Published

2 years ago

April 10, 2024

Alice Rush

Humans have an enormous impact on planet Earth, but from both an animal welfare and an environmental perspective, perhaps nothing is more important than our diets.

In 2022, more than 82 billion livestock animals were slaughtered for meat, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States, with the majority of those animals being factory farmed. In addition to enormous animal welfare implications, the practice of farming animals is estimated to account for somewhere between 11% and 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

All things considered, what is the most ethical diet? According to utilitarian moral philosopher Peter Singer, it’s one that includes zero — or at least very few — animal products.

Singer is among the most influential living philosophers and is widely credited for putting animal ethics on the map with his controversial 1975 book, Animal Liberation. Because most nonhuman animals have the capacity to suffer, Singer argues, we should not exploit their suffering for our own good, particularly with the horrific conditions of practices like factory farming.

^{Peter Singer at his office in Princeton University on Sept. 22, 2022. Derek Goodwin Photography}

More recently, he published an extensively revised version, Animal Liberation Now, which brings to light the brutal living conditions for tens of billions of animals today.

I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Singer and discussing speciesism, the conditions of factory farming and how to have an ethical diet.

You’re widely regarded as the father of the animal rights, or as you may prefer, the animal liberation movement. Can you make your case for the pursuit of animal liberation?

The case for the animal liberation movement is that to disregard or discard the interests of beings because they’re not members of our species is indefensible. I use the term “speciesism” to describe that, and that is intended to make the parallel between other -isms such as racism and sexism that most people — certainly I hope the audience that I’m addressing — reject and say that although the analogy is obviously not complete, in all of these cases there’s been a dominant group which has developed an ideology to enable it to justify using a group that it dominates. In one case, nonwhites, in another case, women, and then in this case, nonhumans. To justify using that group for its own purposes in ways that are clearly very harmful to the group, but somewhat beneficial to the dominant group.

So I think we ought to be able to see that the difference in species is not relevant to how bad it is when a being is suffering, if the being is capable of suffering. What matters is how much the being is suffering, what kind of suffering that is — can we compare it with the suffering that we humans may experience? To some extent, I believe we can. And when we make that comparison, it’s not difficult to see that there are many areas in which we inflict immense suffering on nonhuman animals for either no benefits or minor benefits to humans. So I think it follows from the idea of equal consideration of similar interests — which is a principle that I think should hold irrespective of species — it follows from that that many of the things we do to animals are unjustifiable, and that’s the case for animal liberation, or if people want to so put it in terms of recognizing the rights of animals, or, I would say, the case for equal consideration for similar interests across species.

Should we all become vegan or vegetarian?

I would say not in absolutely all circumstances, but if we’re thinking about the situation of somebody who has the option of nourishing themselves well, having an adequate diet, being healthy without consuming animal products, and if those animal products come from commercial enterprises where there’s a profit motive for not being concerned about the wellbeing of the animal beyond productivity of the enterprise, then I think it does follow that we ought not to be consuming those products.

So as I say, there are various other circumstances — that would be circumstances of people who can’t nourish themselves adequately without eating animal products — they have a much larger sacrifice to make than others. And there may be cases where you’re not getting your animal products from large commercial enterprises where the animals have good lives and are humanely killed that would need separate consideration, but the claim I make is one that obviously applies to billions of people in the world today, so that’s enough, I think, to try to get that changed.

You first published Animal Liberation in 1975. And then in May of 2023, you published an updated version, Animal Liberation Now. Surely, much has changed in terms of factory farming practices, the state of animal welfare, among many other factors. In your view, what are some of the most significant changes since 1975, and what made you decide that it was time to publish a revision of Animal Liberation?

Obviously there has been a lot of changes and that’s why it’s really virtually a new book, rather than just a new edition because I’d say probably about half of the text is new. And not so much on the philosophical argument that I just gave you. I think that that has stood up very well to criticism and discussion. But the two longest chapters of Animal Liberation are largely factual where I’m describing research done on animals, and the other describing factory farm conditions. Those chapters had to be completely rewritten. And then there were other discussions about climate change, for example — which was not on my radar or not on many people’s radars in 1975 — had to be brought in because that’s very relevant to the ethics of eating animal products. And I wanted to talk a bit about the progress that the animal movement has made and the progress that it has not made. So those are important changes to the book, and I wanted to talk about that — the new discussion about ethical questions relating to animals, which again was very much a neglected issue, hardly an issue that anybody touched upon in 1975, but now has quite a major literature. So a lot of different things. And also, I should add, there’s more research on animal sentience. So I think we can have more confidence in saying that fish, for example, are sentient, which is something that some people questioned after the first edition was published. And the sentience of octopuses, and even some crustaceans, like lobsters, I think is now much more firmly established than it was. So there’s been a lot of science that has supported the view that I was taking about animal sentience and actually has extended it.

^{Peter Singer with a previous version of Animal Liberation, on Sept. 22, 2022. Derek Goodwin Photography}

In terms of the most significant changes, well, I think some things have gotten better and some things have gotten worse. I talked about the improvements in regulation of factory farming in a few places, most notably the European Union. Also some states of the U.S., but only a minority, particularly California, which passed stricter legislation. So those are good things, but there have also been negative developments. In the case of the chicken industry — chickens are, by far, the most numerous of the land-based vertebrate animals we raise for food — that’s gotten worse because chickens have been bred to grow even faster. And this causes all sorts of problems for them and causes skeletal abnormalities. And they put on weight so fast now that their legs are immaterial for bearing their weight. Chickens are slaughtered when they’re very, very young birds — about six weeks old when they’re slaughtered. And so they’re really babies and their leg bones just aren’t strong enough to support the weight that they’ve put on because they’ve been bred to eat so much and grow so fast. So there’s actually a new cause of pain to bear. They have difficulty bearing their weight, difficulty standing up and walking around because of how fast they’ve been bred to grow. So there are new developments, like that, that make factory farming even worse in some respects than it was.

You describe yourself as a flexible vegan. So you must believe that there’s at least some wiggle room when it comes to having an ethical diet.

That’s because, you know, my ethics are utilitarian or consequentialist. I’m always looking at the consequences of what I do, and my ethics is not about rigid rules. So for me, being vegan is not like somebody — a religious person — who will only eat halal or kosher meat and will think it doesn’t matter how much non-kosher or non-halal meat you eat. It’s just wrong to do it and the wrong would be as great if you ate more of it or less of it. But for me, I want to not be complicit in supporting these industries that treat animals so badly. And the degree of complicity obviously varies by how much I’m spending — to what extent my dollars are supporting those industries. So if for most of my everyday shopping, I avoid animal products, but sometimes when I’m traveling there’s nothing much to eat that doesn’t have some, you know, something like a dairy product, let’s say in it. It’s not a significant contribution that I’m making, and if it’s going to be really difficult for me to get anything to eat that doesn’t contain an animal product — or if I’m in social circumstances where it would disturb the group if I said no, I can’t eat anything here — I’ll eat something that’s vegetarian but not vegan. So that’s the sense in which I’m flexible.

So for people who recognize the cruelty of factory farms and the climate implications of factory farms, and even the climate implications of organic animal farms, but don’t feel ready to commit fully to veganism or vegetarianism, how can those people eat more ethically?

Well, they can still avoid factory farmed products which I think is really important, because that’s where the vast majority of the suffering we inflict on nonhuman animals is. So I would say, depending on how much you feel you want to eat in terms of animal products, I think if you’re talking about the most affluent countries, including the United States, the animal product that perhaps is most easy to get in a form that is not ideal, but is still acceptable, would be eggs from pasture-raised hens. So if you can find a farm that is producing eggs, and the hens really are out on pasture — it’s not just that they’re cage-free, which still might mean that they’re locked up in a big shed — but they’re actually able to go outside and exercise, chase insects, dust bathe, all of those things that are natural for the hens, then you could at least say, well, if the hens are having a reasonably good life here (and sure they’re going to get killed prematurely, and sure the male chicks of that breed are going to get killed immediately on hatching because they’re of no commercial value), it’s a better product definitely than products from animals who are inside all of their lives, very crowded. So I would start with that.

After that, it does get harder. Many people will say, well, what about dairy products from organically raised cows — cows who are outside on pasture again. And that’s certainly better from an animal welfare point of view — as for that matter is beef from grass-fed cows — but it’s worse for the climate, because cows are ruminants and they emit a lot of methane. And the fact that they’re on grass doesn’t really help in terms of reducing their methane output. It’s still there. And in fact, some studies suggest that with grass-fed beef, it’s actually higher, because if you don’t feed them on grain as most beef is fed, for at least the last six months of their lives, they put on weight more slowly, and so for each pound of beef produced there’s more digesting and more methane produced. So you know, that’s a dilemma. But again, if people say, well, I just want to do this occasionally as I need it, or I’m not prepared to go without it, maybe eating small quantities of grass-raised or pasture-raised dairy or beef products might be the next thing to do.

I understand that you’ve recently stepped back from your teaching role at Princeton. So if you don’t mind sharing, what’s next for you?

Yeah, you’re right, I taught my last semester at Princeton now but I’m I’ve got plenty of opportunities to write, to speak, to give interviews like this one. And I’ve got offers of taking visiting positions in other parts of the world which I plan to do, the first of those probably going to Singapore for about a month during 2024. There are other possible places that I will be going to and speaking out in Europe and possibly in Asia. So yeah, I’m planning to keep pretty busy.

That’s all the questions that I had prepared for you. But I’d also like to ask if there’s anything else you’d like to share? Maybe something that we haven’t touched on that you’d like to add?

Oh, I think we’ve covered quite a lot. Obviously, I have a broader interest in bioethics beyond what we’ve spoken about. And so there are a variety of things I’m interested in and I’m continuing to work with the organization The Life You Can Save, which tries to encourage people to give to the most effective charities helping people in extreme poverty. So I think that’s also an important thing to do. And if people want to know more about my work there, they can have a look at my website, petersinger.info, or also go to thelifeyoucansave.org where they can download a free digital copy or audio copy of my book The Life You Can Save and learn more about my work for people in extreme poverty.

The post A Philosopher’s Guide to an Ethical Diet: A Conversation With Peter Singer appeared first on EcoWatch.

https://www.ecowatch.com/peter-singer-interview-ecowatch.html

Green Living

Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Liquidonate CEO Disney Petit On Solving The Retail Returns Crisis

Published

18 hours ago

April 15, 2026

Alice Rush

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

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

Disney Petit, founder and CEO of LiquiDonate, is our guest on *Sustainability In Your Ear*.

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://earth911.com/podcast/sustainability-in-your-ear-liquidonate-ceo-disney-petit-on-solving-the-retail-returns-crisis/

Green Living

Buyer’s Guide: Most Efficient Counter-Depth Refrigerators

Published

19 hours ago

April 15, 2026

Alice Rush

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

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

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

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

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

How to Choose a Counter-Depth Refrigerator

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

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

The Best Counter-Depth Refrigerators in 2026

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

Best for Energy Efficiency: Frigidaire FFTR1835VW (Top Freezer)

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

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

Best Value French Door (33″): Samsung RF18A5101SR

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

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

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

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

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

Best for Food Preservation: Bosch 800 Series B36CT80SNS

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

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

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

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

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

Counter-Depth Refrigerator Comparison

Model	Config	Depth	Capacity	Est. kWh/yr	Price Range	Best For
Frigidaire FFTR1835VW	Top freezer	30 in.	18.3 cu. ft.	~369	$600–$750	Max efficiency, budget buyers, small households
Samsung RF18A5101SR	French door	28.5 in.	17.5 cu. ft.	~448	$1,100–$1,500	Narrow kitchens (33″), mid-budget
LG LRFLC2706S	French door	29.25 in.	26.5 cu. ft.	~632	$1,700–$2,200	Families needing standard-depth capacity with counter-depth fit
Bosch 800 Series B36CT80SNS	French door	24/29 in.	21 cu. ft.	~530	$2,800–$3,500	Food preservation, open kitchens, long food storage
GE Profile PVD28BYNFS	4-door French door	36.75 in.*	27.9 cu. ft.	~760	$2,400–$3,200	Entertainers, home cooks, service reliability

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

Getting the Most From Your Refrigerator

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

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

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

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

https://earth911.com/home-garden/efficient-counter-depth-refrigerators/

Green Living

Take Action on Arbor Day to Help Our Planet

Published

2 days ago

April 14, 2026

Alice Rush

There are certain things in nature we take for granted. We wake up and the sun is shining, or temporarily blurred by clouds. We pour a glass of water and trust it’s safe to drink. We take a deep breath of fresh air, not spending a minute worrying whether it will harm us.

But some pockets of the world don’t have this luxury today, and many experts predict more and more people across the globe won’t either as we move forward into the 21st century.

Clean air. Clean water. A livable climate. All at risk.

Trees Help Restore Our Planet

To preserve our planet for our children and future generations, we no longer have the luxury to take any of this for granted. So today, on Arbor Day, we want to put forth one word, a powerful solution to re-balance our planet: trees.

Is anything more miraculous than the simplicity and perfection of trees?

Trees are nature’s original life preserver. They’re a simple solution for a global environment increasingly at risk. Without the great cleansing of the atmosphere that trees provide; without the great purification of our soil, rivers, and aquifers that trees make possible; without trees, life on Earth wouldn’t exist.

Sadly, at the very time we need them most, trees are under assault.

There are wildfires, nearly 65,000 wildfires in 2024, that burned almost 9 million acres across the U.S., above both the five- and ten-year averages.
Taken together, U.S. wildfires consumed more than 75 million acres over the past decade — an area larger than the entire state of Colorado — according to annual statistics compiled by the National Interagency Coordination Center at the National Interagency Fire Center.
There are droughts, the extended dry spells that have killed hundreds of millions of trees across California and the broader West over the past decade.
There are insect infestations, which claim more than 6 million acres of land across the U.S. every year.
And finally, there is human-caused deforestation; we continue to lose more than 15 billion trees around the world every year.

Human behavior contributes to many of these tragedies. So, it’s our profound responsibility to plant trees. It’s hugely important, with our planet hanging in the balance.

Plant A Million Trees

We cannot take trees for granted. Trees are not a “nice to have”; they’re a “must have.” As a nation, as a world — as people who need a survivable future — we must plant more trees now.

This year’s Arbor Day, on Friday, April 24, 2026, arrives with a double milestone. The Arbor Day Foundation is celebrating the 50th anniversary of Tree City USA, its landmark urban forestry recognition program, as it also launches the Million Trees Project, a campaign to plant 1 million new trees and assemble the world’s largest collection of personal tree stories.

Since 1976, Tree City USA has grown from 42 recognized communities to more than 3,500 cities and towns across all 50 states. Those communities plant nearly 1 million trees annually and collectively invested $2 billion in trees in their most recent reporting year. That’s what sustained civic commitment looks like; it’s the foundation on which the Million Trees Project is building.

Trees are one thing we can all agree on. In a contentious and fractured world, they cross the technology divide, the political divide, the equality divide, and the culture divide. If ever there was a time to plant trees, now is that time.

young man and woman plant a tree

Let’s Plant Trees Together

Everyone can be part of the Million Trees Project. The campaign runs through National Arbor Day and beyond, with three ways to participate:

Plant a tree — then share your story. Individuals can plant at least one tree and submit a photo or short narrative at org/celebrate, documenting what was planted, where, and why.
Schools and classrooms can register a tree-planting event, log trees planted, and submit student stories to the campaign database.
Communities and municipalities — especially Tree City USA designees — can register mass planting events, with every tree counted toward the million-tree goal.

Together, let’s restore our forests, build healthier communities, improve quality of life, and put our simplest and best solution to climate change into action. Let’s pave the way for future generations and their health and well-being.

A tree planted today will always make our lives better tomorrow. Today, on Arbor Day, and every day from here on out, take a moment to look at trees differently — as a life source, as a well of joy and natural beauty, as humanity’s life saver and preserver.

Together, let’s get this job done.

If you don’t have space or time to plant a tree yourself, you can plant a tree virtually through these organizations.

Editor’s Note: Originally published on April 24, 2019, this article was most recently updated with current in April 2026. Feature image by Tien Vu from Pixabay

The post Take Action on Arbor Day to Help Our Planet appeared first on Earth911.

https://earth911.com/inspire/arbor-day-call-to-action/