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

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

What “donating” actually does

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

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

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

The household bill

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

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

The policy lever finally arriving

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

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

What You Can Do

At home and while shopping:

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

In your community:

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

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

Pull the sheets back from the numbers and the American mattress starts to look less like a product and more like a disposal problem. The United States throws out an estimated 18.2 million mattresses a year — roughly 50,000 every day — and only about 19% of them are recycled. The rest, more than four out of five beds, are landfilled or incinerated.

A mattress is one of the largest, bulkiest, and most expensive things you own, and almost none of it has to be wasted. Recyclers can recover 80 to 95% of a mattress — steel, foam, fiber, and wood that become new products. Yet the default path for most beds is a hole in the ground, and that default costs the typical household twice: once to buy the bed, and again to get rid of it. Most mattresses are built to last seven to ten years, so a single household will buy and discard several over a lifetime. The bed itself is the obvious expense: a new queen mattress averages around $1,500, and even budget models start near $400.

The hidden cost shows up at the curb. Getting rid of an old mattress averages about $100 and runs from $40 to $200 or more depending on how you do it. Junk-hauling services typically charge $80 to $250. Municipal bulk pickup is often free but can mean a two- to eight-week wait, and many landfills tack on a $20 to $40 bulky-item fee. For a household replacing a bed every several years, disposal alone quietly adds up.

Why the landfill is the worst place for it

Mattresses are built to resist compression, which makes them miserable landfill tenants. Each one can take up as much as 23 cubic feet of space even after compacting, and their steel springs tangle and damage the heavy equipment that operators use to manage the waste. Multiply that by tens of thousands a day and mattresses become a stubborn drain on landfill capacity.

The waste is also material that holds real value. A typical mattress contains roughly 25 pounds of steel and 9 pounds of cotton, plus foam and wood. Across its programs, the Mattress Recycling Council reports keeping more than 555 million pounds of steel, foam, fiber, and wood out of landfills by recycling over 14 million mattresses. Buried beds throw all of that away.

A recycling system exists, but it’s uneven

Where you live largely decides whether recycling is even an option. Four states — California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Oregon, whose program began January 1, 2025 — run extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs. A small fee on every new mattress funds free drop-off through the industry’s Bye Bye Mattress program. The access is meaningful: in 2024, 98.4% of California residents lived within 15 miles of a collection site.

Once a mattress is dismantled, up to 75% of its materials become new products. The foam and fiber go into carpet padding, springs are melted down as scrap steel, and box-spring wood is chipped into mulch or biomass fuel. Outside the four EPR states, though, recycling depends on a patchwork of private facilities, and most households still pay to haul a bed away.

What you can do

• Recycle it where you can. In California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Oregon, drop-off is free through byebyemattress.com. Everywhere else, search by ZIP Code on Earth911’s recycling locator to find the nearest facility, if one is available.
• Donate a bed that still has life. Charities, shelters, and reuse organizations accept clean, structurally sound mattresses. Reuse beats recycling because it skips the dismantling step entirely.
• Extend the lifespan you already paid for. A protector, a supportive foundation, and regular rotation can push a quality mattress toward the long end of its seven-to-ten-year range, cutting both cost and waste.
• Ask the retailer about takeback before you buy. Many sellers will haul away your old mattress on delivery, sometimes routing it to a recycler. Confirm where it actually goes.
• Back producer-responsibility laws. EPR programs are the single biggest reason recycling is free and accessible in some states and not others. Their expansion is what moves the national recycling rate above 19%.

The post 18.2 Million Mattresses Disposed a Year, and Most of Them Get Buried appeared first on Earth911.

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

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

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

What 13 Billion Pounds Looks Like at Home

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

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

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

The Boreal Forest Connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What You Can Do

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

Replace the highest-volume product first:

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

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

Push retailers and manufacturers:

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

Don’t flush, rinse

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

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

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

Imagine if every time the world made $100, it threw away $31 of it. Not lost. Not saved. Just wasted — in food that rotted before anyone ate it, in phones and washing machines that broke way too soon, and in heat that escaped from factories and power plants. That’s roughly what the global economy does every year, according to a new report from the research group Circle Economy and the consulting firm Deloitte.

The Circularity Gap Report 2026, released this month, puts a price tag on all that waste: €25.4 trillion, or about $29 trillion at today’s exchange rate. That is almost 31% of the entire world economy, which is valued at around $96 trillion. The researchers call it the Value Gap — the gap between the value the economy creates and the value it lets slip away.

For several years, the Circularity Gap Report has tracked one number: the share of materials that are reused or recycled rather than thrown out. That number has been dropping. It fell from 9.1% in 2018 to just 7.2% in 2023, meaning more than 92% of everything we use is extracted from nature, used once or not used at all, and tossed in the trash.

This year, the researchers tried something different. Instead of measuring waste in pounds of metal or plastic, they measured the cost of waste in euros, which we’ve converted to dollars. The report explains that it is easier to get governments and big companies to care about waste when you can show them what it costs.

Where the money disappears

The $29 trillion in yearly losses comes from five main places:

• End-of-life waste — about $11.6 trillion. This is the biggest chunk. It is the value of all the stuff thrown out before it should have been, such as clothes that are still wearable, appliances that could be fixed, and electronics that were upgraded before they were obsolete.
• Energy losses — about $10.1 trillion. Every time energy turns from one form into another — gasoline into motion, coal into electricity — a lot of it escapes as heat. For example, most cars waste more than half the energy in their fuel.
• Worn-out buildings and infrastructure — about $6.0 trillion. Roads, bridges, schools, and factories that fall apart faster than they should because they are not maintained or were not built to last.
• Processing losses — about $1.05 trillion. Material that gets wasted between the mine or farm and the finished product. Everything from mine tailings to the leftover textiles generated during clothing production.
• Food waste — about $755 billion. Food that’s grown, shipped, and stocked but never eaten.

One of the most interesting findings is where the waste actually happens. About 40% of the total, roughly $12 trillion happens after products are in consumers’ hands. That is more than the value lost in mining, manufacturing, or recycling combined.

What does that mean in plain terms? When a $1,200 phone gets cracked and replaced after 18 months, when a refrigerator quits and goes unrepaired after seven years instead of fifteen, when a car gets junked because one expensive part broke. That is the “use phase” in a product lifecycle, and it is where the biggest pool of avoidable waste hides.

Why things break too soon

The report points to the culprit behind our take-make-waste economy: premature obsolescence. Stuff is designed to die, not endure, not deliver full value. About $7.5 trillion a year is lost because long-lasting things — buildings, machines, electronics — are retired before their expected useful life ends.

Sometimes this happens because companies make products that are hard to fix. Sometimes a single part fails and the rest gets thrown out with it. Sometimes a phone software update slows the device down, forcing owners to buy a new one.

Governments are starting to push back. The European Union’s Right to Repair law takes effect across Europe in July 2026. In the United States, more than a quarter of Americans now live in states that require companies to make repair manuals and spare parts available.

What this means for companies and shoppers

For companies, Circularity Gap Report is a warning shot. Trillions of dollars of value can be unlocked with better design, longer-lasting products, and smarter material use. The businesses that figure out how to capture some of that value will have an edge. Some are already trying. Startups are recycling solar panels, blended fabrics, and rare metals that were once considered impossible to recover. Brands that make their products easy to repair or, better, provide maintenance services that reduce the need for repairs, can earn customers’ loyalty over the long haul.

For shoppers, the report makes a point that might be uncomfortable: recycling alone won’t fix this. The biggest savings come from using less stuff in the first place and keeping the stuff we have for longer. Repair beats recycling. Buying nothing beats both.

This is the first time the world’s waste has been measured this way, and the researchers admit the numbers are rough. The $29 trillion total comes with a margin of error of roughly $5 trillion either way. The exact figure will likely change in future reports as the method improves.

Why this matters now

Earlier versions of this report told us the world was using its resources less efficiently every year. This edition tells us what that inefficiency costs: nearly a third of everything the global economy produces. That is a big enough number to get the attention of finance ministries, investors, and corporate boards — the people who actually move money around. Whether they act on it is the question that the next few years will answer. But the number is on the table now, and it is hard to look away from.

The case for a circular economy as a climate solution was already strong. Now there is an economic argument sitting right next to it, measured in trillions. For an economy that runs on take, make, waste, that is a hard bill to keep ignoring.

Related reading

• The 9 Rs of Circular Economy Explained
• How the Circular Economy Can Help Solve Climate Change
• Circular Economy Startups to Watch in 2026
• What the EU’s Right to Repair Means for American Consumers

The post The World Is Wasting About $29 Trillion a Year. Here’s Where It Goes. appeared first on Earth911.

Run an insect trap through a German nature reserve today and it will catch a fraction of the insects it would have trapped in 1989. Entomologists in the Krefeld region did exactly that, season after season, and when they totaled 27 years of catch they found flying insect biomass had fallen more than 75 percent inside protected areas, where nature is supposed to be safe.

Since the turn of the century, two crashes have run in parallel: a steady draining of vertebrate life we know, including the mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles we notice, and a quieter, vaster loss of insects, the wildlife almost no one counts but nearly everything depends on. Much of the underlying data describing the loss of biodiversity reaches back to 1970. What belongs to this century is precise measurement built on long-term studies that matured after 2000 and turned scattered alarm into a documented trend. This is what we have lost while we were watching, and what that loss takes from the generations who come after.

The vertebrate ledger

According to the World Wildlife Foundation and Zoological Society of London’s 2024 Living Planet Report, between 1970 and 2020, the average monitored population of 5,495 vertebrate species shrank by 73 percent. That figure is widely misread, so state it precisely: it does not mean three-quarters of all animals are gone. It means that across the populations scientists track, the average decline was 73 percent, with roughly half falling while half held steady or grew. The average is pulled down by steep losses, including freshwater animal populations that are down 85 percent and wildlife in Latin America and the Caribbean down 95 percent.

The losses are not evenly spread. In North America, a 2019 study in Science tallied a net loss of nearly 3 billion breeding birds since 1970—about one in four—across 529 species, including common backyard birds nobody thought were at risk.

Amphibians are in the worst shape of any vertebrate group. The second Global Amphibian Assessment, published in 2023, found 41 percent of species threatened with extinction, with climate change driving 39 percent of the deteriorations recorded since 2004.

Some losses are now permanent at a level above the species. In a 2023 paper, Gerardo Ceballos and Paul Ehrlich documented that 73 entire vertebrate genera—whole branches of the animal family tree, not single twigs—have gone extinct since 1500, a rate they argue is far faster than the background pace of the past million years. The IUCN Red List, the most comprehensive tally we have, now lists more than 47,000 of its 169,000-plus inventory of species as threatened.

The insect crash almost no one sees

Vertebrates, which tend to the fuzzy and cute, are the animals we grieve. Insects are the ones we depend on, and their decline is harder to see because so few long-term counts exist. But the Krefeld study cracked that open in 2017. Its more-than-75-percent biomass drop could not be explained by weather, habitat type, or land use inside the reserves—the decline was systemic, not local.

A 2020 meta-analysis in Science, combining 166 long-term datasets, put the trend on a global footing: terrestrial insects are declining roughly 9 percent per decade. The same analysis carried a genuinely hopeful finding, that freshwater insects in some regions were recovering, a rebound the authors link to decades of cleaning up polluted rivers and lakes. Declines varied enough from place to place that local action clearly matters. The crash is neither uniform nor does it represent destiny; human decisions can change the future of biodiversity.

The vertebrate and insect declines are not separate emergencies. They feed each other. Insects are the base of the terrestrial food web. The birds North America lost are, in large part, insectivores that ran short of food. Pull biomass out of the bottom and the animals above it follow.

Insects also do work the economy quietly runs on. The IPBES global pollinator assessment found that about 75 percent of the world’s leading food crops depend at least partly on animal pollination. Eighty-seven of the 115 most important crops, from apples and coffee to cocoa, are dependent on robust insect life for pollination. Decomposition of waste, pest control, and soil formation lean on insects too.

These are services no human system currently prices, and none we know how to replace at scale; visions of robotic pollinators, while shiny promises, are far narrower options than the headlines suggest. The machines that work today operate only in controlled environments on crops that already pollinate themselves. Arugga’s ground robots and Polybee’s airflow drones lift greenhouse tomato and berry yields somewhere between 5 and 20 percent, doing the job a handheld wand or a captive bumblebee would otherwise do indoors.

Harvard’s RoboBee, in development since 2013, learned to land reliably in 2025 and still flies on an external tether, carrying no power, sensors, or brain of its own. Nothing on the horizon pollinates an almond orchard or a squash field the way a wild bee does—for free, across miles, while reproducing itself. The robots are a useful supplement for high-value crops under glass and a poor stand-in for the living systems the insect crash is dismantling.

What the next generation inherits

This is where the loss becomes a loss to the future, the question this series keeps returning to.

A child born this year will inherit a thinner world,with fewer birds at the feeder, fewer insects on the windshield, fewer fish in the river. That is the visible loss. The harder losses are what disappear before ever being catalogued: species that vanish unstudied, taking with them chemistry, behavior, and genetic strategies that might have seeded a medicine, a crop trait, or a material we cannot yet imagine because the organism that suggested it is gone.

Extinction is the one environmental harm with no recovery path. A polluted river can be cleaned; a warmed atmosphere can, in principle, be cooled over centuries. A lineage that ends does not come back. The crashes of the past quarter-century are, in that sense, the most irreversible losses we are recording.

The evidence also refuses despair. Half the tracked vertebrate populations are stable or growing. Raptors and waterfowl in North America rebounded after targeted protection and the banning of specific chemicals. Freshwater insects recover where water quality improves. The losses are real and largely human-caused, which means human choices still bend the curve.

What You Can Do

• Make a patch of ground work for insects. Native plants, no pesticides, and leaf litter left over winter give pollinators and the food web a foothold—even a balcony planter counts.
• Cut light pollution. Shielded, warm-toned outdoor lighting on timers eases a documented and growing pressure on nocturnal insects.
• Support long-term monitoring. Community-science projects—bird counts, butterfly and bee surveys—supply the very datasets that made these crashes visible in the first place.
• Push where large-scale impact can happen. Individual yards help locally; pesticide rules, habitat corridors, and protected-area funding decide outcomes at the landscape level. Back them.
• Ease land pressure through what you eat. Habitat conversion for agriculture is a leading driver of both crashes; cutting food waste and high-impact consumption lowers it.

The post Vertebrate and Insect Extinctions in the 21st Century appeared first on Earth911.

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

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

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

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

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

How to Choose a Counter-Depth Refrigerator

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

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

The Best Counter-Depth Refrigerators in 2026

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

Best for Energy Efficiency: Frigidaire FFTR1835VW (Top Freezer)

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

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

Best Value French Door (33″): Samsung RF18A5101SR

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

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

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

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

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

Best for Food Preservation: Bosch 800 Series B36CT80SNS

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

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

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

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

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

Counter-Depth Refrigerator Comparison

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

Getting the Most From Your Refrigerator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just over half the country is officially in drought, and about 155.7 million Americans—almost seven million more than last week—are now affected. The U.S. Drought Monitor’s April 23 report shows that 52.46% of the United States and Puerto Rico, and 62.78% of the Lower 48, are experiencing moderate drought or worse. According to NOAA, this is the worst spring drought on record for the continental United States.

This drought is not limited to one region. The Southeast just had its driest September-through-March since records began in 1895. The Colorado River system is only 36% full. Texas is 77% in drought, and Corpus Christi’s reservoirs have dropped to nearly 9%. Nebraska experienced its largest wildfire ever, fueled by dry grasslands. Oregon’s snowpack reached zero on April 1. In California, Tahoe City Cross melted completely by March 8, 40 days earlier than usual, after a record-breaking March heat wave caused rapid melting of an already low snowpack across most of the West.

The common factor is that from January through March, precipitation was below 70% of average across the lower 48 states, setting a new record. As a result, water restrictions are now broader and, in many places, more severe than usual.

The National Picture

The headline numbers come from the U.S. Drought Monitor, which is jointly produced by the National Drought Mitigation Center, USDA, and NOAA. As of April 21, drought conditions had worsened across the South, Southeast, Mid-Atlantic, High Plains, and West, with a 2.9% increase in coverage over the past week and an 11.7% increase over the past month. The Northeast and parts of Texas and the eastern Plains saw modest improvement; everywhere else trended drier.

Two main climate factors have caused this record drought. First, La Niña led to less rainfall from January to March, with totals below 70% of average—the lowest since records began in 1895, just surpassing the previous low in 1910. Second, spring temperatures in the Central Plains, Midwest, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic were 5 to 10 degrees above normal, which sped up soil moisture loss and increased evaporation. This drought is not just about low rainfall; high temperatures are also drying out what little moisture remains.

The effects of the drought are already clear in the number of wildfires. By mid-April, over 1.7 million acres had burned across the country, nearly double the 10-year average. Nebraska’s Morrill Fire, which burned more than 640,000 acres in March, was the largest in the state’s history. In southeastern Georgia, the Highway 82 Fire destroyed at least 54 structures in Brantley County, which was the first county in the Southeast to reach exceptional drought (“D4”).

Southwest: The Colorado River Approaches a Threshold

The Colorado River Basin is facing water shortages not seen in modern times. The Bureau of Reclamation says the system is at about 36% of capacity. Lake Powell is only 23% full, and Lake Mead is about one-third full. Spring runoff into Lake Powell is expected to be just 22% of average. If this continues, 2026 could be one of the driest years in over sixty years, possibly even drier than 2002, which was the previous record.

In response, the Bureau of Reclamation announced in April that it plans to cut Lake Powell releases to 6 million acre-feet, the lowest in decades. They will also move water from Flaming Gorge to keep Lake Powell high enough for Glen Canyon Dam to generate hydropower. The dam provides electricity to about five million people, but water levels could drop too low by December if things do not improve. The seven states that share the Colorado River have not agreed on new rules for after 2026, when current guidelines expire. The Interior Department has said it may set new rules on its own if no agreement is reached this summer. Western states could be heading toward a conflict over water.

Local water restrictions are getting stricter. In March 2026, Erie, Colorado, moved to a Level 4 Emergency, the highest stage, which bans all residential sprinkler use. Aurora has completely banned new turf lawns. Denver Water started Stage 1 restrictions, asking residents to cut both indoor and outdoor water use by 20% until October 1. Along the Rio Grande, Elephant Butte is at 12.6% capacity, Falcon at 19.2%, and Amistad at 31.4%.

California: Permanent Rules Meet a Fourth Dry Year

California’s situation is more complex than just being in drought or not. In January 2026, the Drought Monitor showed no part of California in drought for the first time in 25 years. By April, Southern California was facing its fourth straight year of below-average rainfall. The statewide snowpack was only 18% of normal, and the State Water Project will limit water releases to 30% of normal.

What’s notable is that California’s restrictions no longer depend on whether a drought is officially declared. After the 2012-2017 drought, the state moved to a permanent year-round conservation framework codified by state law AB 1572 and the State Water Resources Control Board’s “Making Conservation a California Way of Life” rules.

Statewide baseline rules apply every year, regardless of conditions: no hosing down driveways or hardscape; no irrigation within 48 hours of rainfall; no irrigation runoff into streets or storm drains; mandatory shutoff nozzles on hoses; and recirculation requirements for fountains and decorative water features.

On top of these restrictions, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which serves 19 million people, issued a Level 1 conservation notice in March 2026 to all 26 city and county agency members. State enforcement of the new water-budget rules is paused until 2027 to give utilities time to adjust.

California is in for a dry summer this year.

Southeast: A Recharge Season That Failed

The Southeast, usually a humid region, is now facing a record drought. Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina all had their driest September-through-March since 1895. Normally, the region relies on December through March to restore soil moisture, streamflows, and groundwater, but this year, that recharge mostly did not occur.

The result, as of April: 100% of North Carolina, 99.95% of Virginia, 99.34% of South Carolina, 98.99% of Florida, 98.13% of Georgia, 93.65% of Tennessee, and 88.66% of Alabama are in drought. In Georgia, extreme drought now covers 71% of the state, the highest reading since 2012. Some monitoring stations with 75 or more years of data are recording their driest six-month periods on record. Drought watches are active across Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama, with mandatory rules likely if late-spring rainfall doesn’t materialize.

Texas and the Southern Plains: Cities at the Edge

Texas is 77% in drought as of mid-April. The Coastal Bend story is the one to watch closely. Combined storage at Choke Canyon Reservoir and Lake Corpus Christi has fallen to 8.7% as of April 2026 — among the lowest levels ever recorded. Corpus Christi has been under Stage 3 mandatory restrictions since December 2024, the most severe stage in the city’s standard drought contingency plan, which is triggered when combined reservoir storage drops below 20% capacity. Stage 3 bans all outdoor irrigation, home vehicle washing, and most non-essential outdoor water use; second and subsequent violations carry fines up to $2,000 each.

The bigger concern is what happens next. City models now predict a Level 1 Water Emergency by September 2026, when the water supply could be just 180 days from running out. On April 28, 2026, the City Council postponed a vote on a proposal that would require everyone—residents, businesses, and industry—to cut water use by 25% if Level 1 is declared. Many residents at the meeting said this cut would be impossible unless industrial users reduce even more.

If Corpus Christi runs out of water—a scenario city officials now consider possible—it would be the first modern American city to face this. There is no guidebook for what to do. In the worst case, the city could see rolling water shutoffs by district, water delivered by tanker trucks, and even managed evacuations. The largest industrial users, such as petrochemical refineries, would likely lose access to water first, potentially leading to lawsuits.

In other parts of Texas, Dallas has had a permanent rule since 2001 that only allows watering lawns two days a week, and no irrigation is allowed between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. from April to October. In Oklahoma and Kansas, the Ranger Road Fire—the largest U.S. wildfire of 2026 so far—burned 283,283 acres in February, killed hundreds of livestock, and led to burn bans across central and eastern Oklahoma.

High Plains: Dust, Fire, and Lake Beds

Nebraska is experiencing conditions that one state climatologist said are unlike anything seen before. Fifty-six percent of the state is in extreme drought, similar to 2012 but with warmer temperatures. The Morrill Fire started in March and quickly spread through dry grasslands, burning over 640,000 acres—the largest wildfire in Nebraska’s history. In Sheridan County, some landowners say their private lakes have dried up completely for the first time since 2012.

The Black Hills in South Dakota are now in extreme drought. In southern Nebraska, southwest Kansas, and southeast Colorado, low rainfall combined with high temperatures and evaporation have made spring planting difficult in many areas. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that streamflows are below or much below normal across southwestern South Dakota, southern Nebraska, and central and western Kansas.

Mandatory urban restrictions in this region are still relatively rare, but burn bans are widespread, and ranchers are culling cattle herds rather than feeding them on pastures with no grass.

Pacific Northwest: A Snow Drought, Not a Rain Drought

The Pacific Northwest had more precipitation this winter than the Southwest, but most of it fell as rain instead of snow because of record-warm temperatures. This has caused a snow drought rather than a rain drought. Since the region relies on snowpack for summer water, this is a serious problem.

Across the broader Columbia River Basin, snowpack ranks in the second percentile. On April 8, Washington’s Department of Ecology declared a statewide Drought Emergency, citing snowpack at just 53% of the median and projected summer water supply below 75% of normal in many basins, including the Yakima. Junior water-rights holders in the Yakima Basin are projected to receive only 44% of their allotment. Idaho is facing what could be its fourth consecutive drought year in its northern basins.

For the Northwest, the effects go beyond just this summer. New research from Oregon State University predicts that by the end of the century, water will move from precipitation to streamflow about 18% faster on average. This happens because there is less snow and more rain, so water moves through the system more quickly instead of slowly melting from snowpack. As a result, there could be about 50% less water in rivers, lakes, and reservoirs during the summer growing season.

The shift toward earlier runoff seen in 2026 is not a one-time event. It is a preview of the more severe impacts that climate change could bring.

Where Restrictions Are Active

This is a partial snapshot as of April 27, 2026. Local utilities update stages weekly. Verify before relying on these figures.

What You Can Do

Households use about 10% of all water in the U.S. Agriculture is still the biggest user, but in cities with restrictions, saving water at home can help prevent stricter rules, fines, or limits on businesses. The EPA’s WaterSense program says the average American family uses about 300 gallons a day, and simple upgrades can cut indoor use by 35%.

Indoor (immediate, no cost):

• Check your home for leaks. On average, American homes waste over 11,000 gallons a year from running toilets and dripping faucets. A single toilet leak can waste 200 gallons a day. To test for leaks, put food coloring in the tank—if it shows up in the bowl without flushing, you have a leak.
• Turn off the tap while brushing your teeth or shaving. This can save 8 to 10 gallons per person each day.
• Only run your dishwasher and washing machine when they are full. You can also skip pre-rinsing dishes.
• Take shorter showers. Reducing your shower by two minutes with a standard showerhead can save about 5 gallons of water.

Indoor (small investment):

• Install WaterSense-labeled fixtures. Faucet aerators and showerheads use at least 20% less water and are inexpensive. The average family can save about 3,500 gallons of water and 410 kWh of energy each year just by using these.
• Replace any toilet made before 1992. Older toilets use 4 gallons per flush, while WaterSense models use 1.28 gallons or less.

Outdoor (where most savings can happen):

• Outdoor irrigation uses nearly 9 billion gallons of water a day nationwide. It makes up about 30% of household water use, and up to 70% in dry areas. Water your yard before sunrise or after sunset to reduce evaporation.
• Consider replacing your lawn with drought-tolerant plants that are suited to your region. This type of landscaping uses less than half the water of a traditional lawn. Many cities, such as Aurora, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, offer rebates for replacing turf.
• Install a smart irrigation controller with a rain shutoff or soil moisture sensor. These devices adjust watering based on real conditions instead of following a set schedule.
• Add 2 to 3 inches of wood chips as mulch to your flower beds and vegetable gardens. This helps reduce evaporation and keeps weeds down.

Community and policy:

• Find out your utility’s current drought stage and the rules that apply. Most utilities post this information online and let you report water waste, like irrigation during banned hours or broken sprinklers spraying onto pavement.
• If you’re in an HOA, know your rights. California’s AB 1572 and Texas Property Code §202.007 prohibit HOAs from fining residents for brown lawns during active water restrictions. Other states are following this example.
• Pay attention to how agriculture and industry use water in your area. While homes use only about 10% of water, decisions about the other 90%—used by farms and businesses—will shape whether household conservation efforts make a lasting difference.

The Big Climate Picture

Some may see the 2026 drought as just a mix of La Niña, a warm winter, and early snowmelt, with rain expected to return as conditions change and an El Niño watch begins for late summer. While this is partly true, the bigger pattern—record warmth, snow falling as rain, earlier and faster runoff, and reservoirs unable to keep up as demand rises during hotter, longer summers—is what climate science has predicted for nearly twenty years.

Lake Powell is at 23%. Oregon’s snowpack is gone. North Carolina is completely in drought. Corpus Christi is preparing for the chance of running out of water. These are not separate stories. They are all part of the same story, showing what aridification looks like when it becomes a daily reality instead of just a forecast.

Editor’s note: Drought conditions are evolving weekly. Statistics in this piece are current as of the U.S. Drought Monitor release dated April 21–23, 2026. Local water restrictions change frequently — verify with your utility before relying on the figures cited here.

The post The 2026 Drought, Region by Region appeared first on Earth911.

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

1. Invest in Reliable Equipment

• The core hardware list hasn’t changed much — but what’s available at each price point has improved considerably.

  Aquarium or tank. A 100-gallon tank remains the recommended starting point for a serious home system. It gives you flexibility in fish species, plant density, and system stability. Acrylic tanks are lighter and optically clearer; glass tanks are heavier but scratch-resistant. Expect to pay $300–$600 for a quality 100-gallon tank. Search current options on Amazon.

  If you’re new to aquaponics, the AquaSprouts Garden Kit is a well-reviewed all-in-one beginner system that fits a standard 10-gallon aquarium. It includes a grow bed, submersible pump, mechanical timer, and light bar mounting system, and costs $75–$90. The aquarium itself is sold separately.

  Canister filter. For a 100-gallon aquaponics tank, target 500–600 gallons per hour (GPH) of water turnover, well above what the tank volume alone would suggest, because the fish load demands high filtration. The Fluval FX2 (~$269 on Amazon) is consistently top-rated for tanks up to 100 gallons, featuring 4-stage filtration, Smart Pump technology that auto-adjusts flow, and a built-in water change system. A solid budget alternative is the Penn-Plax Cascade 1000 (~$199 on Amazon), which handles up to 100 gallons, recirculating the water more than twice an hour.

  Air pump. Dissolved oxygen is critical for fish health and for the beneficial bacteria driving nitrification. A quality air pump — or a canister filter with an integrated spray bar — will keep oxygen levels stable. A 2025 review in Reviews in Aquaculture found that micro-nano bubble (MNB) aeration increased butterhead lettuce yield by 35% compared to conventional diffusers, and raised nitrate concentration in the water. MNB systems are commercially available but not yet mainstream for home setups, so a conventional air pump remains the practical choice for most beginners.

  Grow lights (optional, system-dependent). Indoor systems need supplemental lighting. Full-spectrum LED grow lights have dropped substantially in price and energy draw. Look for LED bars with daylight-spectrum output (5000–6500K) sized to your grow bed. Search LED grow lights on Amazon.

  Water heater (optional). Tilapia require 70–85°F. If your space runs cooler, a submersible aquarium heater is essential. Search aquarium heaters on Amazon.

2. Choose Your Setup

Three system types work at home scale. The choice depends on available space, target crops, and tolerance for complexity.

Media bed are recommended for beginners. Plants grow in a bed of inert media, such as expanded clay pebbles, gravel, or lava rock, positioned above or beside the fish tank. A pump floods the bed periodically, then drains back. The media supports roots and houses beneficial bacteria. Research from Texas A&M confirmed media beds are the most forgiving system for beginners and support the widest range of crops, including fruiting vegetables like tomatoes and cucumbers. The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service provides detailed DIY build plans.

A 2025 study found that carbonized rice husks and cocopeat as grow media can yield five times more crop than traditional expanded clay aggregate (LECA), though they decompose over time and require more frequent replacement.

Nutrient film technique (NFT). A thin stream of water flows continuously through PVC tubes past plant roots dangling inside. Excellent for herbs, lettuce, and small greens in tight or vertical spaces; the tubes can be wall-mounted. Vertical aquaponics setups can increase productivity per unit area by up to 160% compared to horizontal systems, based on research with strawberries and basil. NFT kits are available on Amazon for both DIY and complete systems.

Raft (deep water culture). Plants float on foam rafts with roots submerged directly in nutrient-rich water drawn from the fish tank. They produce a higher yield than NFT for leafy greens, but requires more robust filtration because solids aren’t removed by a media bed. More common in semi-commercial operations than small home setups. Check options on Amazon.

A growing range of IoT sensors let you track pH, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, and temperature continuously from your phone. WiFi pH/EC meters designed for hydroponic and aquaponic systems are now in the $60–$120 range. For beginners, manual weekly testing is fine. For anyone running a system unattended or scaling up, continuous monitoring significantly reduces the risk of a water quality crash.

3. Add the Fish

An aquaponics system will support many species of fish. Several of the most popular options are:

• Tilapia: The most common aquaponics fish for good reason. Tilapia tolerate temperature swings, pH variation, and elevated ammonia better than most species. They grow quickly (typical harvest: 6–8 months), are inexpensive to stock, and provide a dual harvest of vegetables and protein. Best for warm indoor or greenhouse systems (70–85°F).
• Koi: Popular ornamental choice. Koi tolerate poor water quality and are hardy once established, but they’re susceptible to a range of pathogens and aren’t typically harvested for food. Well-suited to media bed systems where water quality is easier to maintain.
• Bluegill, perch, and catfish. Solid edible alternatives to tilapia in cooler climates where tilapia’s warmth requirements are a challenge. Texas A&M’s fish species selection guide covers temperature ranges, feed conversion ratios, and disease susceptibility for home-scale species in detail.

These are great options, but you can also consider carp, perch, largemouth bass, bluegills, guppies, and more. Purchase fish from a reputable aquaculture supplier or local fish hatchery when possible — disease-carrying fish is one of the fastest ways to crash a new system. Pet store fish are not certified disease-free.

4. Add the Plants

Like fish, the options are endless when deciding which vegetables to grow in your aquaponics system. Some popular options include broccoli, celery, cucumbers, and basil.

But because different plants require different conditions, you’ll want to select plants that will thrive in your setup. As Go Green Aquaponics explains, it is important to consider the following:

1. System: What type of aquaponics system you will use – plants with no root structure do well in a raft setup, while root vegetables do well in a media bed.
2. The optimal temperature and pH level for your fish and your plants – the closer the match, the more successful you’ll be.
3. Environment: the amount of light, temperature and – if you’re setting up your system outside – rain the plants will get.
4. How much space you have for plants versus how much space the plants need to grow.
5. Plant-to-fish ratio: The more fish you plan on having, the more plants you need to absorb the nutrients.

5. Maintain Your System

Keeping healthy plants and fish will require regular maintenance. Some tips include:

• Feed your fish two to three times daily in small amounts. Overfeeding is the most common cause of ammonia spikes in home systems. Uneaten food decomposes rapidly and overwhelms the beneficial bacteria that keep the system in balance.

  Test pH weekly. Target range is 6.4–7.4, with most systems running best around 6.8–7.0. The API Freshwater Master Test Kit (~$35 on Amazon) tests pH, ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate in one kit — the standard recommendation for aquaponics monitoring. For more serious systems, the LaMotte Aquaponics Water Test Kit (~$85 on Amazon) covers nine parameters including dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide, and comes with a rugged carrying case. To raise pH naturally, dissolve a tablespoon of food-grade potassium carbonate (potash) in a bucket of system water, add it slowly to the tank, and retest after 24 hours before adding more.

  Test ammonia and nitrate weekly or biweekly. Ammonia should be below 2 ppm; nitrates should stay under 160 ppm. Elevated ammonia: feed less, increase aeration, or reduce fish density. High nitrates: add more plants or remove some fish.

  Mind the cycling period. A new system takes 4–6 weeks to fully cycle and for the bacterial colony to establish and nitrogen conversion to stabilize. Don’t increase fish load or plant density during this period. Ammonia and nitrite readings near zero consistently is your green light.

The following video from Rob Bob’s Aquaponics provides guidance on how to check the pH, ammonia levels, and nitrate levels.

Get Some Fish In Your Garden

Aquaponics is an easy and environmentally conscious way to grow produce and raise fish at the same time. It can be used to grow all your favorite leafy greens, and there are endless varieties of fish that will adapt well to this system. Just keep up with regular maintenance and aquaponics will prove to be a viable and sustainable new way to garden.

The science of aquaponics is advancing quickly. Three developments from recent peer-reviewed literature are worth knowing about, even if most aren’t yet practical for home systems:

Algae co-cultivation. Reviews in Aquaculture reports that introducing macroalgae such as Spirogyra spp. can nearly double plant yields compared to traditional aquaponic systems. Co-cultivating microalgae (Chlorella) with plants in raft systems also controls ammonia at twice the efficacy of non-algal systems. This is emerging research — not yet mainstream for home growers — but a promising direction for anyone looking to push yields further.

Decoupled system design. Research from the Journal of the World Aquaculture Society (2024) documents that decoupled systems, which separate the aquaculture unit from the hydroponic unit, allow optimized conditions in each component, resulting in better nutrient utilization and increased productivity compared to coupled designs. Decoupled systems allow independent pH management for fish and plants, which is otherwise a constant compromise in standard coupled setups. Commercially available decoupled systems are beginning to become available; for DIY builders, it’s a worthwhile design consideration when scaling up.

AI and IoT integration. A 2025 Sustainable Environment Research review emphasizes that monitoring strategies using artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and renewable energy can significantly enhance aquaponic system efficiency. For home growers, this means the WiFi monitoring systems mentioned in Step 2 are part of a broader wave of automation coming to small-scale aquaponics. The good news: prices will continue to drop.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on March 17, 2021, and updated in April 2026. Feature image of outdoor aquaponics system courtesy of Vasch~nlwiki, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

About the Author

David Thomas is founder and editor-in-chief of Everything Fishkeeping, a fishkeeping and aquascaping magazine. He has been keeping fish since he was a child and has kept over 12 different setups. His favorite is his freshwater tank with Tetras and Loaches.

The post How To Grow Vegetables With Aquaponics 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.

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

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

Why we built our formulation around orange oil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The packaging trade-off most brands skip

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

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

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

Testing for sensitive skin

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

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

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

What to look for in any sustainable detergent

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

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

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

About the Author

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

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

In parts of coastal North Carolina and Texas, homeowners who were paying one rate for property insurance in 2019 are now paying double, and that’s after adjusting for inflation.

A February 2026 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the most thorough federal analysis of homeowners insurance markets in years, confirms what many Americans in hurricane, wildfire, and tornado-prone areas already know: the cost and availability of home insurance now depends on climate risk. Nationally, premiums only slightly outpaced inflation from 2019 to 2024. But in high-risk areas, homeowners are seeing price jumps that are changing where people can afford to live, own property, and even stay insured.

The National Average Hides the Real Story

At first glance, the national data seems manageable. The GAO found that the average U.S. homeowners’ insurance premium, adjusted for inflation, rose only 3 percent between 2019 and 2024, going from $2,743 to $2,829 in 2024 dollars. The South reported higher premiums than other regions, but the national average stayed mostly steady.

But when you look at the data by ZIP Code, the story changes. In the same period, many coastal areas in North Carolina and Texas saw premium increases of more than 50 percent after adjusting for inflation. Some places in Palm Beach County, South Florida, also had big jumps. At least 10 ZIP Codes in North Carolina, Texas, Utah, Florida, and California saw increases over 25 percent above inflation in just the last five years.

Wind Costs Far More Than Wildfire — For Now

The GAO used statistical modeling to show how disaster risks raise premiums, and the results are clear. Homes in areas with severe or extreme wind risk pay about 58 percent more, or $1,294 extra per year, compared to similar homes with only major wind risk. Moving from major to severe wildfire risk adds about 8 percent, or $181 per year, to premiums.

This difference shows how much damage wind events like hurricanes can cause. According to GAO data, ZIP Codes with severe or extreme wind or wildfire risk saw premiums rise 6 to 10 percent each year since 2021. In comparison, areas with major risk saw increases of only 1 to 4 percent per year. Over six years, an 8 percent annual increase adds up to a total increase of 59 percent.

State-level disaster costs also play a role. The GAO found that when a state’s average disaster-related costs rose from $25 billion to $35 billion between 2018 and 2023, premiums went up by about 8 percent, or $170 more per year. This happens because insurers update their loss estimates after big disasters. One insurer told the GAO it raised its wildfire risk assumptions for California after the major fire seasons in 2017 and 2018, even before the devastating 2025 Los Angeles wildfires.

Affordability Is Worst Where Income Is Already Stretched

Premium burden, which is the cost of insurance compared to median household income, highlights how climate change is hitting low-income communities hardest. In 2023, Florida, Louisiana, and Oklahoma had the highest premiums relative to income, just as they did in 2019. According to the GAO, states where premiums take up more than 10.6 percent of median income are considered to have a “very high” burden. Florida falls into this category.

The people paying the most for insurance are often those who have the fewest options to move or insure themselves. High insurance costs in risky areas often go hand in hand with lower incomes, older homes, and less access to federal help. Researchers call this a climate-driven affordability crisis.

When Private Insurance Disappears

Rising premiums are just one issue. In some high-risk areas, private insurers are not only raising prices but also leaving the market. The GAO tracked the market share of state FAIR plans and beach plans, which are the “insurers of last resort” for homes that can’t get regular insurance, from 2019 to 2023. Nationally, their combined market share almost doubled, going from about 1.4 percent to 2.5 percent of homes.

California’s numbers tell the story. The state’s FAIR Plan, which covers wildfire risk, grew from about 200,000 residential policies in 2020 to around 450,000 by 2024. About 78 percent of this growth happened in ZIP Codes with major or severe wildfire risk. After the January 2025 Los Angeles fires, enrollment jumped another 43 percent between September 2024 and December 2025, according to Insurance Journal. Even low-risk urban properties are ending up on the FAIR plan as insurers withdraw from whole regions.

Florida and Louisiana have the highest FAIR plan market share among states with these programs. North Carolina’s beach plan, which covers coastal areas, leads all beach plans by market share. All three states face high Atlantic hurricane risk.

Regulation Is Part of the Problem Too

Insurance policies are regulated by each state, and the GAO found that how long it takes to approve premium increases affects policy availability. States where regulators take longer to approve these requests often have more homeowners who can’t get private insurance. The GAO found that every extra 60 days in approval time was linked to about a 0.5 percentage point increase in the state’s FAIR plan market share.

Colorado’s median approval time from 2020 to 2024 was 331 days, the longest in the country. California’s was 305 days. When insurers can’t adjust rates quickly enough to reflect actual risk, some of them exit the market rather than underwrite policies at a loss. This is the dynamic that partly drove the California insurance exodus before the state’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy reforms announced in 2023, which allowed catastrophe modeling and reinsurance costs to be factored into rate-setting, practices already standard in most other states.

Insurers Are Losing Money — Just Not How You Think

Insurers lost money on homeowners insurance underwriting in 22 out of 30 years from 1995 to 2024, with an average annual loss of 4.2 percent. The worst years matched up with major disasters like Hurricanes Fran (1996), Sandy (2012), Harvey, Irma, Maria (2017), and the Maui wildfires (2023).

However, insurers offset underwriting losses with investment income, so the situation isn’t as bad as it seems—they are still highly profitable. In 2024, homeowners insurance had a $1.8 billion underwriting loss, but $8.8 billion in investment income turned it into a $6.9 billion profit overall. The industry is still profitable, even as rates rise and coverage becomes harder to obtain. Insurers say risk-based pricing is needed for long-term stability, but critics believe profitable insurers could do more to keep coverage available in high-risk areas.

Allianz SE board member Günther Thallinger told Capital&Main.com that climate change is a “systemic risk that threatens the very foundation of the financial sector,” and added that “a house that cannot be insured cannot be mortgaged.” The insurance crisis is a credit crisis in slow motion.

What States and the Federal Government Can Do

The GAO asked state regulators, insurance industry groups, and consumer advocates about eight possible federal policy options. Most agreed that the best approach is to focus on mitigation programs that help homeowners make their properties more disaster-resistant.

The GAO recommends Alabama’s Strengthen Alabama Homes program as a model. Since 2011, it has given grants to about 10,000 homeowners to upgrade their roofs to FORTIFIED standards, and another 45,000 have upgraded without grants. Alabama requires insurers to give premium discounts for FORTIFIED homes, making the upgrades a good investment. A 2025 study found that FORTIFIED roofs had fewer and less severe losses after Hurricane Sally, even with higher wind speeds. The National Institute of Building Sciences found benefit-cost ratios from 1.5 to 28, depending on wind speed.

As of now, at least 18 states have introduced bills in 2026 to reform insurance programs and include mitigation measures. These efforts build on a 2025 Colorado law (HB25-1182) that requires insurers to be open about their risk models and to discount premiums for homeowners who take mitigation steps.

The GAO listed eight federal policy options that Congress could consider, and your opinion matters. These options include tax deductions or credits for mitigation upgrades and insurance premiums, federal funding for infrastructure, a federal reinsurance program, community-based disaster insurance, and changes to how insurers’ reserves are taxed.

You can contact your U.S. senators and representative to share your views on where federal money should go. Mitigation incentives have wide support and are the most practical short-term step. Direct federal insurance programs are more debated, but if you think the private market has failed in your area, make that clear. The House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committee are the main places for these discussions. You can find your members at congress.gov.

What You Can Do Now

• Check your disaster risk. First Street Technology’s Risk Factor tool gives property-level wildfire, flood, and wind risk scores. This is the same data source the GAO used.
• Look into the FORTIFIED standards. The Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) certifies FORTIFIED construction for roofs, homes, and commercial buildings. Some states offer grants or require insurers to give discounts for certified homes.
• Learn about your state’s FAIR plan. If you can’t find private coverage, your state might have a FAIR plan or beach plan as a last resort. These plans usually offer less coverage and cost more than private insurance, but they provide insurance when no other options exist.
• Review your current insurance coverage. Many homeowners don’t realize they are underinsured. Check your dwelling coverage limit and compare it to current replacement costs, which have gone up a lot since 2020 due to construction inflation.
• Get involved with your state legislature. Insurance reform is happening in many states right now. Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii are working on bills that link insurance to mitigation in 2026. You can find your state insurance commissioner at naic.org.
• Support federal funding for mitigation. FEMA runs several pre-disaster mitigation grant programs. Community investments in things like firebreaks, levees, and better building codes help lower the basic risk that affects everyone’s insurance premiums.

The post How Climate Disasters Are Breaking the Homeowners Insurance Market appeared first on Earth911.