By Olivia Rosane and Cristen Hemingway Jaynes
Quick Key Facts
- Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and is responsible for around one-third of current global heating.
- Atmospheric methane concentrations have increased by 256 percent since pre-industrial times.
- Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide but lasts for far less time in the atmosphere; over a 20-year period, methane traps 86 times more heat per unit of mass than CO2.
- Around 60 percent of methane emissions come from human-caused sources and 40 percent come from natural sources.
- Ninety percent of human-caused emissions come from three sources: fossil fuels, agriculture and waste storage.
- Currently existing strategies, if adopted, would be enough to curb methane emissions from these three sources by 45 percent by 2030.
- It is possible to cut methane emissions from oil and gas operations by 70 percent with existing technologies and methods and by 40 percent at no cost.
- Studies have shown that adding seaweed supplements to the diets of cattle can decrease their methane emissions by 82 percent for feedlot cattle, more than 50 percent for dairy cows and 42 percent for grazing cattle without harming the animals.
- As of 2023, only 13 percent of all methane emissions were covered by any sort of emissions-reduction policy.
- If everyone in the European Union limited their meat and dairy consumption by 34 percent, they would prevent six million metric tons of methane emissions per year.
What Is Methane?
What has no color or smell and is found in wetlands, cow burps and your basement furnace? The answer is methane — a powerful greenhouse gas that is the second most important contributor to the climate crisis after carbon dioxide (CO2). It is the primary component of natural gas, which currently generates around 25 percent of the world’s electricity.
Methane is a hydrocarbon composed of four hydrogen atoms bonded to a carbon atom. It is abundant in nature and can be formed by both geological and biological processes. Geologically, methane is typically created when heat and pressure are applied to decomposing plant and animal matter over millions of years. This is the source of most natural gas. Methane can also form deep underground without any organic matter through other processes. Biologically, methane is generated through something called methanogenesis, when certain underwater microorganisms called archaea produce methane as part of their oxygen-free respiration process. This is how methane is generated above ground, such as in wetlands or in the digestive tracts of termites and cows.
How Is Methane Measured?
Methane is measured via two main methods: bottom up and top down. These methods work almost exactly as they sound. Bottom-up approaches begin on the ground with a localized source of methane and expand outward. These assessments can either be based on direct measurements of a given facility’s methane emissions or by estimations based on general knowledge about the emitting animal or equipment. For example, to estimate the methane produced by a region or country’s beef or dairy sector, a bottom-up approach could multiply the methane emitted per cow by the number of cows being raised. A similar approach could be used to calculate the methane released by a county’s natural gas facilities or a region’s oil drilling operations.
Top down approaches often literally start in the sky with measurements of atmospheric methane, usually via airplane, high-altitude platforms or, increasingly, satellites. This data can then be combined with knowledge of where there are methane sources and sinks and used to create models of methane emissions.
Satellite image of methane emissions from a landfill in Kyrgyzstan on Feb. 4, 2021. GHGSat
As satellite technology improves, it is detecting super-emitting incidents that are not reflected in bottom-up approaches. For example, if a gas company assesses its methane emissions by multiplying the standard leak rate of a piece of equipment by the number of pieces of that equipment it uses, it will miss the five percent of extraordinary leaks that are responsible for more than half of all gas-industry leak emissions. Overall, direct measurements — whether from the ground or the air — are important for accurately measuring fossil fuel methane emissions in particular. One study found that direct measurements of U.S. oil and gas methane emissions were 60% higher than U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates. In general, improving methane measurements is essential for understanding and therefore controlling its emissions.
How Does Methane Contribute to the Climate Crisis?
Methane is a greenhouse gas, which means that, when it enters the atmosphere, it absorbs heat energy emitted from the planet and redirects it back toward the ground. There are natural methane sinks — namely soil and the troposphere, where methane is broken down into carbon dioxide and water vapor. These sinks are able to counteract naturally occurring methane emissions so that the gas does not build up in the atmosphere. However, human activities since the start of the industrial revolution — particularly the burning of fossil fuels, more intensive forms of agriculture and waste storage — have raised the concentration of methane in the atmosphere faster than natural sinks can absorb it.
As of 2023, the most recent year for which data is available, atmospheric methane concentration had soared by 265 percent to 1,934 ppb compared with pre-industrial levels. Around 60 percent of that methane was emitted due to human activities. That methane has contributed to around one-third of current global heating, second to CO2 at around two-thirds. If nothing is done to reduce methane emissions, they are projected to rise by 13 percent between 2020 and 2030.
Controlling methane emissions is essential for addressing the climate crisis because methane is both more potent than CO2 and also lasts for a shorter period of time in the atmosphere, approximately 12 years compared with hundreds. Over a 20-year period, methane traps 86 times more heat per unit of mass than CO2, which falls to 28 times more over 100 years. The combination of methane’s potency and relatively short atmospheric lifespan means that reducing methane emissions delivers a powerful bang for one’s buck in terms of rapidly curbing greenhouse gasses and stabilizing global temperatures. In fact, the Global Methane Assessment concluded that curbing methane “is very likely the strategy with the greatest potential to decrease warming over the next 20 years.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has calculated that methane emissions must be reduced by around 34 percent by 2030 when compared with 2019 levels in order to limit global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
What Are the Main Sources of Methane?
Methane comes from both human and natural sources, with human-caused emissions responsible for around 60 percent of atmospheric methane and natural sources around 40 percent. More than 90 percent of current human-caused methane emissions come from three sources: agriculture, fossil fuels and waste storage. The burning of biomass and the use of biofuels also emit methane but are less important, as they are responsible for around five percent of emissions. Wetlands and freshwater are the leading source of natural methane emissions, followed by geological sources such as gas-oil seeps and volcanoes, termites, oceans, wild animals and permafrost. In addition, there are natural sources of methane that could play a larger role in the future as the climate crisis triggers various feedback loops.
Agriculture
Around 40 percent of human-caused methane emissions come from agriculture. The vast majority of these emissions are from livestock, which alone generate around 32 percent of human-caused methane emissions. This is primarily from enteric fermentation, which is how ruminant animals like cows, sheep and goats digest their food. Microbes in these animals’ digestive systems break down nutrients and produce methane as a byproduct. When it comes to methane emissions, cows raised for meat or milk are the primary contributors. Another way that livestock agriculture can generate methane is through the storage of manure, particularly that of pigs and cows. As meat consumption increases, these emissions are projected to rise by six million metric per year by 2030.
A second important agricultural contribution to human-caused methane emissions is the cultivation of rice at eight percent. Rice is grown in flooded patties, an environment that encourages the growth of methane-producing microbes. Finally, around one percent of human-caused methane emissions are caused by the burning of agricultural waste.
Fossil Fuels
The extraction and burning of fossil fuels contribute around 35 percent of human-caused methane emissions. Primarily, this occurs through the extraction, transport and use of oil and gas, at 23 percent of human-caused emissions. Methane is typically released during venting, when unwanted gas is released into the atmosphere during the extraction process, as well as through accidental leaks from extraction to transport to use. Emissions from oil and gas are expected to increase by 10 million metric tons per year by 2030, in particular because of the use of natural gas.
Around 12 percent of human-caused methane emissions are released during the process of mining coal, or from leaks from abandoned coal mines. Methane naturally occurs along coal seams, and can be released in several ways during the mining process: through seepage when the coal is exposed to the surface, through drainage systems, through ventilation systems to reduce methane buildup in a mine for safety reasons and from the coal itself as it is removed from the mine. Underground mines tend to emit more methane than surface mines, at 70 percent of mine emissions.
Certain fossil fuel projects emit massive amounts of methane at once, usually due to leaks or venting. These are called “super-emitters” and are detectable through satellite imaging. In 2022, researchers detected more than 1,005 human-caused super-emitter incidents — 559 at oil and gas fields and 105 at coal mines. The worst, in Turkmenistan, spewed 427 metric tons of methane per hour, the equivalent of the hourly emissions of France. As methane emissions increased in the 2010s, experts think that fossil fuel activities contributed as much as agriculture and waste storage combined.
Landfills and Waste
Around 20 percent of human-caused methane emissions come from landfills and waste management systems. This is because microbes present in wastewater treatment facilities and landfills release methane as they decompose the waste. This can generate lots of methane at once: Of the 1,005 super-emitter events identified by researchers in 2022, 340 were from waste sites.
Because of population growth and projected development in poorer countries, emissions from waste are expected to grow faster than from any other human-caused methane source at 13 million metric tons per year by 2030. The amount of human-disposed solid waste overall is expected to rise by 73 percent by 2050.
Wetlands
Wetlands are the predominant source of natural methane emissions, accounting for around one-third of total methane emissions. This is because wetlands — which cover around six percent of the Earth’s land area — are defined by having their soils saturated with water for all or part of the year. This creates a wet, oxygen-poor environment that creates ideal conditions for the archaea responsible for methanogenesis.
While wetlands would produce methane no matter what humans do, the climate crisis has led to an increase in wetland methane emissions in recent years due to temperature increases and changing rainfall patterns. This is known as the “wetland methane feedback.” Between 2000 and 2020, wetland methane emissions increased by 1.2 to 1.4 million metric tons per year, which is a higher rate than anticipated by the most pessimistic emissions scenarios. Scientists noted that these emissions saw “exceptional growth” in 2020 to 2021 in particular. The researchers traced this increase to two sources: tropical wetlands and permafrost wetlands.
Tropical wetlands are expanding their area due to climate-fueled changes in rainfall patterns and were the major driver of increased wetland methane emissions in the early 21st century. Permafrost wetlands are located in the Arctic and, as the name suggests, are partially frozen in addition to being waterlogged. When warmer temperatures cause permafrost to melt, they also unfreeze the microbes that release methane. Arctic wetlands have also expanded by 25 percent during the summer due to a rise in precipitation.
Oceans
The ocean is responsible for one to 13 percent of natural methane emissions through various mechanisms including geological marine seepage; emissions from ocean sediments or melting underwater permafrost; emissions near coastal areas where groundwater enters the sea; and the destabilization of methane hydrates, which are ice-like formations of methane and water on the seafloor. The largest concentration of methane on Earth is stored in these hydrates, and there are concerns that, as the climate crisis causes oceans to warm, these deposits might melt and release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere. However, there is no evidence that any methane from these hydrates is currently reaching the atmosphere.
Positive Climate Feedback Loops
A positive feedback loop occurs when a change to a given system triggers other changes that amplify that initial change. In the case of the climate emergency, a positive feedback loop occurs when the impacts of global heating interact with Earth’s systems in ways that trigger more warming. When these changes pass a certain threshold, it can alter the system in dramatic and irreversible ways. This is called a climate tipping point.
Methane is involved in several positive feedback loops, of which the wetland methane feedback is just one example. Another related example is the thawing of the Arctic permafrost, frozen soils on land as well as beneath the Arctic Ocean. The material that is frozen beneath the permafrost contains plant and animal matter, as well as microbes that would produce methane if they thawed out. The permafrost beneath the ocean contains methane hydrates. This means that the Arctic currently contains 2.5 times more carbon underground than exists in the atmosphere. Thawing the permafrost would release all or some of that carbon, triggering a major tipping point. This process has already begun, with Arctic and Boreal methane emissions increasing by 9 percent since 2002. Scientists don’t know exactly how much methane the melting permafrost might ultimately release, but the region is currently on pace to release the greenhouse gas emissions of a major industrialized nation if nothing is done to reduce warming.
Another positive climate feedback loop involving methane is the increase in the frequency, severity and size of wildfires. A warmer climate makes the hot, dry conditions that fuel wildfires more likely, and these fires in turn release carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere as they burn, fueling more warming. Larger fires also tend to release more methane. One study found that California’s record-breaking 2020 wildfire season contributed almost 14 percent of the state’s total methane emissions for the year.
Methane and the ‘Bridge Fuel’ Myth
Another reason methane emissions might spike in the future is the expansion of gas production, including an increase in exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The development and spread of fracking in the U.S., Canada and Australia in particular has made gas much more abundant and set off a construction boom in infrastructure to export and import the fuel. The U.S. has massively increased its LNG exports since it lifted a ban on them in 2016, becoming the No. 1 natural gas exporter in the world by 2022. These exports doubled between 2019 and 2021 and will double again in four years if they continue.
Advocates of natural gas have argued that it is a “bridge fuel” from coal to more renewable sources of energy. This is because when burned for energy, coal emits twice as much carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour as natural gas. In the U.S., direct power plant emissions decreased by almost 40 percent in the first decades of the 21st century, as gas overtook coal as the country’s leading electricity fuel source. Proponents of exporting U.S. LNG argue that it would similarly displace coal use in Europe and Asia. However, this ignores the methane that leaks during the process of extracting and transporting LNG. If only 0.2 percent of methane leaks, it makes LNG as climate-warming as coal, and new data, including satellite imagery, suggests that the amount of methane leaks have been vastly underestimated. A 2023 study calculated that, when methane leaks are taken into account, LNG has a 33% greater global warming potential over 20 years than coal. Further, the Department of Energy recently concluded that LNG exports are more likely to replace renewable energy sources than coal.
This new understanding comes as more gas fields and LNG export and import terminals are being planned. A 2022 analysis found that there are 55 “methane bomb” gas fields whose future methane leaks would equal 30 years of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The current and proposed construction of LNG export terminals in the U.S., meanwhile, would cancel out any climate progress the nation has made, keeping its greenhouse gas emissions frozen at 2005 levels. As U.S. climate campaigner Bill McKibben warned, “If the LNG build-out continues — here and in Canada and Australia — its sheer size will overwhelm our efforts to rein in global warming.”
What Are Other Benefits to Reducing Methane Emissions?
While stopping the acceleration of the climate crisis is a major argument for reducing methane emissions, these emissions don’t just heat the atmosphere. They also contribute to ground-level ozone, which forms as methane reacts to the atmosphere. Ozone at ground level is a major public health and environmental hazard because it damages human lung tissue, triggering respiratory ailments, and harms plants including agricultural crops. Currently, methane-generated ozone causes about half a million extra deaths per year. However, every million metric tons of methane emissions avoided would also prevent 1,430 yearly deaths from respiratory and heart diseases; 4,000 asthma-related emergencies and 90 hospitalizations per year; and annual losses of 145,000 metric tons of wheat, soybeans, maize and rice.
What Can Be Done to Reduce Methane Emissions?
There are many ways to reduce methane emissions that range from large-scale transformations of energy and food systems to smaller technical fixes. Most likely a combination of methods will be necessary to control methane emissions to reduce global heating and ozone pollution. However, currently existing methods, if adopted, would be enough to curb methane emissions from the three main human-caused sources — fossil fuels, agriculture and waste — by 45% by 2030, in line with the IPCC’s pathway to 1.5 degrees.
From Agriculture
There are two main ways to reduce the amount of methane produced by the food system. The first is to transform the food system altogether by reducing meat and dairy production. This can be done in part by reducing food waste, as 30 to 40 percent of all food produced is lost and does not make it to a person’s stomach. According to one calculation, the waste of ruminant and rice products is responsible for around 50 million metric tons of methane per year, and reducing it could cut those emissions by around 20 million metric tons. Another way is to shift toward more healthy, sustainable or plant-based diets, including by reducing overall consumption in wealthier countries. According to the IPCC, doing so would reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall by 5.3 to 20.2 gigatons of carbon-dioxide equivalent by 2050. Potential emissions reductions from dietary shifts run from 0.7 to eight gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2050, under scenarios ranging from half of the planet adopting a “healthy” diet that includes less than six grams of animal protein per day to a global embrace of vegetarianism.
The second main strategy for reducing methane emissions from agriculture is to make changes to existing production so that it releases less methane. One way to do this is to increase the efficiency of animal agriculture so that more meat or milk is produced per animal, especially in poorer countries. This can be done without sacrificing animal welfare by feeding animals better diets, including highly digestible feed; improving animal health overall; and breeding. Another solution is to add enteric methane inhibitors to the diets of ruminants, which prevent methane production in their guts. Promising examples are the chemical 3-NOP and seaweed. Studies have shown that adding seaweed supplements to the diets of cattle can decrease their methane emissions by 82 percent for feedlot cattle, more than 50 percent for dairy cows and 42 percent for grazing cattle without harming the animals in any way. Researchers are also working to breed ruminants who produce less methane and to develop a vaccine that would limit gut methane production.
Another major source of agricultural methane that can be targeted for reduction is manure storage. Solutions include reducing the amount of time manure is stored; covering tanks holding semi-solid waste; separating liquid and solid manure; and adding acid to manure storage facilities, which inhibits the growth of methane-producing microbes. Another solution that has been adopted in recent years is the use of manure digesters, which turn manure into biogas, reducing manure’s methane emissions and providing a non-fossil form of energy. However, there are emerging concerns that methane leaks from these machines may undermine their impact.
Finally, emissions from rice can be curbed by various methods. One strategy is to grow either higher yield or lower-methane varieties of rice, which reduce the amount of methane emitted per kilogram. Planting lower-methane rice could cut emissions by 22 to 51 percent. Another option is to change how rice is grown by using Alternative Wetting and Drying. Instead of keeping rice paddies flooded, this method involves letting them dry out completely before flooding again and can decrease emissions by 40 to 45 percent. Finally, adding phosphogypsum and sulphate to rice fields can decrease microbial methane production.
From Fossil Fuels
The No. 1 way to reduce methane emissions from fossil fuels is to phase out their use entirely as soon as possible while rapidly transitioning to renewable forms of energy that do not emit methane and in particular to halt the buildout of LNG infrastructure. However, there are also ways to reduce the methane emissions from fossil fuel infrastructure still in use, and in fact reducing methane emissions from ongoing oil and gas operations is considered the strategy with the most short-term potential for significant methane cuts.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), it is possible to slash the oil and gas sector’s methane emissions by 70% with existing technologies and methods and by 40% at no cost. These methods include leak detection and repair, installing devices to detect methane and phasing out equipment that releases methane when used. For coal, it is more difficult to reduce emissions while still mining and burning coal, but there are strategies such as requiring new mines to use degasification wells and drainage boreholes to capture methane and capturing and reusing methane in existing mines. It is also possible to avoid methane emissions from equipment no longer in use by capping abandoned gas wells and flooding retired mines.
From Landfills and Waste
Ideally, the best way to reduce methane waste from landfills would be to move toward a zero-waste circular economy that reuses all material throughputs. Specific strategies toward this goal include reducing food waste, keeping organic waste out of landfills and diverting it toward composting systems, capturing methane emissions from landfills and covering landfills with soil containing organisms that can break down methane.
Reducing methane emissions from wastewater can mostly be achieved by upgrading treatment facilities. This includes replacing latrines with actual wastewater treatment plants and making sure that facilities that provide primary treatment — removing solid pollution — also provide secondary treatment — removing organic matter and nutrients with the help of bacteria and microorganisms — and tertiary chemical treatment. Wastewater treatment plants can also be built to capture and reuse biogas.
Direct Removal
While it is important to rapidly move to reduce human-caused methane emissions, some scientists are investigating methods of directly removing methane from the atmosphere to augment these efforts. This can be achieved in two main ways: by bolstering the abilities of natural ecosystems to remove and store methane and through direct geoengineering.
On the ecosystem side, scientists have discovered that tree bark has remarkable methane-absorbing abilities, as it contains organisms called methanotrophs that essentially eat methane. Preserving forests, reforesting or intentionally planting tree species that have greater methane-storing ability could all be ways to take advantage of this nature-based solution.
A potential geoengineering method would be to release iron salt into the atmosphere. This would mimic what happens when dust from Sahara sand storms collides with the sea spray of the Atlantic — instigating a chemical process that breaks down methane. However, more research is required to determine if and how this could be done both safely and effectively. Ultimately, it is safest to rely on the methods that we know work to stop methane from reaching the atmosphere in the first place.
What Progress Has Been Made to Reduce Methane Emissions So Far?
At the COP26 United Nations climate change conference in 2021 in Glasgow, Scotland, the UK and United States launched the Global Methane Pledge. As of January 2025, a total of 159 nations had joined the pledge. Pledge members agreed to work toward cutting global methane emissions by 30% of 2020 levels by 2030. Doing so would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and could prevent 0.2 degrees Celsius of warming by 2050. While the pledge’s website claims that it has “generated unprecedented for methane mitigation,” this is yet to manifest in real-world reductions.
Methane emissions broke a new record in 2023, the most recent year for which data is available. Even though the oil and gas sector offers the most possibility for rapid methane cuts, and roughly 80% of that sector falls under a methane-reduction pledge, its total emissions have continued to rise since 2020 and remained past 120 million metric tons per year in 2024. All methane pledges made by governments and companies as of 2023 would in theory be enough to reduce fossil fuel methane emissions by 50% by 2030, but to do this the industry must close its implementation gap. Further, there are major gaps in these commitments. As of 2023, only 13 percent of all methane emissions were covered by any sort of emissions-reduction policy.
What Can Individuals Do to Reduce Methane Emissions?
The two simplest, most effective things that people can do to reduce their individual methane emissions are to switch to lower-methane diets and to reduce their daily food waste through measures such as meal planning, buying “ugly” foods and composting. If you feel intimidated at the thought of going entirely vegetarian or vegan, even just reducing your meat and dairy consumption can make a difference. One study found that if everyone in the European Union limited their meat and dairy consumption by 34%, they would prevent six million metric tons of methane emissions per year.
If you are a homeowner who either cooks on a gas stove or receives heat via a gas furnace, you can replace your gas range with an electric or induction option and swap your furnace for an electric heat pump. Renters may not be able to swap out appliances, but they can still reduce their gas use by finding creative ways to save energy — such as air-drying clothes — or supplementing gas heating and cooking appliances with electric devices like space heaters, rice cookers, microwaves or induction burners.
Ultimately, methane emissions — like all climate pollution — are the products of complex energy, food and waste systems that are kept in place partly because they benefit powerful people who are currently profiting from them. Reducing your personal methane emissions will not remake those systems on its own, but you can also join together with like-minded people to campaign for change. This could range from lobbying your city government to create a municipal composting system to joining or supporting groups like 350.org, Third Act, Oil Change International, Louisiana Bucket Brigade and South Texas Environmental Justice Network that are working to stop the LNG buildout globally, nationally and in their communities.
Takeaway
Methane emissions present both a threat and an opportunity. Because methane is so much more potent than carbon dioxide, it can further turbocharge the global heating that is already raising the thermostat and fueling more extreme storms and other weather events. However, its shorter atmospheric lifespan means that acting urgently to cut its emissions would enable us to make important and timely headway on combating the climate crisis overall. That is why it’s important to spread the word about methane — how it’s released and how to reduce it — and to put pressure on political and business leaders to act on that knowledge.
The post Methane 101: Understanding the Second Most Important Greenhouse Gas appeared first on EcoWatch.
https://www.ecowatch.com/methane-facts-ecowatch.html
Earth911 inspirations. Post them, share your desire to help people think of the planet first, every day. Click to get a larger image.
This week’s quote from author and PBS host Steven Johnson gives us confidence that the post-carbon economy can be achieved: “[E]very now and then, some individual or group makes a leap that seems almost like time traveling.”
This poster was originally published on August 9, 2019.
The post Earth911 Inspiration: Steven Johnson — Innovation Is Like Time Travel appeared first on Earth911.
https://earth911.com/inspire/earth911-inspiration-steven-johnson-innovation-is-like-time-travel/
Green Living
Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Plastic Bank’s David Katz on Grassroots Recycling Solutions
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.
https://earth911.com/podcast/earth911-podcast-plastic-banks-david-katz-on-grassroots-recycling-solutions/
Green Living
Sustainability In Your Ear: Don Carli On Tuning What We See Online To Reduce eCommerce Returns
$850 billion. That’s what retail and e-commerce returns will cost in 2026, generating 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste — and a surprising share of it involves products that worked perfectly. They just didn’t look the way people expected. About 22% of consumers return items because the product looked different in person than it did online, and for home goods and textiles, that number climbs higher. The culprit has a name: metamerism — the way colors shift under different light sources, so the navy sectional and the matching throw pillow that looked identical on your screen clash under your living room LEDs. Don Carli, founder of Nima Hunter and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Communication, joins Sustainability In Your Ear to explain why this keeps happening and what it would take to stop it.
The fix isn’t a moonshot. The relevant standards — glTF for digital rendering and ICC Max for physical material appearance — already exist and were designed to be connected. Digital textile printing already makes it possible to produce fabrics with pigment recipes that match under any lighting condition, not just one. What’s missing is coordination: brands putting spectral consistency requirements into their supplier purchase orders, the same way the GMI certification transformed packaging quality once Target and Home Depot required it. The Khronos 3D Commerce Working Group has already standardized how products look across digital screens — the next step is bridging that standard to the physical object. When we get this right, a sofa stays in the home it was ordered for instead of traveling a thousand miles back to a distribution center and ending up in a landfill. That’s what circularity looks like when it’s applied to the seam between the digital world and the physical one. Follow Don’s work at WhatTheyThink.com and on X at @DCarli.
- Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
- Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube
Interview Transcript
Mitch Ratcliffe 0:08
Hello — good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are on this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear, the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society. I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation today.
Let’s take another look at the topic of e-commerce returns and how to reduce them by tuning the economy for less waste. We’re going to start with making what you see online look like what you receive on your doorstep.
Now here’s a number that should stop you in your tracks the next time you shop online: $850 billion. That’s how much retail and e-commerce returns will cost in 2026. And here’s another number: 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste generated by those returns in a single year — roughly the same as burying 10,500 fully loaded Boeing 747s in the ground. That’s a lot of waste.
Now you might assume that most of these returns are about fit — pants that don’t fit, shoes that pinch. But 22% of consumers report returning items because the product looked different in person than it did online, and for home goods and textiles categories, where fit isn’t the issue, that percentage climbs even higher. A sofa that passes every quality specification still gets returned because it clashes with the throw pillow that also passed every specification — when they don’t look alike in the home, both can end up in a landfill, because repackaging costs more than recovery.
Today’s conversation is about why that happens and what we can do about it. My guest today is Don Carli. Don’s a good friend and the founder of the consulting firm NEMA Hunter Incorporated. Two of Don’s recent articles on the site What They Think got me thinking about how an apparently esoteric discussion of color calibration and spectral profiles actually represents something much larger — the fine-tuning we can do to the 20th-century industrial system that was never designed to connect digital promises to physical reality.
Don is also a Senior Research Fellow with the nonprofit Institute for Sustainable Communication, where he has directed programs on corporate responsibility, sustainability, advertising, marketing, and enterprise communication. He’s also a member of the board of advisors for the AIGA Center for Sustainable Design and a member of the Institute for Supply Management.
So here’s why this matters beyond the print and packaging industry, where Don has spent most of his career. The 20th century built industrial systems optimized for mass production: make a lot, ship it out, and hope people keep it. These systems created enormous efficiencies on the one hand, but they also created enormous waste — often hidden in the seams between suppliers, brands, and retailers, where no single stakeholder owns enough of the problem to force a solution. In fact, it really means nobody lost enough money to care.
What Don’s work reveals is that we now have the technical architecture to fine-tune these legacy systems — not replace them, but recalibrate them. The standards exist. The measurement hardware exists. The digital rendering pipelines exist. What’s missing is the coordination: getting brands, retailers, and others to share data they currently hold separately, and to recognize that the costs they’re each absorbing individually are symptoms of the same system failure — a failure of color calibration.
And this is what sustainability can look like in practice: not moonshot reinventions, but the patient technical work of closing gaps between digital and physical, between specification and reality, and between what we promise customers and what we deliver. If we get this right, we can reduce waste, cut costs, and rebuild trust with consumers who’ve learned to expect that what they see online isn’t quite what they’re going to get.
You can follow Don’s work on X. His handle is @DCarli — that’s spelled D-C-A-R-L-I, all one word, no space, no dash.
So can we calibrate what we see online with what we experience when we open a package, reducing the need to return a purchase? Let’s find out after this brief commercial break.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Mitch Ratcliffe 4:29
Welcome to the show, Don. How are you doing today?
Don Carli 4:31
Fantastic, Mitch. I’m really glad to be here with you today and looking forward to the conversation.
Mitch Ratcliffe 4:37
Always great to talk with you, Don. This came up in our discussions over the past couple of months, and then I read the article and wanted to follow up. To start off, can you walk us through a typical scenario? A customer orders a navy sectional and a matching throw pillow from different suppliers. They appear to be the same color — they both pass all the quality specifications we’ve talked about — but under the living room lights, the consumer finds they clash. What happened between the approved image and her disappointment? Where did the system break down?
Don Carli 5:15
We’ve all had this experience at some point in our lives. In part, it’s because of the nature of human perception. We would like to think that color is a constant thing, but color is an interaction of multiple variables.
One variable is the light source — specifically, the distribution of wavelengths in that light. As you know, the visible spectrum is a small part of all the radiation there is. There’s ultraviolet light you can’t see, there’s infrared light you can’t see, and then there’s all the colors in between — the ROYGBIV: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet — the colors we’re familiar with. Every light source has a different distribution of those energies.
Second, the material an object is made of has its own capacity to absorb different wavelengths, and that can vary. So you have variation in the energies emitted by the light source, variation in the energies absorbed and reflected by the object, and then there’s the viewer. Our visual system takes up a big part of our brain — it’s not just our eyes, but our eyes have a lot to do with it. Some of us are colorblind, for example, and in other cases, color is simply not a constant thing.
I worked with the Bauhaus artist Josef Albers for many years — he wrote the book The Interaction of Color. He used to say, ‘When you put one color next to another color, you get a third color for free,’ because those two colors interact with each other.
To put it simply: you put on a pair of socks and a pair of pants in your bedroom under incandescent light. The pants are brown, the socks are brown. You go out into the daylight. The pants look green. The socks are still brown. What happened? The light changed. Because daylight has more energy at one end of the spectrum, it reflects more blue light, making the brown look greener.
Mitch Ratcliffe 7:56
That’s really interesting to think about — how we’ve moved from an era of commerce where, say, items in the Sears catalog were originally sketched, versus photographed. As we introduced greater verisimilitude in our catalogs, or on Amazon —
Don Carli 8:17
We set expectations differently. Exactly.
Mitch Ratcliffe 8:20
So how should we think about the expectations we’re setting — both as sellers of things and as consumers? How should we be thinking about this?
Don Carli 8:30
In part, most of this is simply not taught. Most students in grade school, high school, or even university are not given any exposure to the psychology of human perception. There’s a physiological and psychological basis to all of this, and we just don’t know about it.
The problem has always existed. What’s happened with e-commerce — and with sophisticated computer graphic rendering of objects that don’t yet exist in the real world but look real — is that we’re setting expectations. On my screen I see this couch. It looks brown. The pillows look brown. So I expect that when they arrive, they’re both going to look brown.
Unfortunately, the lighting in homes now is no longer even incandescent. LEDs have really unusual spectral curves — they can be the problem. If I had been able to see what those items were going to look like under the lighting in my home, I might be less disappointed. I’d say, ‘Oh, wait — they don’t match.’ But in developing the systems for e-commerce, the companies that develop software for rendering — the tools designers use to develop the rendering of images for websites and monitors — simply don’t take these things into consideration.
Mitch Ratcliffe 10:10
Our economy was massified in the 20th century but it’s moving toward personalization in the 21st century. And what you’re describing — what you named in the article — is metamerism.
Don Carli 10:21
It’s not my term. It’s metamerism — or ‘metamerism,’ yes. That’s fine.
Mitch Ratcliffe 10:27
This phenomenon, combined with changing lighting technology and the changing nature of our homes — which can allow more or less light in, and offer a variable lighting palette —
Don Carli 10:37
A variable lighting palette, yeah.
Mitch Ratcliffe 10:38
— suggests that the palette will always be changing. So how do we create consistent expectations among consumers when we’re trying to communicate what we offer?
Don Carli 10:57
Well, standards help to begin with. We do not have a set of coordinated standards today that allow the designer to anticipate the observer’s environment and lighting conditions for a given product. Second, we don’t have standards in place to communicate between what the designer intends and what the manufacturer produces — because it is possible to create pigments and dyes that do not exhibit metamerism. Really.
It’s been standard practice in some industries where it matters. If you go to an informed paint company and say, ‘I want a non-metameric match of this swatch,’ they would use a device called a spectrophotometer, which measures the absorption curve of the pigments employed — so that under any lighting condition, the appearance doesn’t change, because the curves have been matched.
But I can create a match that only looks correct under one light source, which is typically what happens when people revert to either a monitor — which only has three emitters: red, green, and blue — or printing, where typically you have cyan, magenta, yellow, and black. If you want to truly match, you have to match the curve.
New printers being used for digital textiles actually have 10 channels, and it is possible to use pigments across those channels to make the absorption curve of the material non-metameric — or at least less metameric. We’re waiting for standards to come together, and that will only happen, I believe, if the brands suffering the greatest economic loss from this mismatch problem take action to put the requirements in their purchase orders and to support pilots that address that 22% of returns due to color perception that you described.
Mitch Ratcliffe 13:27
You do point out that IKEA, Amazon, Wayfair, and others have funded the Khronos 3D Commerce Working Group to ensure that products look consistent across different apps and websites. So they want consistency when rendered on a digital screen, but they’re apparently okay with the fact they don’t look the same when they arrive?
Don Carli 13:54
Yes, I like the disconnect. It’s interesting. First of all, it would require collaboration across industry — across groups that don’t typically talk to each other. I don’t think it’s willful. I think it’s more like, ‘Wow, they just haven’t gotten around to that.’ Nobody fully realized how much was at stake. And the potential for a connection between the two standards that do exist is actually very good and straightforward, because they’re both extensible standards.
What’s needed — as I said — is for the businesses that are right now losing approximately $850 billion a year due to returns to ask: How much of that is attributable to consumers who’ve been given permission by e-commerce companies to say, ‘Something doesn’t look right, so I want to return it’? We’ve made it easy to return things.
Mitch Ratcliffe 15:09
The customer was always right.
Don Carli 15:11
That’s correct. And it’s going to be hard to put that one back in the bottle. So now we have to ask: out of the $850 billion — which is just the retail cost of the goods, not the cost of reverse logistics, not the cost of reprocessing, not the disposal of that returned product to landfill or incineration — if you take it all together, it’s probably $1.25 trillion, maybe even $1.5 trillion. And if you said, ‘Okay, but how much of that is because somebody said the colors don’t match?’ — even being very conservative, say 10% — that’s still enough money to justify addressing the root cause of the problem.
Mitch Ratcliffe 16:00
$150 to $200 billion….
Don Carli 16:03
Just rounding error, right? So you could say to companies like Adobe — that develop the software for rendering objects that are going to be manufactured — take IKEA as an example. IKEA doesn’t fill its catalogs, whether online or physical (though there’s no longer a physical catalog), with actual photography. Those are computer-generated images. They look real, but they don’t exist in the physical world when rendered. Very often, the product isn’t manufactured until after you’ve bought it — you bought it on the basis of a computer graphic rendering that looks photorealistic. It’s called Physically Based Rendering.
So if those systems were specifying color with the manufacturing process in mind — which is very often digital textiles printing — they could choose their colors to be less subject to metamerism, or even to specifically eliminate metamerism. They could also provide the ability to predict: run the model through a set of tests to see, ‘Is this design going to be subject to metamerism?’ And carry that logic forward to the manufacturer. They’d have to put that in their purchase orders. They’d have to bridge two standards — one called glTF, the other called ICC Max.
The point is, the consumer doesn’t need to know any of this. The consumer needs to understand that it’s possible to make things match under different lighting conditions — or at least to have less divergence from their expectations under different lighting conditions.
Mitch Ratcliffe 17:58
I agree that the consumer should be able to expect that. What I hear is that so far, the pain hasn’t been great enough. But we’re also at a point where simply reducing the waste would be worthwhile on its own, with other benefits as well —
Don Carli 18:10
Oh, absolutely. But the financial ones alone —
Mitch Ratcliffe 18:15
The financial ones are enough? Yes. And then all the environmental and social costs of returns on top of that. But let’s talk about how to actually hack toward a solution. Is it possible now — or over the course of the next decade, say — for me to have a phone app that I use in my home? I sample the light in the morning, I sample the light at noon, I sample it at sundown, and in the evening — sometimes with external light, sometimes with just internal. I could say, ‘This is my light profile. Give me things that will look like what I expect.’
Don Carli 19:00
That’s a great question. The question is: would the average consumer go to that extent? Probably not. But the retailer could do what amounts to a survey of the whole home that the products are going to go into. If it’s a major purchase — a couch, carpets, a new home — you could model the interior of that house very easily.
Technologies like Matterport, for example, can scan the interior of a house and give you a virtual view of what it looks like — they use it in real estate all the time. So that’s possible. And it’s also possible to model different lighting scenarios: you say, ‘I’m going to put in LED lighting with variable color temperature, so during the day I may look at it under one light, and at night it’s going to be warmer.’ You can factor in where natural light comes in through windows across the year.
But that may be overkill for most consumers. It might be appropriate for businesses — especially places where the harmony of floor coverings, wall coverings, and furnishing objects matters. Still, it shouldn’t be necessary for the average consumer.
Phones are increasingly gaining the ability to sense color in a spectral sense. I think within three years, that capability should be standard in most phones as a matter of course, and more specialized devices will be available for around $100 if you want them. But I think it’s really incumbent on the retailer and the brands — not on the consumer — to meet expectations first and foremost. And I think an increasing number of consumers who care about environmental and social costs are going to put that expectation on the retailer and the brand: model the environment, predict the degree to which the products being manufactured are subject to metamerism. Those variables can be measured and controlled in design and manufacturing so that the in-home or in-store environment is less subject to lighting variation affecting the perception of color match.
Mitch Ratcliffe 21:55
So I think this is a great place to stop and take a quick commercial break, because we’ve set the stage — and the lighting — to talk about what’s going to come next. Let’s figure out the hack. Stay tuned. We’ll be right back.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Mitch Ratcliffe 22:13
Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Let’s get back to my conversation with my friend Don Carli. He’s founder of NEMA Hunter, a market research and product design advisory firm in New York City.
Don, so we understand the variability of light, the variability of settings, the combination of colors — all of these affect our perception of color. And we talked about the fact that phones will have increasing photographic analysis capabilities, so they can sense the full spectrum, not just what we see but the entire range of light affecting our perception. But as you say, it really is incumbent upon the retailer to have a solution that makes something look like my expectation when it arrives at my home. Is this a suggestion that the future of retail is more personalized — that there may be personal shoppers who come to your home early in a brand relationship and do a scan, or who give you the tool? Maybe they send it to you and you return it after completing your color profile. Are we at the beginning of really tuning the economy to deliver exactly what we want so that waste can be reduced?
Don Carli 23:29
I think there are examples of it already in place. There’s a very interesting company that grew out of a team of Navy SEALs and special operations people who had to model environments they were going to enter — and they couldn’t do that using big, complex systems. They needed a hack. They were able to take imagery from various sources and build a 3D model reconstruction of a building so they could plan their approach. One of them left and started a company called Hover.
This isn’t a commercial for Hover, but it’s an interesting case. Hover solved a problem for people who wanted to remodel the exterior of their homes. You could take your phone, take six to eight photos of your house from the exterior, send those photos to Hover, and they would create a 3D reconstruction of your home. Then they worked with manufacturers of siding, roofing, and windows, and allowed the builder to generate not only an estimate of what it would cost to put new siding and windows on your house, but a rendering of what it would look like. The precedent is there: the consumer had the device, nobody had to go out to do an estimate, the contractor loved it because they didn’t have to send anyone to measure — all done accurately using cell phone imagery.
Matterport is another company that makes a device for interiors and does the same thing. And there are small sensors that a retailer could send you that measure color temperature of light — but I don’t think that will be strictly necessary.
Mitch Ratcliffe 25:31
Nor necessarily environmentally responsible, to send out loads of sensors.
Don Carli 25:34
Exactly. So for the retailer, like Radio Shack, if it’s an in-store environment, that’s one thing — they do have the ability to simulate different lighting conditions in-store. Think of it like going to an audio shop —
Mitch Ratcliffe 25:54
You can’t do that anymore, but okay.
Don Carli 25:56
Just imagine going to buy a stereo, or to an audiophile shop —
Mitch Ratcliffe 26:03
We’re showing our age, knowing what that is.
Don Carli 26:05
They bring you into a listening room. The point is, it’s constructed for the purpose of evaluating what something is likely to sound like in your home. I think we can do the same thing in-store with variable lighting.
But online is becoming e-commerce where items are never in a store. You order from a computer-rendered image on your screen, and after your order is placed, the item is manufactured. That’s the link that has to be established: the link between the creator of the design for the object and the supply chain instructions provided to the manufacturer, so that the objects are not subject to metamerism — so they are less subject to variation in the lighting conditions in your home. It is a matter of giving the correct instructions about the materials to be used, and specifying how they’re to be measured by the manufacturer. The brands that design the couch, the pillow, the carpet, the curtain, the flooring — they should own the equipment to do the measurement and support the linkage of the standards that communicate how to maintain color consistency across different lighting and viewing conditions, so the consumer isn’t disappointed.
Mitch Ratcliffe 27:41
This brings me to another concept you introduced, which is the appearance bill of materials — which is in many ways similar to the digital product passports we’ve talked about on the show a number of times, which describe a product’s components and potentially how to recycle it. But this color profile — what would be involved in making that happen at scale? What would it look like to make that a common practice for a furniture retailer, for instance?
Don Carli 28:10
Think of recipes. The way a fabric is produced is changing because of digital printing. We used to make fabric in large quantities using dyes — extremely polluting, very complex — or with high-volume screen printing using fixed screens. Increasingly, fabric printing is achieved digitally, where you can print just one yard or 10 yards of a material using any palette of pigments, matched not just to look correct under one lighting condition, but to look consistent under any lighting condition.
The example of metamerism is: if I have two objects that are supposed to match, and under one lighting condition they do match, but under another they don’t — that is metameric. It changes. But if I blend, or use the right pigment recipe on a given substrate material, they will match regardless of the lighting condition. The pillow matches the couch, the wall covering matches the floor covering.
To do that, you have recipes. I’m going to use this combination of inks, and I have to measure them with a spectrophotometer. The specifier has to tell the manufacturer what the material characteristics are. It’s the same as saying, ‘Use butter, sugar, and flour’ — but not all butter, sugar, and flour are the same. Or like architects who say, ‘Use concrete, aluminum, steel, and wood’ — but what’s the actual recipe for the steel, the concrete, the wood? We have to be more specific at the design and manufacturing stages.
It is kind of like a digital product passport. The standard for glTF, which is used for Physically Based Rendering on monitors, is consistent for rendering on screens — but it doesn’t extend to the world of physical objects, inks, and substrates.
Mitch Ratcliffe 30:59
So that’s the link. Thank you. You’ve also pointed out that the GMI certification — which Target, Home Depot, and CVS began to require, and which describes packaging — was broadly accepted once those brands introduced it. Would color matching with the guarantee that it will look like what you saw when you receive it be a significant differentiator — a value-added differentiator — that would set a brand apart if they embraced and practiced it consistently?
Don Carli 31:34
Why not? We know that consumers are disappointed enough to go through the return process — and it’s not simple. It’s an annoyance. You’re putting people out of their way. They want their couch, they want their cushions, they want their floor covering. They don’t want to go through what it takes. It’s going to be another two weeks, and I’ve got to document all of this, and I have a party this Friday — we’re getting married, whatever it is.
So I think the demand is there. And what GMI established reflects something I believe has been true in manufacturing as long as I’ve known it: manufacturers are going to do what their customers call them to do. If the requirement in the purchase order is that you must adopt this standard or use this material, you don’t argue — if you want the work, you do it. But if you leave innovation in materials to manufacturers and expect them to market and sell it, that’s not their strength. They’re not marketers.
On the other hand, retailers and brands are marketers — and ultimately, the cost is not just economic but environmental and social. That’s where I think today’s consumers, if made aware, will be able to apply enough incentive to brands to build those linkages, use those standards to minimize the cost of returns and the environmental impact of returns, and have a positive impact on customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and the ability to attract consumers for whom systems thinking and circularity matter.
Mitch Ratcliffe 33:30
So the cost of these returns — which we’ve estimated in the $1.3 to $1.5 trillion range — who actually ends up paying that? Would solving this problem represent a tangible reduction in costs for consumers overall?
Don Carli 33:47
It is costing consumers in the end. Let’s say a retailer bought the product for 25% of the retail price. So the thing sold for $100 but cost them $25. When they say they lost $850 billion, they’re estimating that at the full retail price — but it only cost them $25.
Mitch Ratcliffe 34:19
Of course, because that gives them an advantage in taxes — but if —
Don Carli 34:23
If in fact they’re losing 25% of their sales to returns, that’s still going to factor into what they mark things up to recover those costs. It does impact the cost to consumers in the end. And then there are the real costs associated with reverse logistics — shipping it back from you to the distribution center — and then that has to be reprocessed: someone has to inventory it now that it’s been returned, inspect it to see if it’s viable for resale, find a resale partner. Or, as some retailers now do, they simply keep them in huge containers labeled as ‘lot number four’ and have people bid on them sight unseen — unpack those, find the few things in the box that were worth something, and discard the rest.
Mitch Ratcliffe 35:33
So the consumer today expects greater and greater personalization, as you’ve described. On-demand manufacturing is a potentially scalable solution that’s beginning to emerge. But if we don’t master this metameric strategy, returns may actually increase — because the expectation is even greater that it should look exactly like it did when I ordered it.
Don Carli 35:59
Yeah. Appearance mismatch is not the greatest reason for returns — but it’s a substantial percentage.
Mitch Ratcliffe 36:12
My point is to think systemically, rather than just about this particular issue. Is this the right time for us to move toward on-demand manufacturing — particularly now that we want to reduce imports? And if we do that, who should convene the effort to create consistent perception of color and quality for that next generation of a much less wasteful economy?
Don Carli 36:43
I think it ultimately falls to the brands and the retailers, as well as the technology providers for rendering — for the design and rendering of the objects — because circularity and circular thinking is a systems design challenge. You want to design the problem out of existence, rather than trying to cope with it downstream.
There’s no question that the greatest potential leverage is through a better design process that anticipates these downstream factors that lead to returns — whatever they are, whether it’s appearance, fit, or any other reason why people return things. The ability to predict through true digital twins of the object is one key element. You need the NVIDIAs of the world, the Adobes, the Hewlett-Packards, and the instrument manufacturers who can measure color and surface characteristics — the things that allow you to define the recipe for making the object, as well as the recipe for rendering it on screen.
Those are the key stakeholders: the brands using those tools, the companies providing those tools, and the standards bodies that help to encode them in open, extensible standards that allow businesses to communicate one-to-many, instead of being locked into proprietary one-to-one communication chains.
Mitch Ratcliffe 38:26
If a brand is listening, what should their first diagnostic step be? Where’s the right place to begin?
Don Carli 38:36
The first step, of course, is to have a breakdown of the reasons for returns. If they want to address appearance mismatch, they need to know what percentage of their returns are reported by consumers as: ‘The product I received didn’t meet my expectations in appearance compared to what I saw on my screen or in the store.’ They need to know first: is this a problem big enough to make a business case for addressing it?
In most cases, I think they’ll find that if it’s 10%, 15%, or 20% of returns, that’s material. And if they looked at it not just economically but in terms of environmental and social impact — triple bottom line, if you will — I think they can make a business case for why they should seek out a group of like-minded brands to address the root cause through standards and paid pilot programs with manufacturers: to establish and prove that a workflow is possible, practical, and delivers results that reduce cost in a material way, reduce environmental impact in a measurable way, and have a positive impact on customer satisfaction, loyalty, and the ability to attract consumers for whom systems thinking and circularity matter.
Mitch Ratcliffe 40:15
You do a lot of product research and market research. Are brands thinking about this?
Don Carli 40:21
Not enough. Not enough. I believe brands like IKEA do take it quite seriously — and maybe that’s one of the luxuries of being a privately owned entity. So I think we can look to brands like IKEA for leadership. They’ve exhibited that in the past and can continue. But one brand can’t solve this. This is a bigger problem than any one brand can handle.
I think the path forward is really through a coalition of brands that work together and share the costs, the risks, and the benefits of connecting these existing standards — to the benefit of not just current consumers, but consumers going forward. And I think it will reduce the impact on the environment, help make better use of our manufacturing capacity and digital technology, and support onshoring more of our production. That’s an important way to minimize risk — not just the risk of returns, but supply chain risk as well.
Mitch Ratcliffe 41:39
What you’re describing is an optimized system that we don’t currently have. I know we’ve only scratched the surface of the color perception problem here, Don. Thank you for helping me understand it. How can folks follow what you’re working on?
Don Carli 41:53
I write on this topic in an industry publication called WhatTheyThink.com. And there is an active discussion taking place within the Khronos Group, 3D Commerce, and related standards bodies about this general concept of Physically Based Rendering. In the printing world, there’s another group called the International Color Consortium — ICC.org — that has been looking at the problem from a manufacturing perspective: how do you manage appearance, not just color but appearance overall, because it’s not only the color of a thing that can differ, sometimes it’s the surface characteristics or texture. These standards take both into consideration.
I think some preliminary discussions are starting to emerge — whether in Reddit or in these two groups, which are open — that are beginning to look at how these things connect.
Mitch Ratcliffe 42:59
There’s a saying that an airplane is a set of standards in flight. What we’re talking about here is the setting of a standard set of expectations about how our economy should work efficiently. I hope folks take to heart what we talked about today. I want to thank you for your time, Don; this was a fascinating conversation.
Don Carli 43:19
I think it can have a profound impact on the amount of waste that goes to landfill, and I think it will also improve the ability to satisfy increasingly conscious consumers along the way. Thank you, Mitch. Take care.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Mitch Ratcliffe 43:49
Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Don Carli, founder of NEMA Hunter, a market research and product design advisory firm in New York. Don’s commentary on color perception, metamerism, and the gaps in our digital-to-physical rendering pipeline appears regularly at WhatTheyThink.com — all one word, no space, no dash — and you can follow him on X at @DCarli, that’s D-C-A-R-L-I.
This conversation started with a sofa and a throw pillow that refused to match, and it ended somewhere much larger. The $850 billion in annual e-commerce returns we discussed — growing toward $1.25 to $1.5 trillion when you add reverse logistics and disposal costs — is what happens when a 20th-century industrial system tries to serve 21st-century expectations without changing its underlying architecture. The system was designed to produce at scale and absorb returns as a cost of doing business. The consumer was always right. The platform made returns frictionless. And what got lost in the middle — in landfills, in incinerators, and in the carbon cost of reverse logistics — was invisible to the balance sheet and to the customer who clicked ‘return.’ In other words, we engineered a system to overwhelm people with choice so that they would inevitably buy, but at the cost of tremendous waste.
So Don isn’t just describing a color problem. It’s a calibration problem — and calibration is a systems problem. You heard about all the parts of the solution that are available already. What doesn’t exist is a coordination layer: the shared commitment by brands and retailers to making a product and the recipe for showing it on screen speak the same language, so that it represents things accurately across a variety of different lighting settings.
The transition Don is pointing toward is from mass manufacturing to what we might call calibrated manufacturing — production designed not just to meet a specification, but to meet the specific expectations of one person. Personalized manufacturing. The on-demand, digital-first model that’s already emerging will only work if the variety of perceptions we experience is accounted for from the start. If we move to on-demand without solving the metamerism problem, Don warned, returns will increase, not decrease. We will have built a faster, more responsive system for disappointing people.
The circular economy framing that anchors so much of this podcast is usually applied to materials — keep them in use, close the loop on plastics, design products for disassembly and reuse. But Don’s argument adds a dimension we don’t talk about enough: design for reduced returns is design for circularity too. The waste reduction potential is real, and it needs to happen upstream — at the design and specification stage — before a single unit of the product actually ships.
This is what tuning the economy looks like in practice: not a moonshot reinvention of everything, but the patient technical work of closing the gaps — the many gaps between what we promise and what we deliver as businesses. The leverage points are well defined. Brands and retailers that own product specifications need to bridge the color standards challenge in their purchase orders. And consumers who are already demanding more and returning more can apply market pressure too, especially the growing segment of people for whom systems thinking and environmental impact are part of how they evaluate a brand. But we have to communicate that to the brand and to the policymakers around that market in order to drive systemic change.
Don’s closing thought is what stays with me: when we actually tune the system to deliver what people want and expect, we can stop producing waste that nobody intended and nobody wants. That’s not just good business. That’s what a circular economy looks like in practice when it’s applied to the seam between the digital world and the physical one — the place where, right now, billions of pounds of material quietly disappear into the ground.
We’ll continue to explore this — we’ll probably have Don back to talk more — and in the meantime, I hope you take a look at our archive of more than 550 episodes of Sustainability In Your Ear. We’re in our sixth season, folks, and I guarantee there’s an interview you’re going to want to share with a friend or member of your family. And by the way, writing a review on your favorite podcast platform will help your neighbors find us — because folks, you are the amplifiers that can spread more ideas to create less waste. Please tell your friends, your family, your co-workers, the people you meet on the street, that they can find Sustainability In Your Ear on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or whatever purveyor of podcast goodness they prefer.
Thank you, folks, for your support. I’m Mitch Ratcliffe. This is Sustainability In Your Ear, and we will be back with another innovator interview soon. In the meantime, take care of yourself, take care of one another, and let’s all take care of this beautiful planet of ours. Have a green day.
The post Sustainability In Your Ear: Don Carli On Tuning What We See Online To Reduce eCommerce Returns appeared first on Earth911.
https://earth911.com/podcast/sustainability-in-your-ear-don-carli-on-tuning-what-we-see-online-to-reduce-ecommerce-returns/
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits