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.

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

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

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

The Problem Is Structural

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

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

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

The Heat Risk Nobody Planned For

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

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

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

Los Angeles contends with wildfire smoke.

Miami faces hurricanes.

Where Host Cities Lead, and Where They Lag

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

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

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

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

The American Transit Problem

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

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

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

What This Means Beyond the Tournament

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

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

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

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

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

What Is the Social Cost of Carbon?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Short History of a Disputed Number

2008: A Court Forces the Issue

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

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

2009–2016: The Obama Administration Sets the Framework

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

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

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

2017–2020: The First Trump Administration Rewrites the Math

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

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

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

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

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

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

2025: The Second Trump Administration Tries to Erase It

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

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

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

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

What the New Research Adds

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

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

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

Individuals and Corporations Run Up the Carbon Bill

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

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

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

Today’s Cost, Tomorrow’s Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read a transcript of this episode. Subscribe to receive transcripts.

What we call waste is really just misallocated feedstock—raw materials waiting to be cycled back into the next generation of products and packaging. According to research by the World Economic Forum and United Nations Development Programme, the circular economy could unlock $4.5 trillion in new global value by 2030, and investors are racing to capture part of that opportunity. Meet Elizabeth Blankenship-Singh, Director of Innovation at Overlay Capital, an Atlanta-based alternative investment firm whose Waste and Materials Fund is backing both early-stage materials innovators and later-stage recycling operations with established infrastructure. Overlay’s strategy involves investing in innovation and implementation simultaneously—in both startups and established companies—to accelerate progress across multiple layers of the circular economy. It offers a window into where smart money sees the materials transition heading.

Elizabeth explains that sortation is the biggest bottleneck at the materials recycling facilities (MRFs) your garbage and recycling are sent to after curbside collection. The U.S. is simultaneously the world’s leading exporter of scrap aluminum and the number one importer of finished aluminum, because we’ve lacked domestic sorting capacity. Overlay has invested in companies like AMP Robotics, which recently closed a 20-year contract with SPSA, a southeastern Virginia municipal authority, to sort all recyclables from four to five cities using AI-driven systems. When you fix sortation, she says, you trigger a domino effect: recycling rates climb, landfill life extends, and margins improve as higher-purity materials command premium prices.

Overlay’s portfolio also includes next-generation materials companies united by a common thesis: they must be better, faster, cheaper, and more sustainable than what they replace. Cruz Foam converts chitin from shrimp shells into compostable packaging foam. Simplifyber uses cellulose to create biodegradable soft goods through 3D molding, bypassing traditional textile manufacturing entirely. Terra CO2 just closed a $124 million Series B to scale low-carbon cement technology that could cut into concrete’s 8% share of annual global CO2 emissions. Each uses abundant, waste-derived feedstocks and has achieved or is on a clear path to price parity with incumbents.

You can learn more about Overlay Capital at overlaycapital.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 January 12, 2026.

The post Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Turning Waste Into New Products And Packaging With Overlay Capital’s Elizabeth Blankenship-Singh appeared first on Earth911.

Read a transcript of this episode. Subscribe to receive transcripts.

• 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 29, 2025.

The post Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Dandelion Energy CEO Dan Yates On How Geothermal Leasing Could Transform Home Heating and Cooling appeared first on Earth911.

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

Legislation

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

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

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

Green Innovations: The Early Years

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

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

The Political Movement

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

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

Green Tech: The Next Wave

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

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

The Latest Five: 2022–2026

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

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

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

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

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

Gas just broke $4 a gallon again — and this time, it happened in weeks, not months. The war with Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz triggered what the International Energy Agency called the largest oil supply disruption in history, cutting roughly 20% of global petroleum from accessible markets and sending U.S. pump prices surging more than 30% since late February. Diesel has climbed above $5.60 a gallon. Analysts warn that if the Strait stays shut through summer, prices could reach $6–7 a gallon.

At the same moment, the federal government pulled a $7,500 lever it had been offering EV buyers for three years. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act ended the IRA’s clean vehicle tax credit on September 30, 2026, sooner than almost anyone expected. For anyone considering an EV right now, both of these developments matter enormously, and they cut in opposite directions.

Here’s how EV math works in April 2026.

6 Benefits of Electric Cars

The benefits of owning an EV arguably outweigh any cons — from spending less money in the long run to making fewer trips to the repair shop. And it doesn’t stop there.

1. Gasoline Prices Have Never Made the Cost-Per-Mile Case for EVs More Clearly

With U.S. gas prices above $4 a gallon and diesel topping $5.60, the fueling cost gap between EVs and gas vehicles has widened sharply. The EIA’s March 2026 short-term outlook projected average retail gas prices of $3.34 per gallon for the full year — but that forecast was built on assumptions about the Strait reopening quickly. Prices are already well above that. Electricity prices, by contrast, remain stable and domestically produced.

A typical EV running on home electricity still costs roughly one-third as much per mile as a comparable gas vehicle — a savings that grows with every ten-cent jump at the pump. The current energy shock makes that argument harder to dismiss.

2. Energy Independence Means Something Different Now

The Iran war viscerally confirmed energy analysts argument that American households are deeply exposed to disruptions on the other side of the planet, even as the U.S. produces record quantities of domestic oil. Global crude oil prices are set by global markets, and domestic production buffers the shock but doesn’t eliminate it.

Charging an EV from the grid — or better, from rooftop solar — can insulate a household from price shocks. It’s a form of energy resilience that’s worth taking seriously as a financial and practical argument, not just an environmental one.

3. EV Range Has Left ‘Range Anxiety’ Behind

The 2021 version of this article listed 60-to-100 miles as a typical EV range. That figure is obsolete. As of 2026, the Lucid Air leads at 410 EPA-rated miles, the Hyundai IONIQ 6 Long Range delivers 361 miles, and the Chevrolet Equinox EV — the best-selling non-Tesla EV of 2025 — offers 319 miles starting under $35,000. Even mid-range EVs from mainstream brands now routinely clear 250 miles per charge.

The range question has effectively been answered for most everyday use cases. Long-distance travel remains more planning-intensive than gas, but it’s a planning question, not a stranding question, for most drivers on most routes.

4. Charging Infrastructure Has Reached Critical Mass

As of January 2026, the U.S. had nearly 68,000 public DC fast-charging ports, a 33% increase compared to 2024. Tesla’s Supercharger network alone accounts for over 52% of fast-charging stalls, and more than two-thirds of those are now open to non-Tesla vehicles. Ford, GM, Rivian, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, and Stellantis have all adopted NACS, effectively granting their drivers access to the Supercharger network via native ports or adapters.

Reliability, long the Achilles heel of non-Tesla charging facilities that were often out of commission, is also improving. New stations are being built with redundant chargers, remote monitoring, and real-time availability data integrated into vehicle navigation. The experience of pulling up to a broken charger on a long trip is becoming less common, though rural coverage gaps persist.

5. Maintenance Costs Remain Lower — and the Gap Is Growing

EVs require no oil changes, no exhaust system. They need fewer brake replacements because regenerative braking extends pad life substantially. And they have significantly fewer moving parts subject to wear. A Consumer Reports analysis drawing on survey data from hundreds of thousands of members found that EV owners spent about half as much on maintenance and repair as owners of comparable gas vehicles; that’s an average savings of $4,600 over the life of the vehicle.

With inflation squeezing household budgets and the Iran war likely to push repair and parts costs higher as diesel-driven supply chain expenses rise, lower maintenance overhead matters more in 2026 than it did even a year ago.

6. State Incentives Fill Some of the Federal Gap — For Now

The federal $7,500 clean vehicle credit is gone. But the replacement focused on American-made cars makes up the gap. The One Big Beautiful Bill introduced a federal auto loan interest deduction of up to $10,000 annually through 2028, available for U.S.-assembled EVs financed with new loans. It’s a deduction rather than a credit, meaning it reduces taxable income rather than tax owed directly, and it phases out for households with incomes above $100,000 for a single person and $200,000 for couples.

State incentives come in many forms and have different eligibility rules. Several states with high EV adoption still offer significant savings, which are especially important now that federal credits are no longer available.

• Colorado provides a $750 state tax credit for buying or leasing a new EV with an MSRP up to $80,000. There is also an extra $2,500 credit for EVs priced under $35,000, so budget-conscious buyers can save up to $3,250. You can assign the credit to a participating dealership and get the discount at the point of sale, so you do not have to wait until you file your taxes.
• New Jersey’s Charge Up program gives up to $4,000 in point-of-sale rebates for eligible new battery-electric vehicles, applied directly at the dealership through June 30, 2026. The state plans to keep EV incentives active through 2030, with funding renewed each year. This is one of the strongest long-term commitments among states.
• Oregon’s program has some important updates. The Standard Rebate, which offered up to $2,500 for any Oregon resident, was suspended in September 2025. The Charge Ahead Rebate, which provided up to $7,500 for income-qualified buyers, was suspended on December 5, 2025 due to limited funding. If you bought an EV during the eligible period, you still have six months from your purchase date to apply. Approved applications may be put on a waiting list for payment in spring 2026. New funding rounds may happen, but they are not confirmed yet. Check the Oregon DEQ’s program page before counting on the rebate.
• California’s Clean Cars 4 All program is one of the most generous for income-eligible buyers. Low-income residents in certain air districts can get up to $12,000 toward an EV purchase, plus up to $2,000 for home charging or prepaid charging credits. If you do not need to scrap an old vehicle, you can get up to $7,500 through the Driving Clean Assistance Program. Both programs are income-based and run by regional air districts. Use the state’s DriveClean incentive search to see what is available in your ZIP code.
• Massachusetts provides a $3,500 rebate through the MOR-EV program for buying or leasing a new qualifying EV with an MSRP under $55,000 at participating dealerships. If you meet income requirements, you can add another $1,500 through MOR-EV+, for a total of $5,000. There is also a $3,500 rebate for used EVs, but only for income-qualified buyers.
• New York’s Drive Clean Rebate gives up to $2,000 off the purchase or lease of over 60 new EV models. The rebate is applied at the point of sale by participating dealerships across the state, and there is no income requirement. The amount depends on the vehicle’s range: you get the full $2,000 for EVs with over 200 miles of range on a 36-month lease or purchase, $1,000 for 40 to 199 miles, and $500 for shorter-range models or those with MSRPs above $42,000.

All of these programs depend on available funding and may change their rules. Check the DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center for the latest information before you buy.

Many automakers are also stepping in with manufacturer cash incentives and subsidized lease deals to offset the lost federal credit. Hyundai, for example, cut the price of its 2026 IONIQ 5 by nearly $10,000.

5 Drawbacks of EVs

Of course, nothing is perfect, and electric cars are no exception. There are a few important factors to consider before signing on the dotted line at the dealership.

1. The Federal Tax Credit Is Gone — And the Replacement Is More Complicated

The $7,500 IRA clean vehicle credit that made EVs significantly more accessible to middle-income buyers expired on September 30, 2025. The $4,000 used EV credit expired at the same time. The EV charger installation credit survives through June 30, 2026, but only in eligible census tracts, such as low-income communities and non-urban areas.

The loan interest deduction that replaced the purchase credit is available only to buyers who finance a U.S.-assembled EV, ruling out cash purchases and vehicles assembled in Canada or Mexico (check the vehicle’s VIN: U.S.-assembled vehicles start with 1, 4, 5, or 7). This program is also an annual deduction on taxable income rather than a dollar-for-dollar credit, which means buyers in lower tax brackets get proportionally less benefit.

The net result is that the out-of-pocket cost of EVs is higher upfront in 2026 than in 2024–2025 for most buyers who don’t live in a high-incentive state. Automaker discounts and competitive leasing help, but the headline sticker shock is real.

2. Charging Can Still Be Slow — And Fast Charging Carries a Cost

DC fast charging, which can replenish an EV from 10% to 80% in 15 to 45 minutes depending on the vehicle, is increasingly available. But it comes at a premium: public fast charging costs significantly more per kilowatt-hour than home charging, and some networks charge idle fees after your session ends, so don’t leave your EV hooked up longer than needed. Home Level 2 charging (overnight, plugged into a 240V outlet) remains the most cost-effective option but requires an upfront equipment investment, and not everyone has access to dedicated parking.

The EV charger tax credit’s narrowed eligibility means many urban apartment dwellers and suburban homeowners outside those tracts get no federal help with installation costs.

3. Upfront Cost Remains Higher Than Comparable Gas Vehicles

The Chevrolet Equinox EV starts at $34,995. That’s genuinely competitive, and several EVs now undercut the critical $40,000 price point. But comparable gas hybrids remain several thousand dollars cheaper at purchase, a gap that the loan interest deduction only partially closes, and only over several years of ownership.

The economic argument for EVs is stronger over the lifetime of the vehicle than at the point of purchase. For buyers who are payment-sensitive or unable to finance, the math favors gas vehicles in the short term, even as gasoline prices strain monthly budgets.

4. Rural Charging Gaps Persist

The Biden administration’s $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, which was funding charger buildout along highway corridors including in rural and underserved areas, was suspended by the Trump administration in early 2025. Private investment continues, but it concentrates in high-traffic corridors and urban markets where utilization rates justify the capital.

For drivers in rural areas or anyone frequently traveling through them, this remains a practical constraint. Home charging covers most daily use, but highway travel through low-density regions still requires careful route planning.

5. Policy Uncertainty Makes Long-Term Planning Harder

The EV market has experienced whiplash between 2022 and 2026 due to the IRA’s expansion of credits and their accelerated elimination. The OBBBA’s auto loan deduction expires at the end of 2028. Fuel economy standards have been relaxed. Several states are fighting against preemption of their own EV mandates. HOV lane access for EVs has been eliminated in New York and California.

None of this changes the fact that EVs make environmental or financial sense over a 10-year ownership horizon. It does mean that buyers should research current incentives carefully before purchase, verify vehicle assembly origin, and not assume that today’s program landscape will look the same in two years.

What You Can Do

If you’re weighing an EV purchase in 2026:

• Check your state’s current incentive programs at the DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center (afdc.energy.gov) before assuming federal credits apply — they don’t.
• Verify vehicle VIN origin before financing: only U.S.-assembled EVs (VIN starting with 1, 4, 5, or 7) qualify for the new loan interest deduction.
• Request manufacturer incentives directly: automakers including Toyota, Hyundai, Ford, and GM have introduced their own cash discounts and subsidized leases to offset the lost federal credit.
• Model the 5-year total cost, not just the sticker price: fuel savings, reduced maintenance, and available incentives often close the gap faster than the purchase price suggests.
• If you rent or lack dedicated charging, factor public charging costs into your fuel savings estimate — DC fast charging at public stations costs more per mile than home Level 2 charging.
• For rural buyers, check PlugShare or ABRP (A Better Route Planner) to map charging availability along your most common routes before committing to an electric vehicle—you’ll find the gaps are closing.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally written by Stephanie Braun on May 3, 2017, and was most recently updated in April 2026. Feature image courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post The Pros and Cons of Electric Vehicles In 2026 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.

$850 billion. That’s what retail and e-commerce returns will cost in 2026, generating 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste — and a surprising share of it involves products that worked perfectly. They just didn’t look the way people expected. About 22% of consumers return items because the product looked different in person than it did online, and for home goods and textiles, that number climbs higher. The culprit has a name: metamerism — the way colors shift under different light sources, so the navy sectional and the matching throw pillow that looked identical on your screen clash under your living room LEDs. Don Carli, founder of Nima Hunter and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Communication, joins Sustainability In Your Ear to explain why this keeps happening and what it would take to stop it.

The fix isn’t a moonshot. The relevant standards — glTF for digital rendering and ICC Max for physical material appearance — already exist and were designed to be connected. Digital textile printing already makes it possible to produce fabrics with pigment recipes that match under any lighting condition, not just one. What’s missing is coordination: brands putting spectral consistency requirements into their supplier purchase orders, the same way the GMI certification transformed packaging quality once Target and Home Depot required it. The Khronos 3D Commerce Working Group has already standardized how products look across digital screens — the next step is bridging that standard to the physical object. When we get this right, a sofa stays in the home it was ordered for instead of traveling a thousand miles back to a distribution center and ending up in a landfill. That’s what circularity looks like when it’s applied to the seam between the digital world and the physical one. Follow Don’s work at WhatTheyThink.com and on X at @DCarli.

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

Interview Transcript

Mitch Ratcliffe  0:08

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

Let’s take another look at the topic of e-commerce returns and how to reduce them by tuning the economy for less waste. We’re going to start with making what you see online look like what you receive on your doorstep.

Now here’s a number that should stop you in your tracks the next time you shop online: $850 billion. That’s how much retail and e-commerce returns will cost in 2026. And here’s another number: 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste generated by those returns in a single year — roughly the same as burying 10,500 fully loaded Boeing 747s in the ground. That’s a lot of waste.

Now you might assume that most of these returns are about fit — pants that don’t fit, shoes that pinch. But 22% of consumers report returning items because the product looked different in person than it did online, and for home goods and textiles categories, where fit isn’t the issue, that percentage climbs even higher. A sofa that passes every quality specification still gets returned because it clashes with the throw pillow that also passed every specification — when they don’t look alike in the home, both can end up in a landfill, because repackaging costs more than recovery.

Today’s conversation is about why that happens and what we can do about it. My guest today is Don Carli. Don’s a good friend and the founder of the consulting firm NEMA Hunter Incorporated. Two of Don’s recent articles on the site What They Think got me thinking about how an apparently esoteric discussion of color calibration and spectral profiles actually represents something much larger — the fine-tuning we can do to the 20th-century industrial system that was never designed to connect digital promises to physical reality.

Don is also a Senior Research Fellow with the nonprofit Institute for Sustainable Communication, where he has directed programs on corporate responsibility, sustainability, advertising, marketing, and enterprise communication. He’s also a member of the board of advisors for the AIGA Center for Sustainable Design and a member of the Institute for Supply Management.

So here’s why this matters beyond the print and packaging industry, where Don has spent most of his career. The 20th century built industrial systems optimized for mass production: make a lot, ship it out, and hope people keep it. These systems created enormous efficiencies on the one hand, but they also created enormous waste — often hidden in the seams between suppliers, brands, and retailers, where no single stakeholder owns enough of the problem to force a solution. In fact, it really means nobody lost enough money to care.

What Don’s work reveals is that we now have the technical architecture to fine-tune these legacy systems — not replace them, but recalibrate them. The standards exist. The measurement hardware exists. The digital rendering pipelines exist. What’s missing is the coordination: getting brands, retailers, and others to share data they currently hold separately, and to recognize that the costs they’re each absorbing individually are symptoms of the same system failure — a failure of color calibration.

And this is what sustainability can look like in practice: not moonshot reinventions, but the patient technical work of closing gaps between digital and physical, between specification and reality, and between what we promise customers and what we deliver. If we get this right, we can reduce waste, cut costs, and rebuild trust with consumers who’ve learned to expect that what they see online isn’t quite what they’re going to get.

You can follow Don’s work on X. His handle is @DCarli — that’s spelled D-C-A-R-L-I, all one word, no space, no dash.

So can we calibrate what we see online with what we experience when we open a package, reducing the need to return a purchase? Let’s find out after this brief commercial break.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Mitch Ratcliffe  4:29

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

Don Carli  4:31

Fantastic, Mitch. I’m really glad to be here with you today and looking forward to the conversation.

Mitch Ratcliffe  4:37

Always great to talk with you, Don. This came up in our discussions over the past couple of months, and then I read the article and wanted to follow up. To start off, can you walk us through a typical scenario? A customer orders a navy sectional and a matching throw pillow from different suppliers. They appear to be the same color — they both pass all the quality specifications we’ve talked about — but under the living room lights, the consumer finds they clash. What happened between the approved image and her disappointment? Where did the system break down?

Don Carli  5:15

We’ve all had this experience at some point in our lives. In part, it’s because of the nature of human perception. We would like to think that color is a constant thing, but color is an interaction of multiple variables.

One variable is the light source — specifically, the distribution of wavelengths in that light. As you know, the visible spectrum is a small part of all the radiation there is. There’s ultraviolet light you can’t see, there’s infrared light you can’t see, and then there’s all the colors in between — the ROYGBIV: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet — the colors we’re familiar with. Every light source has a different distribution of those energies.

Second, the material an object is made of has its own capacity to absorb different wavelengths, and that can vary. So you have variation in the energies emitted by the light source, variation in the energies absorbed and reflected by the object, and then there’s the viewer. Our visual system takes up a big part of our brain — it’s not just our eyes, but our eyes have a lot to do with it. Some of us are colorblind, for example, and in other cases, color is simply not a constant thing.

I worked with the Bauhaus artist Josef Albers for many years — he wrote the book The Interaction of Color. He used to say, ‘When you put one color next to another color, you get a third color for free,’ because those two colors interact with each other.

To put it simply: you put on a pair of socks and a pair of pants in your bedroom under incandescent light. The pants are brown, the socks are brown. You go out into the daylight. The pants look green. The socks are still brown. What happened? The light changed. Because daylight has more energy at one end of the spectrum, it reflects more blue light, making the brown look greener.

Mitch Ratcliffe  7:56

That’s really interesting to think about — how we’ve moved from an era of commerce where, say, items in the Sears catalog were originally sketched, versus photographed. As we introduced greater verisimilitude in our catalogs, or on Amazon —

Don Carli  8:17

We set expectations differently. Exactly.

Mitch Ratcliffe  8:20

So how should we think about the expectations we’re setting — both as sellers of things and as consumers? How should we be thinking about this?

Don Carli  8:30

In part, most of this is simply not taught. Most students in grade school, high school, or even university are not given any exposure to the psychology of human perception. There’s a physiological and psychological basis to all of this, and we just don’t know about it.

The problem has always existed. What’s happened with e-commerce — and with sophisticated computer graphic rendering of objects that don’t yet exist in the real world but look real — is that we’re setting expectations. On my screen I see this couch. It looks brown. The pillows look brown. So I expect that when they arrive, they’re both going to look brown.

Unfortunately, the lighting in homes now is no longer even incandescent. LEDs have really unusual spectral curves — they can be the problem. If I had been able to see what those items were going to look like under the lighting in my home, I might be less disappointed. I’d say, ‘Oh, wait — they don’t match.’ But in developing the systems for e-commerce, the companies that develop software for rendering — the tools designers use to develop the rendering of images for websites and monitors — simply don’t take these things into consideration.

Mitch Ratcliffe  10:10

Our economy was massified in the 20th century but it’s moving toward personalization in the 21st century. And what you’re describing — what you named in the article — is metamerism.

Don Carli  10:21

It’s not my term. It’s metamerism — or ‘metamerism,’ yes. That’s fine.

Mitch Ratcliffe  10:27

This phenomenon, combined with changing lighting technology and the changing nature of our homes — which can allow more or less light in, and offer a variable lighting palette —

Don Carli  10:37

A variable lighting palette, yeah.

Mitch Ratcliffe  10:38

— suggests that the palette will always be changing. So how do we create consistent expectations among consumers when we’re trying to communicate what we offer?

Don Carli  10:57

Well, standards help to begin with. We do not have a set of coordinated standards today that allow the designer to anticipate the observer’s environment and lighting conditions for a given product. Second, we don’t have standards in place to communicate between what the designer intends and what the manufacturer produces — because it is possible to create pigments and dyes that do not exhibit metamerism. Really.

It’s been standard practice in some industries where it matters. If you go to an informed paint company and say, ‘I want a non-metameric match of this swatch,’ they would use a device called a spectrophotometer, which measures the absorption curve of the pigments employed — so that under any lighting condition, the appearance doesn’t change, because the curves have been matched.

But I can create a match that only looks correct under one light source, which is typically what happens when people revert to either a monitor — which only has three emitters: red, green, and blue — or printing, where typically you have cyan, magenta, yellow, and black. If you want to truly match, you have to match the curve.

New printers being used for digital textiles actually have 10 channels, and it is possible to use pigments across those channels to make the absorption curve of the material non-metameric — or at least less metameric. We’re waiting for standards to come together, and that will only happen, I believe, if the brands suffering the greatest economic loss from this mismatch problem take action to put the requirements in their purchase orders and to support pilots that address that 22% of returns due to color perception that you described.

Mitch Ratcliffe  13:27

You do point out that IKEA, Amazon, Wayfair, and others have funded the Khronos 3D Commerce Working Group to ensure that products look consistent across different apps and websites. So they want consistency when rendered on a digital screen, but they’re apparently okay with the fact they don’t look the same when they arrive?

Don Carli  13:54

Yes, I like the disconnect. It’s interesting. First of all, it would require collaboration across industry — across groups that don’t typically talk to each other. I don’t think it’s willful. I think it’s more like, ‘Wow, they just haven’t gotten around to that.’ Nobody fully realized how much was at stake. And the potential for a connection between the two standards that do exist is actually very good and straightforward, because they’re both extensible standards.

What’s needed — as I said — is for the businesses that are right now losing approximately $850 billion a year due to returns to ask: How much of that is attributable to consumers who’ve been given permission by e-commerce companies to say, ‘Something doesn’t look right, so I want to return it’? We’ve made it easy to return things.

Mitch Ratcliffe  15:09

The customer was always right.

Don Carli  15:11

That’s correct. And it’s going to be hard to put that one back in the bottle. So now we have to ask: out of the $850 billion — which is just the retail cost of the goods, not the cost of reverse logistics, not the cost of reprocessing, not the disposal of that returned product to landfill or incineration — if you take it all together, it’s probably $1.25 trillion, maybe even $1.5 trillion. And if you said, ‘Okay, but how much of that is because somebody said the colors don’t match?’ — even being very conservative, say 10% — that’s still enough money to justify addressing the root cause of the problem.

Mitch Ratcliffe  16:00

$150 to $200 billion….

Don Carli  16:03

Just rounding error, right? So you could say to companies like Adobe — that develop the software for rendering objects that are going to be manufactured — take IKEA as an example. IKEA doesn’t fill its catalogs, whether online or physical (though there’s no longer a physical catalog), with actual photography. Those are computer-generated images. They look real, but they don’t exist in the physical world when rendered. Very often, the product isn’t manufactured until after you’ve bought it — you bought it on the basis of a computer graphic rendering that looks photorealistic. It’s called Physically Based Rendering.

So if those systems were specifying color with the manufacturing process in mind — which is very often digital textiles printing — they could choose their colors to be less subject to metamerism, or even to specifically eliminate metamerism. They could also provide the ability to predict: run the model through a set of tests to see, ‘Is this design going to be subject to metamerism?’ And carry that logic forward to the manufacturer. They’d have to put that in their purchase orders. They’d have to bridge two standards — one called glTF, the other called ICC Max.

The point is, the consumer doesn’t need to know any of this. The consumer needs to understand that it’s possible to make things match under different lighting conditions — or at least to have less divergence from their expectations under different lighting conditions.

Mitch Ratcliffe  17:58

I agree that the consumer should be able to expect that. What I hear is that so far, the pain hasn’t been great enough. But we’re also at a point where simply reducing the waste would be worthwhile on its own, with other benefits as well —

Don Carli  18:10

Oh, absolutely. But the financial ones alone —

Mitch Ratcliffe  18:15

The financial ones are enough? Yes. And then all the environmental and social costs of returns on top of that. But let’s talk about how to actually hack toward a solution. Is it possible now — or over the course of the next decade, say — for me to have a phone app that I use in my home? I sample the light in the morning, I sample the light at noon, I sample it at sundown, and in the evening — sometimes with external light, sometimes with just internal. I could say, ‘This is my light profile. Give me things that will look like what I expect.’

Don Carli  19:00

That’s a great question. The question is: would the average consumer go to that extent? Probably not. But the retailer could do what amounts to a survey of the whole home that the products are going to go into. If it’s a major purchase — a couch, carpets, a new home — you could model the interior of that house very easily.

Technologies like Matterport, for example, can scan the interior of a house and give you a virtual view of what it looks like — they use it in real estate all the time. So that’s possible. And it’s also possible to model different lighting scenarios: you say, ‘I’m going to put in LED lighting with variable color temperature, so during the day I may look at it under one light, and at night it’s going to be warmer.’ You can factor in where natural light comes in through windows across the year.

But that may be overkill for most consumers. It might be appropriate for businesses — especially places where the harmony of floor coverings, wall coverings, and furnishing objects matters. Still, it shouldn’t be necessary for the average consumer.

Phones are increasingly gaining the ability to sense color in a spectral sense. I think within three years, that capability should be standard in most phones as a matter of course, and more specialized devices will be available for around $100 if you want them. But I think it’s really incumbent on the retailer and the brands — not on the consumer — to meet expectations first and foremost. And I think an increasing number of consumers who care about environmental and social costs are going to put that expectation on the retailer and the brand: model the environment, predict the degree to which the products being manufactured are subject to metamerism. Those variables can be measured and controlled in design and manufacturing so that the in-home or in-store environment is less subject to lighting variation affecting the perception of color match.

Mitch Ratcliffe  21:55

So I think this is a great place to stop and take a quick commercial break, because we’ve set the stage — and the lighting — to talk about what’s going to come next. Let’s figure out the hack. Stay tuned. We’ll be right back.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Mitch Ratcliffe  22:13

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Let’s get back to my conversation with my friend Don Carli. He’s founder of NEMA Hunter, a market research and product design advisory firm in New York City.

Don, so we understand the variability of light, the variability of settings, the combination of colors — all of these affect our perception of color. And we talked about the fact that phones will have increasing photographic analysis capabilities, so they can sense the full spectrum, not just what we see but the entire range of light affecting our perception. But as you say, it really is incumbent upon the retailer to have a solution that makes something look like my expectation when it arrives at my home. Is this a suggestion that the future of retail is more personalized — that there may be personal shoppers who come to your home early in a brand relationship and do a scan, or who give you the tool? Maybe they send it to you and you return it after completing your color profile. Are we at the beginning of really tuning the economy to deliver exactly what we want so that waste can be reduced?

Don Carli  23:29

I think there are examples of it already in place. There’s a very interesting company that grew out of a team of Navy SEALs and special operations people who had to model environments they were going to enter — and they couldn’t do that using big, complex systems. They needed a hack. They were able to take imagery from various sources and build a 3D model reconstruction of a building so they could plan their approach. One of them left and started a company called Hover.

This isn’t a commercial for Hover, but it’s an interesting case. Hover solved a problem for people who wanted to remodel the exterior of their homes. You could take your phone, take six to eight photos of your house from the exterior, send those photos to Hover, and they would create a 3D reconstruction of your home. Then they worked with manufacturers of siding, roofing, and windows, and allowed the builder to generate not only an estimate of what it would cost to put new siding and windows on your house, but a rendering of what it would look like. The precedent is there: the consumer had the device, nobody had to go out to do an estimate, the contractor loved it because they didn’t have to send anyone to measure — all done accurately using cell phone imagery.

Matterport is another company that makes a device for interiors and does the same thing. And there are small sensors that a retailer could send you that measure color temperature of light — but I don’t think that will be strictly necessary.

Mitch Ratcliffe  25:31

Nor necessarily environmentally responsible, to send out loads of sensors.

Don Carli  25:34

Exactly. So for the retailer, like Radio Shack, if it’s an in-store environment, that’s one thing — they do have the ability to simulate different lighting conditions in-store. Think of it like going to an audio shop —

Mitch Ratcliffe  25:54

You can’t do that anymore, but okay.

Don Carli  25:56

Just imagine going to buy a stereo, or to an audiophile shop —

Mitch Ratcliffe  26:03

We’re showing our age, knowing what that is.

Don Carli  26:05

They bring you into a listening room. The point is, it’s constructed for the purpose of evaluating what something is likely to sound like in your home. I think we can do the same thing in-store with variable lighting.

But online is becoming e-commerce where items are never in a store. You order from a computer-rendered image on your screen, and after your order is placed, the item is manufactured. That’s the link that has to be established: the link between the creator of the design for the object and the supply chain instructions provided to the manufacturer, so that the objects are not subject to metamerism — so they are less subject to variation in the lighting conditions in your home. It is a matter of giving the correct instructions about the materials to be used, and specifying how they’re to be measured by the manufacturer. The brands that design the couch, the pillow, the carpet, the curtain, the flooring — they should own the equipment to do the measurement and support the linkage of the standards that communicate how to maintain color consistency across different lighting and viewing conditions, so the consumer isn’t disappointed.

Mitch Ratcliffe  27:41

This brings me to another concept you introduced, which is the appearance bill of materials — which is in many ways similar to the digital product passports we’ve talked about on the show a number of times, which describe a product’s components and potentially how to recycle it. But this color profile — what would be involved in making that happen at scale? What would it look like to make that a common practice for a furniture retailer, for instance?

Don Carli  28:10

Think of recipes. The way a fabric is produced is changing because of digital printing. We used to make fabric in large quantities using dyes — extremely polluting, very complex — or with high-volume screen printing using fixed screens. Increasingly, fabric printing is achieved digitally, where you can print just one yard or 10 yards of a material using any palette of pigments, matched not just to look correct under one lighting condition, but to look consistent under any lighting condition.

The example of metamerism is: if I have two objects that are supposed to match, and under one lighting condition they do match, but under another they don’t — that is metameric. It changes. But if I blend, or use the right pigment recipe on a given substrate material, they will match regardless of the lighting condition. The pillow matches the couch, the wall covering matches the floor covering.

To do that, you have recipes. I’m going to use this combination of inks, and I have to measure them with a spectrophotometer. The specifier has to tell the manufacturer what the material characteristics are. It’s the same as saying, ‘Use butter, sugar, and flour’ — but not all butter, sugar, and flour are the same. Or like architects who say, ‘Use concrete, aluminum, steel, and wood’ — but what’s the actual recipe for the steel, the concrete, the wood? We have to be more specific at the design and manufacturing stages.

It is kind of like a digital product passport. The standard for glTF, which is used for Physically Based Rendering on monitors, is consistent for rendering on screens — but it doesn’t extend to the world of physical objects, inks, and substrates.

Mitch Ratcliffe  30:59

So that’s the link. Thank you. You’ve also pointed out that the GMI certification — which Target, Home Depot, and CVS began to require, and which describes packaging — was broadly accepted once those brands introduced it. Would color matching with the guarantee that it will look like what you saw when you receive it be a significant differentiator — a value-added differentiator — that would set a brand apart if they embraced and practiced it consistently?

Don Carli  31:34

Why not? We know that consumers are disappointed enough to go through the return process — and it’s not simple. It’s an annoyance. You’re putting people out of their way. They want their couch, they want their cushions, they want their floor covering. They don’t want to go through what it takes. It’s going to be another two weeks, and I’ve got to document all of this, and I have a party this Friday — we’re getting married, whatever it is.

So I think the demand is there. And what GMI established reflects something I believe has been true in manufacturing as long as I’ve known it: manufacturers are going to do what their customers call them to do. If the requirement in the purchase order is that you must adopt this standard or use this material, you don’t argue — if you want the work, you do it. But if you leave innovation in materials to manufacturers and expect them to market and sell it, that’s not their strength. They’re not marketers.

On the other hand, retailers and brands are marketers — and ultimately, the cost is not just economic but environmental and social. That’s where I think today’s consumers, if made aware, will be able to apply enough incentive to brands to build those linkages, use those standards to minimize the cost of returns and the environmental impact of returns, and have a positive impact on customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and the ability to attract consumers for whom systems thinking and circularity matter.

Mitch Ratcliffe  33:30

So the cost of these returns — which we’ve estimated in the $1.3 to $1.5 trillion range — who actually ends up paying that? Would solving this problem represent a tangible reduction in costs for consumers overall?

Don Carli  33:47

It is costing consumers in the end. Let’s say a retailer bought the product for 25% of the retail price. So the thing sold for $100 but cost them $25. When they say they lost $850 billion, they’re estimating that at the full retail price — but it only cost them $25.

Mitch Ratcliffe  34:19

Of course, because that gives them an advantage in taxes — but if —

Don Carli  34:23

If in fact they’re losing 25% of their sales to returns, that’s still going to factor into what they mark things up to recover those costs. It does impact the cost to consumers in the end. And then there are the real costs associated with reverse logistics — shipping it back from you to the distribution center — and then that has to be reprocessed: someone has to inventory it now that it’s been returned, inspect it to see if it’s viable for resale, find a resale partner. Or, as some retailers now do, they simply keep them in huge containers labeled as ‘lot number four’ and have people bid on them sight unseen — unpack those, find the few things in the box that were worth something, and discard the rest.

Mitch Ratcliffe  35:33

So the consumer today expects greater and greater personalization, as you’ve described. On-demand manufacturing is a potentially scalable solution that’s beginning to emerge. But if we don’t master this metameric strategy, returns may actually increase — because the expectation is even greater that it should look exactly like it did when I ordered it.

Don Carli  35:59

Yeah. Appearance mismatch is not the greatest reason for returns — but it’s a substantial percentage.

Mitch Ratcliffe  36:12

My point is to think systemically, rather than just about this particular issue. Is this the right time for us to move toward on-demand manufacturing — particularly now that we want to reduce imports? And if we do that, who should convene the effort to create consistent perception of color and quality for that next generation of a much less wasteful economy?

Don Carli  36:43

I think it ultimately falls to the brands and the retailers, as well as the technology providers for rendering — for the design and rendering of the objects — because circularity and circular thinking is a systems design challenge. You want to design the problem out of existence, rather than trying to cope with it downstream.

There’s no question that the greatest potential leverage is through a better design process that anticipates these downstream factors that lead to returns — whatever they are, whether it’s appearance, fit, or any other reason why people return things. The ability to predict through true digital twins of the object is one key element. You need the NVIDIAs of the world, the Adobes, the Hewlett-Packards, and the instrument manufacturers who can measure color and surface characteristics — the things that allow you to define the recipe for making the object, as well as the recipe for rendering it on screen.

Those are the key stakeholders: the brands using those tools, the companies providing those tools, and the standards bodies that help to encode them in open, extensible standards that allow businesses to communicate one-to-many, instead of being locked into proprietary one-to-one communication chains.

Mitch Ratcliffe  38:26

If a brand is listening, what should their first diagnostic step be? Where’s the right place to begin?

Don Carli  38:36

The first step, of course, is to have a breakdown of the reasons for returns. If they want to address appearance mismatch, they need to know what percentage of their returns are reported by consumers as: ‘The product I received didn’t meet my expectations in appearance compared to what I saw on my screen or in the store.’ They need to know first: is this a problem big enough to make a business case for addressing it?

In most cases, I think they’ll find that if it’s 10%, 15%, or 20% of returns, that’s material. And if they looked at it not just economically but in terms of environmental and social impact — triple bottom line, if you will — I think they can make a business case for why they should seek out a group of like-minded brands to address the root cause through standards and paid pilot programs with manufacturers: to establish and prove that a workflow is possible, practical, and delivers results that reduce cost in a material way, reduce environmental impact in a measurable way, and have a positive impact on customer satisfaction, loyalty, and the ability to attract consumers for whom systems thinking and circularity matter.

Mitch Ratcliffe  40:15

You do a lot of product research and market research. Are brands thinking about this?

Don Carli  40:21

Not enough. Not enough. I believe brands like IKEA do take it quite seriously — and maybe that’s one of the luxuries of being a privately owned entity. So I think we can look to brands like IKEA for leadership. They’ve exhibited that in the past and can continue. But one brand can’t solve this. This is a bigger problem than any one brand can handle.

I think the path forward is really through a coalition of brands that work together and share the costs, the risks, and the benefits of connecting these existing standards — to the benefit of not just current consumers, but consumers going forward. And I think it will reduce the impact on the environment, help make better use of our manufacturing capacity and digital technology, and support onshoring more of our production. That’s an important way to minimize risk — not just the risk of returns, but supply chain risk as well.

Mitch Ratcliffe  41:39

What you’re describing is an optimized system that we don’t currently have. I know we’ve only scratched the surface of the color perception problem here, Don. Thank you for helping me understand it. How can folks follow what you’re working on?

Don Carli  41:53

I write on this topic in an industry publication called WhatTheyThink.com. And there is an active discussion taking place within the Khronos Group, 3D Commerce, and related standards bodies about this general concept of Physically Based Rendering. In the printing world, there’s another group called the International Color Consortium — ICC.org — that has been looking at the problem from a manufacturing perspective: how do you manage appearance, not just color but appearance overall, because it’s not only the color of a thing that can differ, sometimes it’s the surface characteristics or texture. These standards take both into consideration.

I think some preliminary discussions are starting to emerge — whether in Reddit or in these two groups, which are open — that are beginning to look at how these things connect.

Mitch Ratcliffe  42:59

There’s a saying that an airplane is a set of standards in flight. What we’re talking about here is the setting of a standard set of expectations about how our economy should work efficiently. I hope folks take to heart what we talked about today. I want to thank you for your time, Don; this was a fascinating conversation.

Don Carli  43:19

I think it can have a profound impact on the amount of waste that goes to landfill, and I think it will also improve the ability to satisfy increasingly conscious consumers along the way. Thank you, Mitch. Take care.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Mitch Ratcliffe  43:49

Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Don Carli, founder of NEMA Hunter, a market research and product design advisory firm in New York. Don’s commentary on color perception, metamerism, and the gaps in our digital-to-physical rendering pipeline appears regularly at WhatTheyThink.com — all one word, no space, no dash — and you can follow him on X at @DCarli, that’s D-C-A-R-L-I.

This conversation started with a sofa and a throw pillow that refused to match, and it ended somewhere much larger. The $850 billion in annual e-commerce returns we discussed — growing toward $1.25 to $1.5 trillion when you add reverse logistics and disposal costs — is what happens when a 20th-century industrial system tries to serve 21st-century expectations without changing its underlying architecture. The system was designed to produce at scale and absorb returns as a cost of doing business. The consumer was always right. The platform made returns frictionless. And what got lost in the middle — in landfills, in incinerators, and in the carbon cost of reverse logistics — was invisible to the balance sheet and to the customer who clicked ‘return.’ In other words, we engineered a system to overwhelm people with choice so that they would inevitably buy, but at the cost of tremendous waste.

So Don isn’t just describing a color problem. It’s a calibration problem — and calibration is a systems problem. You heard about all the parts of the solution that are available already. What doesn’t exist is a coordination layer: the shared commitment by brands and retailers to making a product and the recipe for showing it on screen speak the same language, so that it represents things accurately across a variety of different lighting settings.

The transition Don is pointing toward is from mass manufacturing to what we might call calibrated manufacturing — production designed not just to meet a specification, but to meet the specific expectations of one person. Personalized manufacturing. The on-demand, digital-first model that’s already emerging will only work if the variety of perceptions we experience is accounted for from the start. If we move to on-demand without solving the metamerism problem, Don warned, returns will increase, not decrease. We will have built a faster, more responsive system for disappointing people.

The circular economy framing that anchors so much of this podcast is usually applied to materials — keep them in use, close the loop on plastics, design products for disassembly and reuse. But Don’s argument adds a dimension we don’t talk about enough: design for reduced returns is design for circularity too. The waste reduction potential is real, and it needs to happen upstream — at the design and specification stage — before a single unit of the product actually ships.

This is what tuning the economy looks like in practice: not a moonshot reinvention of everything, but the patient technical work of closing the gaps — the many gaps between what we promise and what we deliver as businesses. The leverage points are well defined. Brands and retailers that own product specifications need to bridge the color standards challenge in their purchase orders. And consumers who are already demanding more and returning more can apply market pressure too, especially the growing segment of people for whom systems thinking and environmental impact are part of how they evaluate a brand. But we have to communicate that to the brand and to the policymakers around that market in order to drive systemic change.

Don’s closing thought is what stays with me: when we actually tune the system to deliver what people want and expect, we can stop producing waste that nobody intended and nobody wants. That’s not just good business. That’s what a circular economy looks like in practice when it’s applied to the seam between the digital world and the physical one — the place where, right now, billions of pounds of material quietly disappear into the ground.

We’ll continue to explore this — we’ll probably have Don back to talk more — and in the meantime, I hope you take a look at our archive of more than 550 episodes of Sustainability In Your Ear. We’re in our sixth season, folks, and I guarantee there’s an interview you’re going to want to share with a friend or member of your family. And by the way, writing a review on your favorite podcast platform will help your neighbors find us — because folks, you are the amplifiers that can spread more ideas to create less waste. Please tell your friends, your family, your co-workers, 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, 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: Don Carli On Tuning What We See Online To Reduce eCommerce Returns appeared first on Earth911.

Picture turning yard waste, wood scraps, and farm leftovers into something that stores carbon underground for centuries and improves soil health. That’s the idea behind biochar. While this is true, it doesn’t tell the full story.

For over twenty years, researchers, entrepreneurs, and climate advocates have promoted biochar as a top way to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Early estimates said it could take out 3.4 to 6.3 billion tons of CO₂ each year, which is huge. This excitement led to many scientific papers, startup investments, and carbon credit deals.

But a new analysis in Nature Sustainability from January 2026 says we should slow down. Biochar is real, but the excitement has gotten ahead of the facts. The researchers warn that too much hype could lead to a “boom-and-bust cycle” that ends up hurting the technology.

What Is Biochar?

Biochar is charcoal, but not the kind you use at a backyard cookout. It’s made by heating organic materials such as wood chips, crop waste, or agricultural byproducts in a low-oxygen environment through a process called pyrolysis. The result is a dark, porous, carbon-rich material that resists breaking down in soil for centuries or even millennia.

The inspiration came from an unlikely source: ancient Amazonian soils. Researchers discovered that the region’s famously fertile “terra preta” (Portuguese for “dark earth”) owed its richness to charcoal that Indigenous peoples had mixed into the soil thousands of years ago. That charcoal had survived intact, still improving soil structure and fertility long after the civilization that made it passed into history.

When scientists studied terra preta, they realized that locking carbon in a solid form and burying it in soil removes it from the air for a long time. Biochar looked like a win-win: it could store carbon and help farms. This led to more funding, research, and new companies.

The Numbers That Raised Alarms

The issue isn’t that biochar doesn’t work, but it hasn’t lived up to the early high hopes. The Nature Sustainability analysis by Italian soil scientists Luciano Gristina and Riccardo Scalenghe explains the numbers in detail.

Let’s look at production. All certified biochar facilities in the world make about 350,000 tons each year. That might sound like a lot, but spread over the world’s 1.5 billion hectares of farmland, it’s tiny. The researchers found that this would raise the soil surface by less than one-tenth the width of a human hair per year. This shows how far current production is from what’s needed for climate goals.

Next is the question of carbon storage. Biochar’s actual impact is about a thousand times smaller than early estimates. Even after subtracting the emissions from making it, the net climate benefit is only a few hundred thousand tons of CO₂ at most. For comparison, global emissions are about 36 billion tons each year.

Economics make things even harder. Studies show that feedstock—the raw material for biochar—can make up as much as 75% of the total cost. So, biochar projects only make financial sense if they have free or very cheap biomass, or steady income from carbon credits. Without these, most projects aren’t profitable.

In Southeast Asia, trials showed that adding biochar to farmland produced only modest yield improvements, not nearly enough to justify the cost for smallholder farmers without a subsidy.

Too Many Papers, Not Enough Proof

The researchers have another worry: there is so much research on biochar now that it looks like a bubble.

Scientific papers on biochar have jumped from fewer than 10 a year in the early 2000s to over 1,000 a year by the 2020s. The researchers point out that biochar now gets much more attention than older topics like acid rain, which was a major environmental issue studied for decades.

Much of this increase in papers comes from a small group of very active authors. A 2023 report in Nature found that the number of scientists publishing over 60 papers a year—more than one per week—has almost quadrupled in less than ten years. Biochar is a clear example, with a few names dominating the field and shaping how mature it seems.

There are now warning signs from institutions. According to Clarivate’s Web of Science index, two major journals that published a lot of biochar research, Chemosphere and Science of the Total Environment, were removed from the index for not meeting editorial standards. Investigations found problems like peer-review manipulation, fake reviewer identities, and unusual authorship practices. This shows that the scientific community is starting to push back on a field that may be moving too quickly for the evidence.

The worry isn’t that biochar researchers are being dishonest. It’s that career incentives reward publishing quickly rather than publishing carefully. Field experiments are slow and expensive. Lab results are faster. When the pressure to publish outpaces the ability to verify, fields can develop an inflated sense of their own progress, and then crash when reality catches up. Biochar has value, but it must be scaled to the right size to make environmental and economic sense.

What Would an Effective Biochar Path Look Like?

The Nature Sustainability report doesn’t say biochar is a lost cause. Instead, it suggests the field needs a reset: fewer papers, more checking; less speed, more solid research.

Specifically, the researchers call for:

• Pre-registered trial designs so that results can’t be cherry-picked after the fact
• Open data and public protocols that allow independent researchers to check each other’s work
• Dedicated “verification articles” that reproduce influential findings before new claims pile on top of them
• Funding earmarked for confirmatory studies and even negative results — research that shows what doesn’t work, not just what does
• Evaluation metrics that reward verified contributions over sheer publication counts

The acid rain parallel is instructive. In the 1980s, acid rain was a front-page environmental crisis, the subject of intense scientific and policy debate. It receded from headlines not because the problem was imaginary, but because coordinated policy — cleaner fuels, emissions standards, pollution controls — actually reduced sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. Evidence of ecosystem recovery followed. The field moved from alarm to action to outcome, a model worth following.

For biochar, the right approach is to be honest about what it can and can’t do. More real-world projects are now working within these limits.

Five Biochar Projects To Watch

Even with big challenges, some biochar projects around the world are finding success. They usually use local waste materials and earn money from more than just carbon credits.

Exomad Green — Bolivia

Exomad Green is currently the world’s largest biochar producer, operating two facilities that together remove about 260,000 tons of CO₂ per year. The feedstock is sawmill waste, wood residues that would otherwise be open-burned. The material is converted into biochar through pyrolysis, in other words, it is burned. That biochar is then donated to indigenous farming communities to improve degraded soils. In May 2025, Microsoft signed a 10-year agreement with Exomad Green for 1.24 million tons of CO₂ removal; the largest single biochar deal ever made. The model works because the feedstock is genuinely waste material with no better use, and the soil co-benefits for local communities are real and documented.

Pacific Biochar — California, USA

Pacific Biochar has built its model around a genuine dual benefit: it collects organic material from forests with high wildfire risk, reducing the fuel load that makes fires catastrophic, and converts that material into biochar for agricultural use. In 2024, CDR.fyi recognized Pacific Biochar as the global leader in durable carbon removal deliveries, accounting for 21% of total global certified volume. The California focus matters: the state’s wildfire crisis creates a near-endless supply of biomass that genuinely needs to be removed from the landscape, making the feedstock economics unusually solid.

Novocarbo — Germany

Novocarbo represents a different economic logic: the “Carbon Removal Park” model, where biochar production is bundled with renewable energy generation. At its flagship facility in Grevesmühlen, Germany, plant residues are converted into biochar using advanced pyrolysis units, and the waste heat from that process — about 6,600 megawatt-hours per year — is piped to roughly 1,800 nearby households for heating. Carbon credits are one revenue stream; district heating fees are another. That diversification makes the project less dependent on voluntary carbon market prices, which can be volatile. Novocarbo secured €27 million in new funding in 2025 to expand the model across Europe.

Aperam BioEnergia — Brazil

Aperam BioEnergia, certified by Puro.earth, is one of the most established biochar projects in the Global South. Operating in Minas Gerais, Brazil, it converts forestry residues into biochar, with plans to produce 30,000 tons annually by 2026. The project has sold more than 100,000 tons of carbon removal credits since 2021 and supports sustainable forest management practices alongside its production. It’s a model that pairs industrial scale with regional feedstock — the biomass inputs are produced nearby, keeping transport emissions low.

Carbonity / Airex Energy — Québec, Canada

Airex Energy’s pyrolysis technology is the backbone of Carbonity’s new facility in Port-Cartier, Québec — slated to become the largest biochar plant in North America. The project, backed by a consortium including Groupe Rémabec and SUEZ, represents roughly CAD 80 million in investment and aims to produce 10,000 tons of biochar in 2025, scaling to 30,000 by 2026. The feedstock is forest residues from the surrounding region. Microsoft has already purchased 36,000 carbon credits from an associated supply deal. The project is notable for its scale, but also carries the scrutiny that comes with large industrial operations in sensitive northern ecosystems.

Local, Small, and Real

These five projects have something important in common. The strongest ones, both economically and environmentally, use waste materials, work close to where those materials come from to cut transport emissions, and find value beyond just selling carbon credits.

That’s the conclusion the Nature Sustainability researchers point toward, even if they don’t say it quite so directly. The biochar projects most likely to survive and do genuine good are the ones that would still make sense even if the voluntary carbon market collapsed tomorrow, because their feedstock is free or nearly free, their soil benefits are real and local, and their energy co-products create additional value.

What likely won’t work is the dream of scaling biochar fast and wide enough to make a big dent in the 36 billion tons of CO₂ released each year. The numbers just don’t add up—not now, and maybe not ever—unless there are big changes in cost, feedstock supply, and how quickly the science can be checked.

That doesn’t mean we should give up on biochar. Instead, we should be clear about what it is: a useful, long-lasting, local way to turn waste into something valuable, with real benefits for farmers and soil, and a real—if small—role in removing carbon. Not everything has to save the world to be worthwhile.

The lesson from the acid rain research and responses fits here too: the goal isn’t to keep chasing new research. It’s to let the evidence catch up, support projects that stand up to close review, and build something lasting. The way forward will include many smaller, local biochar initiatives, not monolithic, world-saving programs that over-promise, threatening a valid carbon sequestration strategy.

What You Can Do

• Support verified projects. If you or your organization purchases carbon offsets, look for biochar credits certified by Puro.earth or Verra with transparent feedstock sourcing and publicly available lifecycle data.
• Ask about feedstock. Not all biochar is created equal. Biochar made from waste materials that would otherwise be burned or decompose has much stronger climate credentials than biochar produced from purpose-grown crops.
• Look for local applications. Some municipalities and agricultural extension programs are exploring biochar for compost enhancement and soil remediation. Local applications with local feedstocks are the most ecologically sound.
• Be skeptical of big numbers. If a company or project claims to sequester millions of tons of CO₂ per year through biochar alone, ask to see the verified delivery data — not just projections.
• Follow the science, not the hype. The International Biochar Initiative maintains a more grounded overview of the field’s actual state of knowledge.

The post Biochar Was a Billion-Ton Dream, the Reality Is More Complicated appeared first on Earth911.

Listen to “Earth911 Interview: Coastal Flooding In 2050 With Climate Scientist James Renwick” on Spreaker.

Turn back the clock to hear an early warning from James Renwick, co-author of the upcoming 2021 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) report and head of the School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, joins Earth911 to discuss the prospects for coastal flooding due to climate change. He shares troubling but important insights into how much seas have already risen since the 1800s — about one foot — and the potential for up to two feet more flooding in the coming century. He also reports the UNIPCC will acknowledge that the critical 1.5C warming threshold is locked in unless the world takes radical action to reduce emissions immediately. Humanity has already committed future generations to potentially disastrous climate impacts, he says.

Renwick explains how much water is stored in Antarctica and the projections for economic and housing losses along the U.S. East Coast, which is particularly prone to flooding because of the configuration of ocean currents. He also discusses the growing accuracy of climate models and how accelerated warming seen in recent years appears poised to continue speeding ice loss at the poles. But, Renwick argues, the international climate dialogue has shifted from resistance to acknowledgment of climate impacts and growing national and local action, which gives him hope. “Things are moving in the right direction,” he told Earth911’s Mitch Ratcliffe. “But we’ve got a lot of work to do.”

The upcoming COP26 meeting of global leaders, which was postponed to the fall of 2021 due to the pandemic, will feature many nations’ increased commitments to reduce emissions. In the meantime, he urges individual citizens to speak out and choose sustainably produced products, as well as support effective local remediation projects, such as tree-planting programs. Each of us can make a difference. Start your journey with this conversation with Professor James Renwick.

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

Editor’s Note: This podcast originally aired on January 1, 2021.

The post Classic Sustainability In Your Ear: Coastal Flooding in 2050 With Climate Scientist James Renwick appeared first on Earth911.

The global energy system is changing in two big ways: it is moving from centralized fossil-fuel generation to distributed renewables, and it is becoming more digital in how energy is measured, traded, and optimized. Steve Wilhite, Executive Vice President of Advisory Services at Schneider Electric, works at the intersection of these complementary yet challenging transitions. Schneider supports more than 40% of the Fortune 500 with energy procurement and sustainability strategies, managing over $50 billion in annual energy spending. His experience shows something that pledges and press releases often miss: the biggest challenge for corporate sustainability is not money, technology, or political will. The real issue is the gap between ambition and the ability to deliver. Companies are making Science-Based Targets commitments faster than they are building the infrastructure to meet them. Scope one and two emissions are being managed better, but scope three emissions, which come from a company’s supply chain, still present a systems problem that no single company can solve alone. Schneider’s zero-carbon supplier program suggests what it takes to close this gap. When the company started its own effort to cut emissions from its top 1,000 suppliers by 50% in five years, all 1,000 signed up within two weeks. However, about 84% of them did not fully understand what they had agreed to. Achieving success meant creating measurement tools, education programs, and action plans to help the whole ecosystem, not just individual companies.

This critical conversation explores how renewable energy is bought, including the difference between physical and virtual power purchase agreements. Steve also explains why the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) market became more complex as it grew, and why 10% fewer renewable deals closed in 2025 compared to 2024, as tech companies used up available clean energy. He also addresses a key question in clean energy: is AI helping the environment overall, or do its energy needs still outweigh its efficiency benefits? Schneider processes over a million energy invoices each month, and about 50,000 of them had issues that took 10 to 15 business days to resolve. Now, a team of AI systems can handle these in seconds. Accurate energy consumption and billing data directly affect emissions reporting, energy efficiency, and money-saving market decisions. He describes Schnieder’s approach as “frugal AI”: using the right-sized models for each task, running them on clean energy, and choosing simple solutions over complex ones. Looking ahead, electrification is building a global digital energy network in which every meter and adjustment contributes to a new system independent of central plants. As intelligence spreads, power can shift to consumers, communities, and businesses. Schneider is enabling this shift by building a mesh grid in which each point both produces and consumes energy, coordinated by AI. These changes fundamentally reshape the global energy landscape. The central question: will we intentionally build this new, distributed system, or will we repeat centralized patterns digitally?

To learn more about Schneider Electric’s sustainability efforts, visit se.com.

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

Interview Transcript

The post Sustainability In Your Ear: Schneider Electric’s Steve Wilhite Maps the Renewable Energy Transition appeared first on Earth911.