping global warming to 1.5°C is no longer possible. Five more years of rising emissions have used up the remaining carbon budget. The new goal is to stay below 2°C, with the U.S., EU, and China aiming for net zero by 2050.

The post The World Has a Decarbonization Scoreboard. Here’s What It Says. appeared first on Earth911.

The bag your potato chips come in is seven layers deep. Metalized polyester, a plastic coated with a thin layer of metal, keeps out light. Polyethylene, a common plastic, holds the seal. A printed film provides the label. An oxygen barrier, a layer that blocks oxygen, helps prevent spoilage. There’s another sealant (a layer that helps bond the package), another structural layer for strength, and a food-contact inner skin that directly touches the chips. Each of those layers solves a problem for the manufacturer: preserving freshness, supporting branding, and extending shelf life. Together, these layers are a package no U.S. recycling system can recover for future use.

To put the potato chip bag problem in context, consider American packaging waste as a whole. Americans generated roughly 82.2 million tons of containers and packaging in 2018, about 28 percent of all municipal solid waste, according to the EPA’s most recent national accounting. Plastic packaging contributed more than 14.5 million tons of the total. Those figures are now seven years old. EPA has not issued an updated Facts and Figures report since, even as e-commerce shipments and single-serve formats keep multiplying the number of small, lightweight, hard-to-recycle packages moving through American homes.

The freshest picture comes from California, which is now doing what the federal government has stopped doing. CalRecycle’s SB 54 Material Characterization Study, conducted by Cascadia Consulting Group at 16 landfills in early 2025, found that about 8.5 million tons of single-use packaging and foodware were buried in California landfills in 2024, roughly 21 percent of everything the state landfilled that year. Plastic accounted for about 3.1 million tons of that covered material. Flexible and film plastics — the category that includes chip bags — turned up across all sampling sectors, from single-family curbside collection to commercial routes and self-haul loads. One state, one year, and the composite pouch is everywhere the waste auditors looked.

While composite pouches present a recycling challenge, some rigid plastics fare better. The rigid side of the plastic waste stream — PET water bottles, HDPE milk jugs, some polypropylene tubs — has a functioning recovery system. NAPCOR’s 2024 PET Recycling Report put the U.S. PET bottle collection rate at 30.2 percent; over 70 percent of bottles that reach a curbside bin actually are sorted, baled, and reprocessed into new material.

The situation shifts again when looking at flexible packaging specifically. Flexible bags, pouches, wrappers, and refill sacks that have quietly taken over the grocery aisle are a different story. The U.S. Plastics Pact’s most recent impact report reported a combined U.S. plastic packaging recycling rate of 13.3 percent. Flexibles within that number are a rounding error. Most estimates put flexible-packaging recycling in the United States below 2 percent.

Greenpeace’s 2022 assessment concluded that no type of U.S. plastic packaging meets the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s definition of ‘recyclable,’ a 30 percent recycling rate across a region of 400 million people.

Why does the material resist recovery

Three things make flexible plastic packaging structurally hard to recycle:

• Flexible plastic packaging is not made of a single resin but is often three to nine layers of different plastics and metals bonded together. Mechanical recycling requires a clean, mono-material feedstock, and these laminates cannot be separated into their constituent materials.
• Flexible bags are too light for materials recovery facilities (MRFs) to sort effectively. They tangle in screens intended for separating paper from containers, and often jam equipment, prompting shutdowns for removal.
• It has no domestic end market. Before China’s 2018 National Sword policy, a ban on imports of many types of foreign waste, much of the U.S. flexible-packaging stream was exported. That relief valve closed. Domestic reprocessing capacity (U.S.-based facilities to clean and reuse the material) for multi-layer flexibles has not been built because no private processor can make the economics work at the price a commodity market will pay for the bale (a compressed block of collected plastic packaging).

Composite film is what industry insiders call a “residual cost material”—meaning the combined cost of collecting, transporting, and processing it exceeds what any buyer will pay for the recovered commodity. The private market will not recycle it.

What store drop-off actually does

For a decade, the polite answer to “what do I do with this bag?” has been: take it to the front of your grocery store. The bins marked for plastic bags and film — operated by the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP) and branded by retailers including Walmart, Kroger, and Target — accept clean polyethylene films: grocery bags, bread bags, dry-cleaning bags, produce bags, and some case-pack overwrap, but not chip bags and other packaging made with composites that combine plastics, paper, and metals.

Most of the polyethylene that does get captured at drop-off goes into composite lumber — Trex decking is the dominant end market, which is a form of downcycling rather than a closed-loop system. It’s a better outcome than landfill. It is also not what the word “recyclable” on the package implies.

Advanced recycling: real, overstated, and controversial

When mechanical recycling cannot process a feedstock, industry increasingly points to “advanced” or “chemical” recycling, which includes pyrolysis, gasification, and solvent-based depolymerization, as the solution for films and flexibles. The promise: break the polymer down to monomer or fuel-feedstock molecules that can be re-polymerized or combusted.

The promise is technically real, though many critics question its promised results. The scale is not yet. Most operating U.S. pyrolysis facilities produce pyrolysis oil sold as fuel, which, from a climate perspective, is combustion with extra steps. A 2023 NRDC analysis found most “advanced recycling” projects in the U.S. are either producing fuel rather than new plastic or operating at a pilot scale. Facilities designed for polymer-to-polymer chemical recycling, such as Eastman’s Kingsport, Tennessee, plant, and Alterra’s Akron facility, process a small fraction of national flexible-packaging generation.

Twenty-five states have now classified advanced recycling as “manufacturing” rather than waste management, easing permitting requirements and exempting the facilities from solid-waste oversight (regulatory supervision for handling waste). Environmental-justice advocates (groups focused on pollution impacts on vulnerable communities) argue the reclassification moves emissions and solid-residue handling out from under the permitting regime designed to protect fenceline communities (neighborhoods directly next to industrial sites). The argument is not settled.

The EPR turn

The meaningful change in the flexible-packaging story over the past eighteen months has not come from new recycling technology. It has come from policy: seven U.S. states now implement Extended Producer Responsibility laws for packaging.

Oregon’s program went operational on July 1, 2025, with the Circular Action Alliance serving as the producer responsibility organization (PRO) that manages the program, supported by roughly $200 million in producer funding for the first year. The state plans to build out 144 PRO-operated recycling collection centers across the state. Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, Washington, and Maine are at various stages behind Oregon, with California’s SB 54 program — the most expansive of the group — scheduled to be fully activated in 2027.

What EPR changes, in plain terms, is that the producer — the brand that chose the seven-layer laminate for branding and shelf life reasons — now pays for the collection and recovery of the package after a consumer uses it. The fees are eco-modulated: simpler, mono-material, more-recyclable packaging pays less; hard-to-recycle multi-layer flexibles pay more. Over time, the fee differential is intended to push producers toward redesigning packaging.

Why we’re paying for the old ways

The externalities the household pays for without seeing them, from flexible packaging specifically:

• Landfill tipping fees. At the Environmental Research & Education Foundation’s 2024 weighted-average U.S. tipping fee of $62.63 per ton, the flexible-packaging share of the ~14 million tons of plastic packaging generated annually represents hundreds of millions of dollars in direct municipal disposal cost funded through utility bills and solid-waste budgets.
• MRF fire risk. Flexible packaging is the stream that most commonly carries lithium-ion batteries — from disposable vapes, earbud cases, and lithium cells — into the recycling system. Fire Rover’s 2024 annual review reported that publicly tracked MRF and transfer-station fires rose roughly 20 percent year over year, with total damage and operational impact estimated at $1.2 billion annually. Much of that cost is passed through to municipalities in the form of higher processing fees.
• Marine and microplastic pollution. Lightweight flexible packaging is disproportionately represented in litter and marine-debris inventories because it is light enough to blow out of collection vehicles, bins, and landfills. Microplastic shedding from degrading film is a growing concern for surface waters and the food chain.
• Incinerator air quality. When flexibles are combusted in waste-to-energy plants, the emissions include PM2.5 particles, hydrogen chloride from chlorinated layers, and metals from inks and lamination, which disproportionately fall on the communities that host those plants. Sixteen of the twenty largest U.S. incinerators operate in majority or above-average communities of color.

None of these costs appear on the grocery receipt. Yet, you’re paying these fees until EPR programs force producers to do so.

What You Can Do

For individuals and households, you can make these choices:

1. Buy the format that’s actually recyclable where you live. Rigid containers — a jar, a bottle, a tub — can be recycled; flexible pouches in most places cannot. When the product is available in both formats, the rigid is the better environmental choice, even when weight is accounted for.
2. Separate clean polyethylene film for store drop-off. Grocery bags, bread bags, dry-cleaning bags, produce bags, and case-pack overwrap are the films that the WRAP system actually handles. Anything with foil, zippers, or mixed layers should not go in the drop-off bin.
3. Do not put flexible packaging in your curbside bin. In most municipal systems, composite packaging is treated as contamination that reduces the value of the entire load.

At the community and policy level, you can get involved:

1. Support packaging EPR in your state. Seven states have laws; a dozen more have active bills. The programs work only when constituents push, and they push when the programs pass.
2. Ask brands directly. Eco-modulated EPR fees move producers toward better design only if producers perceive consumer pressure alongside the fee. Social-media and direct-contact campaigns targeting specific CPG brands have moved packaging decisions before and will again.
3. Be skeptical of “chemical recycling” claims. When a brand points to a pyrolysis partnership as evidence of circular packaging, ask which facility, what output, and at what scale relative to the package volume the brand puts into the market.

The post The Chip Bag Problem: America’s Least Recycled Material Is Also Its Fastest-Growing appeared first on Earth911.

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

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

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

The Scale of the Problem

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

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

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

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

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

Fast Fashion, Faster: The Shein and Temu Problem

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

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

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

The New Regulatory Landscape

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

California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act (SB 707)

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

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

France’s Anti–Fast Fashion Law

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

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

The EU Waste Framework Directive

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

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

The Resale Market Is Doing What Regulation Hasn’t

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

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

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

What Sustainable Fashion Actually Means

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

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

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

Take Action At Home

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

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

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

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

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

The built environment, particularly office buildings other urban facilities, are responsible for 39% of the global energy-related emissions, according to the World Green Building Council. About a third of that impact comes from the initial construction of a building and the other two-thirds is produced over the lifetime of a building by heating, cooling, and providing power to the occupants. Our guest today is leading a key battle to reduce the impact of the built environment. Tune in for a wide-ranging conversation with Rob Bernard, Chief Sustainability Officer at CBRE Group Inc., which manages more than $145 billion of commercial buildings, providing logistics, retail, and corporate office services across more than than 100 countries.

Rob cut his sustainability teeth at Microsoft, as its Chief Environmental Strategist for 11 years, as the company was developing its world-leading approach and collaborating with other tech giants to lobby for policy and funding to accelerate progress. He discusses CBRE’s Sustainability Solutions & Services for commercial building owners, as well as the accelerating progress for renewables, carbon tracking, and economic, health, and lifestyle benefits of living lightly on the planet. You can learn more about CBRE and its sustainability services at cbre.com

Take a few minutes to learn more about making construction and building operations more sustainable:

• Earth911 Podcast: Cityzenith’s Michael Jansen Uses Digital Twins to Reinvent Urban Planning
• Earth911 Podcast: Concrete.ai CEO Alex Hall On Mixing Embodied Carbon Out Of the Built Environment
• Best of Earth911 Podcast: Lowering Construction Impacts With Green Badger’s Tommy Linstroth
• Best of Earth911 Podcast: William Ulrich on Learning From Y2K To Design the Circular Economy
• Best of Earth911 Podcast: Autodesk Spacemaker Aides Building Efficiency With AI Insights
• How to Assess Your Business’ Environmental and Social Impacts
• Passive House Design: Changing the Future of New Home Construction

• 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 podcast originally aired on April 15, 2024.

The post Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Making Billions of Square Feet of Commercial Space Sustainable with CBRE’s Rob Bernard appeared first on Earth911.

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

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

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

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

The waste stream inside the house

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burning a hole in your family budget

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

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

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

Where the infrastructure works, and where it doesn’t

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

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

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

Take Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem Is Structural

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

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

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

The Heat Risk Nobody Planned For

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

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

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

Los Angeles contends with wildfire smoke.

Miami faces hurricanes.

Where Host Cities Lead, and Where They Lag

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

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

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

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

The American Transit Problem

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

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

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

What This Means Beyond the Tournament

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

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

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