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

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

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

What 13 Billion Pounds Looks Like at Home

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

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

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

The Boreal Forest Connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What You Can Do

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

Replace the highest-volume product first:

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

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

Push retailers and manufacturers:

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

Don’t flush, rinse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standout Pact picks on Amazon:

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

2. Girlfriend Collective — Recycled Activewear with Radical Transparency

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

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

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

Standout picks:

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

3. Eileen Fisher — Circular Fashion and B Corp Commitment

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

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

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

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

4. Reformation — Carbon-Tracked Dresses and Recycled Cashmere

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

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

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

Reformation sells direct at thereformation.com.

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

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

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

Key pieces for the Spring and Summer of 2026 include:

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

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

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

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

Shop at warpweftworld.com and Amazon.

7. Karen Kane — Ethical Production and TENCEL Chambray

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

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

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

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

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

What You Can Do To Lower Your Impact

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

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

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

Eudaemonius posted a photo:

Why the Math Favors a Dishwasher

Understanding ENERGY STAR Ratings for Compact Dishwashers

• Compact dishwashers: ≤203 kWh/year, ≤3.1 gallons/cycle
• Standard dishwashers (8+ place settings): ≤270 kWh/year, ≤3.5 gallons/cycle
• ENERGY STAR Most Efficient: top performers within those categories, recognized annually for cutting-edge innovation

Built-In Compact Dishwashers: 18-Inch Models

Blomberg DWS51502SS

Sharp SDW4523MS

Smeg STU1846

The DishDrawer: A Different Approach

Single DishDrawer — DD24SAX9N

Double DishDrawer — DD24DTX6 Series

Countertop Dishwashers

COMFEE CDC22P

Dishwasher Comparison Table

What You Can Do

• Choose a dishwasher size that fits your household. If you live alone or with one other person, you probably don’t need more than 6 to 8 place settings per cycle. A countertop COMFEE or single DishDrawer will likely meet your needs at the lowest cost.
• Look for utility rebates before you buy. The ENERGY STAR rebate finder can help you find local incentives that lower the purchase price.
• Don’t pre-rinse your dishes. Just scrape off the food, since modern soil-sensing dishwashers are made to handle food residue. Pre-rinsing can waste about 20 gallons of water per load.
• Use the eco cycle on your dishwasher. This setting lowers both the water temperature and the cycle time, saving 30 to 40 percent more energy compared to the heavy cycle.
• Let your dishes air-dry instead of using the heated dry option. You can open the door at the end of the cycle or turn off the heated dry. This simple step can save a lot of energy each cycle.
• Only run your dishwasher when it’s full. The water and energy used is almost the same whether it’s half-full or full, so it’s best to wait and combine loads.

The post Efficient Dishwashers for Tiny Kitchens 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.

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

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

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

The Footprint Nobody Talks About

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

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

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

If You’re Still Choosing a Center

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

Questions worth asking on a tour:

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

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

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

If Your Child Is Already Enrolled

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

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

Rethinking the Diaper Question

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

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

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

Food Waste and What Kids Actually Eat

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

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

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

The Indoor Air Conversation

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

Concrete requests that work:

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

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

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

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

Practical contributions parents can make:

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

What You Can Pack from Home

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

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

Helping the Center Help Itself

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

Donations that make the biggest difference include:

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

But don’t forget to donate time:

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

When the Center Pushes Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The math that broke glass recycling

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

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

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

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

How we built a system that loses money

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

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

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

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

What does glass costs your household?

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

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

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

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

Glass emissions matter

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

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

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

What’s changing, and what isn’t

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

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

What you can do

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

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

Every pair of jeans you buy took roughly 2,000 gallons of water to produce. Every cotton t-shirt, about 700 more. The clothes you wear are the second-largest consumer of water among all industries, and fashion as a whole generates as much carbon as international aviation and maritime shipping combined. Where and how you shop makes a big difference for the planet that you want to get outside, into nature, and enjoy.

Men’s clothing brands are making the moves to reduce damage to the nature. They’re using organic and recycled fibers, paying fair wages, publishing their supply chains, repairing garments for free, and planting trees. Some are even rethinking what fabric itself can be made from.

Still, fast fashion is growing by more than 10% each year and could double to $291 billion by 2032. Only 0.3% of textile fiber worldwide is recycled, and 85% of discarded clothing in the U.S. goes to landfills. The brands here are working hard to change that, which is why they deserve your support.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s A New Textiles Economy report says that if we doubled how often we wear each piece of clothing, greenhouse gas emissions from clothing would drop by 44%. The best way to help is to use what you already have. After that, buying from brands that are truly making an effort is the next best step. Here are 12 such brands.

This article contains affiliate links. If you purchase an item through the Amazon links below, Earth911 receives a small commission that helps fund our Recycling Directory. If you don’t return an item, Amazon shipping is typically more efficient than retail shopping.

The Brands

1. Nudie Jeans

Nudie Jeans has built one of the most honest sustainability programs in denim. Their 2024 report shows that 93% of fiber usage is organic, Fairtrade, or recycled cotton, and in 2024 they finalized their first garments made from regenerative organic cotton—farming that doesn’t just avoid harm but actively rebuilds soil health. They also run 33 free-for-life repair shops across 20 cities, repaired 68,342 pairs of jeans in 2024, and sell pre-owned jeans directly on their site. If you want denim that’s designed to be worn, repaired, and worn again rather than replaced, this is the brand.

Current Pick: Gritty Jackson Jeans

The Gritty Jackson is Nudie’s main men’s jean, with a regular straight fit made from 100% organic cotton. It now comes in styles that use the new regenerative organic cotton. Buy directly from Nudie to use their repair program, or find them on Amazon.

2. Asket

Asket operates on a simple premise, that the most sustainable garment is one you already own. So, the Swedish brand makes a permanent, no-new-seasons collection and publishes the full CO₂ impact and material traceability of every single product on its website. No other brand in this guide is more transparent about what your clothes are made of and what it cost the planet to make them.

Current Pick: Oxford Shirt

The Oxford Shirt comes in seven colors, is made from 100% yarn-dyed cotton, and carries a disclosed CO₂ impact of 5.5 kg per shirt. It’s the kind of shirt you buy once and wear for a decade. Asket ships directly to the U.S and offers  full transparency data for your purchase.

3. prAna

prAna is a great choice for men who want clothes that work for hiking, yoga, or a night out. The brand uses recycled and organic fibers, supports Fair Trade, and shares full supply chain details, including factory names and conditions. Since being bought by Columbia Sportswear in 2014, prAna has kept its focus on sustainability and uses bluesign® certified fabrics.

Current Pick: Stretch Zion Pant II

The Stretch Zion Pant II is prAna’s top men’s pant, made from recycled nylon and bluesign® certified. It’s built for climbing and hiking but comfortable enough for travel. You can find it on Amazon.

4. tentree

tentree has planted over 120 million trees in 13 countries and aims to reach one billion by 2030. That’s ten trees for every item sold. The brand is a certified B Corp, has been carbon-neutral since 2022, and uses organic cotton, TENCEL™ lyocell, hemp, and recycled polyester. They also run a Circularity program that takes back clothes from any brand for resale or recycling. In 2024, they funded 100 beehives at planting sites in Kenya to help support local communities after reforestation projects end.

Current Pick: Juniper Classic Hoodie

The Juniper Classic Hoodieis made from recycled polyester and organic cotton. It’s a simple, versatile layer that comes with tentree’s tree-planting promise. You can find it on Amazon.

5. Warp + Weft

Warp + Weft might be the most underrated brand here. While regular jeans use about 1,500 gallons of water to make, Warp + Weft jeans use less than 10. They treat and recycle 98% of their water, power their mill with solar panels, and use Dry Ozone technology instead of chemical bleaching. All their pieces cost under $100 and come in sizes up to 3X, making sustainable denim more accessible. Their Fall 2024 collection added stretch corduroy, knit denim, and a new relaxed-fit men’s jean.

Current Pick: GRR Relaxed Jean

The GRR Relaxed Jean has a mid-rise and loose leg, made from Warp + Weft’s low-water denim. You can find them on Amazon.

6. Everlane

Everlane ranked first in Remake’s 2024 Fashion Accountability Report, beating 52 other brands and earning its highest score ever. Their 2024 impact report shows that 90% of their materials now meet lower-impact standards, and they have cut Scope 1–3 emissions by 52% since 2019. The ReNew collection, made from recycled plastic bottles and fishing nets, has grown, and 95% of the cotton Everlane uses is certified organic, regenerative, recycled, or farm-traceable. A 2020 labor scandal still affects their “radical transparency” claims, and their goal of 100% preferred materials by the end of 2025 is still in progress. Still, the data shows real improvement.

Current Pick: The ReNew Fleece Jacket

Made from 100% recycled materials and bluesign®-approved dyes, the ReNew Fleece Jacket is the updated staple of the ReNew collection. It’s versatile enough for layering in spring and fall.

7. Nau

Nau started in Portland in 2005 with the goal of proving that business could be a force for environmental good. Now owned by South Korean outdoor company Black Yak, the brand continues to make versatile performance-lifestyle clothing from recycled polyester, organic cotton, TENCEL, and ethically sourced Merino wool, using PFC-free coatings instead of the persistent chemical water repellents most outdoor brands still rely on.

Current Pick: Latitude Crew Pullover

The Aeroshell Hooded Shirt is made from recycled nylon and works well for both city commutes and weekend hikes. You can find Nau on Amazon.

8. Thought Clothing

Thought Clothing, formerly Braintree, is a UK brand built on natural, traceable fibers: hemp, organic cotton, TENCEL, bamboo, recycled polyester, and Merino wool. Their packaging is compostable cornstarch or recycled paper. Hemp is the standout material here—it requires roughly 300–500 liters of water per kilogram to grow, compared to nearly 10,000 liters for conventional cotton. If you’re looking for warm-weather shirts that wear well and wash easy, Thought is worth the international order.

Current Pick: Golf Socks with Panache

The Kinley Golf Course Bamboo Socks in Cobalt Blue are a standout from Thought’s men’s sock line — a golf-course-ready pattern built from a blend of 53% bamboo-derived viscose, 28% recycled polyester, 16% organic cotton, and 3% elastane. Bamboo is one of the fastest-growing renewable crops on the planet, and in fabric form, it delivers genuine performance benefits: the material is naturally breathable, antibacterial, and antifungal, with zero plastic packaging. £7.95 direct from thoughtsocks.com, with international shipping available.

9. Pact

Pact is the easiest brand to start with on this list. They use GOTS-certified organic cotton, Fair Trade Certified™ factories, offer optional carbon offsets at checkout, and use 100% post-consumer recycled packaging. Their prices are much lower than most sustainable brands. Pact covers the basics: underwear, t-shirts, socks, and pants. If you’re just starting to move away from fast fashion and don’t want to spend $100 on a hoodie, this is a good place to begin.

Current Pick: Daily Twill Midweight Pant

The Daily Twill Midweight Pant is an organic cotton trouser with an elastic waistband and drawcord—equally at home at a desk or on a trail. Their Backyard Collection adds organic cotton shorts and button-ups for summer. Find Pact on Amazon.

10. PANGAIA

PANGAIA has moved well beyond the recycled cashmere hoodie it was known for in 2021. The brand now functions as a material science company developing fibers from seaweed (C-FIBER™), fruit waste (FRUTFIBER™), nettles (PANettle™ Denim), and plant-based nylon ((gaia)PLNT). Their PPRMINT™ natural peppermint oil treatment discourages odor-causing bacteria, which means you wash less, and every wash avoided is microplastics not released into waterways. If you want to wear something genuinely on the frontier of what sustainable textiles can be, this is your brand.

Current Pick: Men’s DNA Hoodie

The DNA Hoodie is made from 50% organic cotton and 50% recycled cotton, with an oversized fit and PPRMINT™ treatment. It’s PANGAIA’s most accessible men’s item and a highlight of their collection. Also consider the 365 Hoodie, which comes in C-FIBER™ and recycled cotton blends.

11. Outerknown

Outerknown was co-founded by 11-time world surfing champion Kelly Slater in 2015 and has become one of the most respected men’s sustainable brands in the U.S. Its reputation comes from its supply chain, not just its founder. The brand claims to be the first built on a full commitment to sustainability, using Regenerative Organic Certified® cotton, Fair Trade Certified™ factories, and full transparency about where products are made. Outerknown also has a Pre-Loved resale program for used items.

Current Pick: The Blanket Shirt

The Blanket Shirt is Outerknown’s most iconic piece and deserves its reputation. Made from 100% organic cotton BlanketWeave™ twill with buttons from nuts, it’s built to be the shirt you reach for constantly and wear for years. Available in more than 20 colors and patterns. Also worth considering: the S.E.A. Jeans made from organic cotton denim in a Fair Trade Certified factory. Find Outerknown on Amazon.

No brand on this list is perfect. Every piece of clothing has some environmental impact, and “sustainable” is a spectrum, not a certification. Still, all 12 of these brands are making real, documented efforts to improve: better materials, better factories, more transparency, and in some cases, taking back clothes when you’re done with them.

Buy less and wear your clothes longer. When you do shop, choose brands that can show where their products come from and what their impact is on the planet. That’s the whole approach.

Editor’s Note: Originally published on March 19, 2021, this article was updated in March 2026.

The post 11 Sustainable Men’s Clothing Brands for Spring & Summer Style appeared first on Earth911.

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

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

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

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

Interview Transcript

Mitch Ratcliffe  0:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  3:49

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

Zena Harris  3:50

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  3:59

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

Zena Harris  4:31

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

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

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

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  7:52

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

Zena Harris  8:00

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  8:43

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

Zena Harris  8:48

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  10:42

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

Zena Harris  11:10

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

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

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

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  14:59

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

Zena Harris  15:22

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

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  18:07

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

Zena Harris  18:37

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

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  21:24

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

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

Zena Harris  22:16

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  24:11

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

Zena Harris  24:24

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  25:35

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

Zena Harris  26:05

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  27:52

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

Zena Harris  27:57

You can think it, they can do it.

Mitch Ratcliffe  28:00

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

Zena Harris  28:36

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  (interjects)

Are any of them any good?

Zena Harris  (continues)

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  31:11

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

Zena Harris  31:47

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  31:58

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

Zena Harris  32:00

Well, they haven’t been tracking.

Mitch Ratcliffe  32:10

So they’re the typical company.

Zena Harris  32:13

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  33:54

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

Zena Harris  34:05

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  35:16

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

Zena Harris  35:30

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  35:40

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

Zena Harris  35:50

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  37:34

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

Zena Harris  37:51

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  39:08

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

Zena Harris  39:28

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

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

Mitch Ratcliffe  40:21

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

Zena Harris 

Thank you.

Mitch Ratcliffe  40:31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Turn back the clock to our first conversation with David Katz, founder of Plastic Bank. He shares his vision for a regenerative society built on grassroots recycling programs that help low-income regions build resilient communities. The Vancover, B.C., startup compensates more than 30,000 plastic recyclers in the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and Egypt. To date, Plastic Bank has stopped over 99 million pounds of plastic waste — the equivalent of more than 2 billion plastic bottles — from entering the world’s oceans, and the pace of its collections is accelerating. The people who collect plastic are paid for the material they deposit at more than 511 Plastic Bank branches. Katz’s team has partnered with more than 200 companies, including Procter & Gamble, HelloFresh, L’Oreal, and Coca-Cola, to create circular economies in plastic packaging.

Their next goal is to capture 10 billion bottles, which still represents only 1.7% of the 583 billion produced in 2021, according to Euromonitor. David explains that a shift in mindset from extractive ownership to regenerative stewardship can break the economic mold and bring prosperity in regions where so much valuable material currently is treated as waste. Plastic Bank uses a blockchain-based data collection and reporting system that helps collectors track their earnings and which provides transparency and traceability for the plastic captured. Plastic Bank works with plastic recyclers to convert the collected bottles into SocialPlastic, a raw material for making new products. They sell plastic #1, #2, and #4 to industry to recover their costs. You can learn more about Plastic Bank at plasticbank.com.

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

Editor’s Note: This episode originally aired on March 23, 2022.

The post Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Plastic Bank’s David Katz on Grassroots Recycling Solutions 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.