Each year, over 11 million metric tons of plastic end up in the ocean, which is like dumping a garbage truck full of plastic every minute. For years, we’ve known that marine animals eat this debris, but no one had measured exactly how much plastic it takes to kill them. Dr. Erin Murphy, who leads ocean plastics research at the Ocean Conservancy, is the principal author of a major study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Her team analyzed more than 10,000 necropsies from 95 species of seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals worldwide. Earth911’s summary describes this critical study, which found lethal plastic thresholds that could change how we view the plastic crisis.
The study measured how deadly different types of plastic are to sea life, which makes the results especially useful for policymakers. Each finding suggests a clear policy action, such as banning balloon releases like Florida has done, banning plastic bags as in California’s SB 54, or improving how fishing gear is marked and recovered. Still, Erin points out that focusing only on certain plastics is not enough. Her team found that even small amounts of any plastic can be dangerous. As she says, “At the end of the day, there is too much plastic in the ocean,” and we need big changes at every stage of the plastics life cycle, from production to disposal.
There’s encouraging evidence that interventions work. Communities in Hawaii conducted large-scale beach cleanups and saw the Hawaiian monk seal population rebound. A study published in Science confirmed that bag bans reduce plastic on beaches by 25 to 47%. And Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup, now in its 40th year, removed more than a million plastic bags from beaches last year. These actions address a parallel crisis in human health that is building from the same pollution source. Most of the microplastics now found in humans and around the world began as the same macroplastics that are killing puffins and turtles. As Erin puts it, “I do view this all as part of the same crisis.”
You can read the full study at pnas.org and learn more about Ocean Conservancy’s work at oceanconservancy.org.
Share this episode with a friend.
- Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
- Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube
Interview Transcript
Mitch Ratcliffe 0:00
Hello, good morning, good afternoon or good evening, wherever you are on this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society, and I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation today.
We’re going to talk about ocean plastics. Every year, more than 11 million metric tons of plastic enters the ocean. That’s the equivalent of dumping a garbage truck worth of plastic every minute. And we’ve known for decades that marine animals eat this debris. But until recently, no one had systematically quantified how much plastic it actually takes to kill them.
And the answer is, it turns out, disturbing. Less than three sugar cubes worth of plastic increases an Atlantic puffin’s risk of dying by 90%. A loggerhead turtle reaches the same threshold at about two baseballs worth, and for a harbor porpoise, a mass of plastic roughly the size of a soccer ball can kill. More concerning, at the 50% mortality level — that is, where half the animals who consume the plastic die — the volumes that kill them shrink to less than one sugar cube for a puffin and half a baseball for a loggerhead turtle.
Our guest today, Dr. Erin Murphy, is the manager of ocean plastics research at the Ocean Conservancy, and lead author of the study that produced these findings, published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Her team’s research analyzed more than 10,000 necroscopies across 95 species of seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals worldwide. It’s the most comprehensive assessment yet of how different plastic types — soft film like bags, hard fragments, synthetic rubber from balloons, and abandoned fishing gear — translate into mortality across marine life.
The findings matter beyond ocean conservation. A 2024 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found microplastics embedded in human arterial plaque of cardiovascular surgery patients, and those with detectable plastics were 4.5 times more likely to suffer a heart attack, stroke, or death in the following three years. The same polymers killing seabirds and sea turtles — polyethylene, PVC, and their chemical additives — are found in human blood, lungs, liver, and placenta.
Dr. Murphy’s research offers policymakers what they’ve been asking for: science-based data to inform decisions about which plastics to regulate and how aggressively to act. Nearly half the animals in her study that had ingested plastics were threatened or endangered species, and with global negotiations on a binding plastic treaty continuing and extended producer responsibility programs expanding across the United States, the timing of this research could not be more relevant.
So we’ll talk with Erin about what her team found, why balloon fragments are amongst the deadliest items for seabirds, how fishing gear became the leading killer of marine animals, and what her research means for the humans who share a planet and a body burden with these species. You can read the full study at pnas.org and find Ocean Conservancy’s work at oceanconservancy.org. Ocean Conservancy is all one word, no space, no dash. Oceanconservancy.org.
So how much plastic is too much for wildlife and for humans? Let’s find out right after this brief commercial break.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Welcome to the show, Erin. How you doing today?
Erin Murphy 3:44
I’m doing well. Thank you so much for having me.
Mitch Ratcliffe 3:46
Well, thank you for joining me, and for this really important research. It was a fascinating read. We wrote it up, and I’m really pleased that you would join us to talk about it today. So can you explain what made this study different from previous attempts to quantify plastics’ lethality to marine life?
Erin Murphy 4:01
Yeah. So first, I’ll specify that we focus specifically on macroplastics, which are just plastics that are bigger than five millimeters in length. There’s more research on how microplastics, which are these smaller plastics, can harm animals, because scientists can study these in laboratory settings. Of course, it’s not feasible or ethical to feed animals like whales, sea turtles, or seabirds large plastic items and study what happens to them in the lab. And so as scientists, we really have to depend on opportunistically collecting dead animals in the environment and looking at what’s inside them to understand what’s happening with these bigger plastics.
And so previous research has looked at these sorts of threats as well, but they focused on fewer species, on smaller geographic areas, and they didn’t differentiate by plastic type, like hard plastics versus soft plastics. So they were really important for laying the groundwork for our larger study. But we were actually able to look globally and look at a broader set of species, and also differentiate by these different plastic types and by species size as well, which allowed us to get at some of these species-level understandings.
Mitch Ratcliffe 5:13
So the unfortunate truth is, we are feeding these animals this material by throwing it all away. That is a stark way of starting this conversation. And you use a lot of illustrative examples, like three sugar cubes worth of macroplastic can kill a puffin. How did you arrive at those kind of volume-based comparisons, and why is translating your data into those relatable measures important?
Erin Murphy 5:37
Yeah, so when we did this in the study, we actually looked at the influence of volume based on the animal’s body length. So we reported all of this as a deadly volume per centimeter of body length. But telling people 0.098 centimeters cubed per centimeter doesn’t really mean anything to them. And honestly, when I first got those centimeter-based thresholds, it didn’t mean that much to me.
And so we thought that choosing some iconic species that people could picture would help, but still saying, you know, three centimeters cubed of plastic kills a puffin, or 220 centimeters cubed of plastic kills a loggerhead, doesn’t really paint a picture in people’s heads, and three sugar cubes or a baseball are much easier to picture.
So we chose to do this because I think when people can picture these items, they can really understand that volume, and people do use plastic every single day, and so having volumes like that to compare to allows them to think about how little plastic can kill animals, especially when we compare it to how much we produce or use globally.
Mitch Ratcliffe 6:42
Can you put in context how long it takes for a puffin, for instance, to eat that much plastic? What do they eat in a day or a week generally?
Erin Murphy 6:52
Yeah, that’s a great question, and it’s actually the next step in our research. So to estimate the risk that something poses to wildlife, we have to understand two things. One is your question: how likely are they to be exposed to this threat? The second is, if they are exposed to it, how likely is it to harm them? And so this research really focused entirely on that second piece.
But to fully understand risk, we have to dig deeper into the first part, and that’s what we call likelihood of exposure. And so for puffins specifically, there’s not a lot of research, but we do know a lot about what species are eating, and we know that different species are more or less likely to eat plastic based on where they live, what they eat, and how they feed. So we’re really excited to be working with some really amazing researchers over the next few years to think about how we can connect exposure for these animals to the lethality and understand risk in a more comprehensive way.
Mitch Ratcliffe 7:48
I want to get a sense of what you found. You mentioned in the study that one whale can have a three-gallon bucket in its stomach. What’s the range of objects that you encountered as you were doing the research?
Erin Murphy 8:00
Yeah, this was pretty unbelievable to me, actually, some of the things that we saw in animals, and I’ll just give a few items that stood out to me. But there’s many more. Part of an oar handle from a plastic — or a plastic belt, webbing from the back of a lawn chair, a koozie, rubber pencil topper, fake Easter grass, ice cream tubs, single-use coffee pods, bungee cords, tons of different types of gear, ropes, nets, fishing line.
But I’ll just illustrate kind of how dramatic this can look with one example that really stood out to me, on a sperm whale that researchers in Spain reported on. Sperm whales feed very deep in the ocean, and they use echolocation to find their food. So it may be particularly hard for them to tell plastic from prey. And in this case, it seems like an entire greenhouse washed into the ocean, and this sperm whale happened upon it. It had plastic film cover material for a greenhouse in its stomach, along with a flower pot, a piece of a hose, a plastic burlap sack, plastic craft, and plastic spray bottle, and even fake plastic mulch in its stomach. And unfortunately, this was one of the individuals that did lose its life to plastic ingestion.
Mitch Ratcliffe 9:23
That’s — I mean, that’s shocking in so many ways. You found that one in five animals had plastic in their digestive tract when they died. Was this percentage higher or lower, and in the context of your previous answer, more or less shocking than you expected?
Erin Murphy 9:45
Yeah, I think, you know, it was higher than I expected. And it’s funny, because all of our research was based on previous research. It was a meta-analysis. So we collected data from existing literature. And I’d seen some, you know, similar numbers then reported at more local scales. But I think it still really shocked me to look at so many studies and see, you know, for sea turtles, that was one in two. Sea turtles had plastic in their gut. And for seabirds, one in three.
And when thinking about that at a global scale, that felt higher to me than it should be, and I suppose it’s because it is higher than it should be. These really are high ingestion rates. And for some of these individuals, the bulk amount of plastic in their gut, like that sperm whale, is particularly shocking.
Mitch Ratcliffe 10:35
I want to step back just for a second and talk about how long this kind of research has been going on. Because when I was a child, oceanography was very much in its infancy. How aggressively are we trying to understand what we’re doing to the ocean environment at this point, and where do you think we are in terms of the long arc of beginning to reach that understanding?
Erin Murphy 10:58
Yeah, I don’t know if we’ll ever fully understand it, which is one of the things that makes studying the ocean so interesting. It’s so complex and vast. But, you know, we’ve come a long way, and for plastic pollution in particular, the ’70s was really when we started seeing those first reports of animals eating plastics. You know, and it’s been 50 years since then. Now we have evidence of plastic ingestion in more than 1,300 species, and we’re starting to be able to get at these really more complicated analyses that help us understand like the potential quantity that kills an animal, like this one, or what does that mean possibly for populations.
I think the thing that’s been really impressive in the last decade, though, is how much research has been done on plastics. In particular, 10 years ago, roughly, the first study came out by Jambeck et al. that gave us an idea of the amount of plastic that was getting into the environment. And since then, we have learned so much as a scientific community, and people are working really hard to try to understand what these vast amounts of ocean plastic mean for ecosystems, for human health, for fishing industries and other marine industries that really depend on a healthy ocean, and we’ve been doing a lot of research on how to address it. So I don’t think we’ll ever fully understand everything that we’re doing to the ocean, but I think we’re working hard as a scientific community to get there.
Mitch Ratcliffe 12:38
It’s really disturbing to think about, because plastic in the 1970s was really only — was 10 years into widespread use, and widespread compared to today is nothing, since half the plastic we’ve manufactured in history has been made since 2002. So it sounds like what we’re really delving into now is a real-time accounting of the damage that we’re doing. How do you as a scientist think about what your goal is in terms of bringing the consequences of our decisions back to the public so we can think about it?
Erin Murphy 13:11
Yeah, that’s why I feel very lucky to work with an organization like Ocean Conservancy. We conduct research that we know governments and decision makers need to help address these problems, and we have a policy team and a communications team that are really well trained on helping us bring this research to the decision makers.
And the type of research we’re doing here, in particular on risk assessments, is something that governments are really craving. They want to set science-based targets as they try to address plastic pollution, and part of that is understanding environmental thresholds that we should be aiming for to better protect marine wildlife, to better protect marine ecosystems.
And so when we do research like this, a big part is getting it into the literature, in this sense to the scientific community, but it’s also working with our policy team and our communications team to make sure the public hears about it, and to make sure that decision makers nationally and abroad hear about the work that we’re doing, and can use this to help inform science-based targets that they’re setting right now.
Mitch Ratcliffe 14:22
So one of the materials that you found was most dangerous is rubber, particularly from balloons. It emerged as especially deadly for seabirds, where you estimated that just six pea-sized pieces could create a 90% mortality rate. What’s happening physiologically with balloon fragments that make them so lethal?
Erin Murphy 14:45
Yeah, so if you think about the design of a balloon, they’re super stretchy, and they’re long and they’re thin, and even the fragments seem to have this shape. And so they get stuck at those junctures in the gastrointestinal tract, like between the stomach and the intestine. And the gut moves things along through these wave-like contractions. And it seems like these stretchy materials just kind of stretch with it, and so the gut just isn’t able to move them through as easily. And we see similar things for those plastic bags as well.
Mitch Ratcliffe 15:20
Well, you also point out that sea turtles appear to mistake plastic bags for jellyfish. Is there anything we could do in terms of the chemistry of soft plastics or the appearance of soft plastics to make them less attractive to sea life?
Erin Murphy 15:35
Yeah, I don’t know if there’s a way that we can make them less attractive that I know of. And it’s unfortunate, because we know there are a lot of plastic bags in the environment compared to other plastics. Every year, Ocean Conservancy organizes the International Coastal Cleanup, and plastic bags are consistently in the top 10 items we see most frequently.
That being said, we do know ways of keeping plastic bags out of the ocean and protecting turtles in that way. And so every year — or in this last year, during our Coastal Cleanup — we collected, or our partner organizations collected, more than 1 million bags off our beaches. So this is really important for helping protect ocean animals, because those bags are already very close to their environment, and by removing them from beaches, we prevent them from getting into the ocean.
We also know that plastic bag bans, like the policy that California just implemented, are very effective in reducing the threat that plastic bags pose to marine wildlife, and help by preventing them from getting into the environment in the first place. So there was a recent study published in Science that actually showed that communities that implement bag bans, whether that’s a city, a state, or a country, do meaningfully reduce the amount of plastic bags that end up on beaches by 25 to 47%. So that’s a really significant reduction, and just provides further evidence that we know how to address some of these threats. We have ways of measuring if policies are effective, and it’s really about preventing these bags from getting into the environment in the first place.
Mitch Ratcliffe 17:18
Another example of really short-term human thinking is the impact of fishing gear pollution. Can you talk a little about what you found in terms of what’s being tossed overboard by the boats that are hoping to treat the ocean as an ongoing resource and source of living?
Erin Murphy 17:36
Yeah. I mean, I think a lot of the fishing gear that’s lost is lost on accident. Fishing gear can be really expensive for fishermen. Like crab pots can cost thousands of dollars. And so these are very valuable resources for fishers, and they’re expensive to replace.
But unfortunately, one of the challenges with fishing in turbid and wavy environments around storms, especially with things that are set, is that some gear does get lost. And we did see interactions and ingestion of fishing gear by many of these animals. And partially that’s because gear attracts prey species. So we know that for some animals, they’re more likely to interact with fishing gear, and this isn’t just ingestion, but also being entangled in fishing gear, because, you know, that gear is still fishing. And for a lot of these bigger species, fish are their prey, and so they’re also being drawn to these devices, or this lost gear that might have their food in it.
Mitch Ratcliffe 18:44
And your study didn’t look at the external plastic lethality, it was only that which was consumed. So we don’t really fully understand what the consequences of, say, for instance, a net lost at sea is for the ocean yet? Or do we?
Erin Murphy 19:01
Yeah, we have — there’s some studies that have looked at this, but this is actually another study we’re working on. So one of the next papers we’re working on right now is looking at entanglement lethality, and that really will be important for understanding the impacts of plastic pollution together, because ingestion and entanglement, when we talk about these bigger plastics, are the two main threats that we see.
Mitch Ratcliffe 19:24
I feel like we’ve got our bearings and can have a really productive conversation. But folks, we’re going to take a quick commercial break. We’ll be right back.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Now, let’s get back to my discussion with the Ocean Conservancy’s Dr. Erin Murphy, who led a groundbreaking study about the lethal effects of macroplastics in sea life. Erin, nearly half the animals that you studied that had ingested plastics were already listed as threatened. Is plastic pollution accelerating extinction risk, and what species do you feel are most endangered?
Erin Murphy 20:03
Yeah, that’s a great question. Right now, there’s not a lot of research yet on population-level effects of plastic pollution, and our study is really helping build that information out. But it’s just very difficult to understand what’s happening to populations that often we have trouble studying in the first place.
Still, for many marine species, the IUCN Red List notes plastic pollution as a significant threat. Six out of seven sea turtle species are threatened. We saw really high ingestion rates for sea turtles. We know that 5% of the turtles in our data set died from plastic ingestion.
So I think there is a lot of evidence suggesting that this could be contributing to extinction risk. And there are some studies that look at very specific populations that we know are vulnerable, like the Hawaiian monk seal, that have found that plastic pollution is contributing to extinction risk.
And the hopeful piece in the Hawaiian monk seal case was actually that as communities started doing large-scale cleanup efforts in the Hawaiian Islands, they actually saw a rebound of that population. So again, just a reminder that even though we know that this is something that is posing a threat to marine species we really care about, it’s also evidence that targeted and effective intervention strategies can be really important in helping some of these species rebound.
Mitch Ratcliffe 21:34
That’s encouraging. So it isn’t as though we’re doomed, or that nature is doomed. We can intervene in our behavior today and make a change for the better in the future. How does the Ocean Conservancy encourage people to do that?
Erin Murphy 21:49
Yeah, so there was a study that we — some of us co-authored, and the Ocean Conservancy supported — that came out in 2020 that looked at what we would really need to do on a global scale to reduce plastic pollution in the ocean meaningfully enough to hit some of our potential targets. And in this case, we were thinking about just returning to 2010 annual leakage rates into the environment.
And what we found is that we really need sweeping change to our relationship with plastic and our waste management systems. And so we found that to achieve this goal, we would need a 40% reduction in plastic production globally. We would need waste management to reach levels of 98 to 99%, depending on the income of the country. And we would need, annually, 40% of waste that gets into the environment to then be cleaned up.
And at Ocean Conservancy, we really work on policy efforts in all three of those big buckets. And so we have the International Coastal Cleanup, but we also work on upstream policies with our policy teams at the sub-national, national, and international levels to try to work towards some of those goals of reducing plastic production and better managing the plastic waste that we do use.
Mitch Ratcliffe 23:10
You used the phrase “our relationship with plastic,” which is an interesting concept. In 2024, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that microplastics were found in human arterial plaque, and that resulted in much higher risk for cardiovascular events. Do you see what you’re studying as a parallel crisis, or the same crisis, just in a different species?
Erin Murphy 23:35
Yeah, I view that — you know, so they were looking specifically at microplastics, and we focused on macroplastics in this study. That being said, most microplastics that are in the environment are breaking off of these larger macroplastics. So in that sense, I do view this all as part of the same crisis, and I think we need to think about all of the harms that plastic materials are causing to human health, to animal health, and to sociocultural outcomes like our marine and terrestrial industries that are affected by plastic pollution, and we need to think about comprehensive policies that are addressing all of those harms.
Mitch Ratcliffe 24:17
Are there studies that are showing the same types of impacts from plastic in human and non-human species that we can use to start to tell the story in that same illustrative way that you did with the sugar cube analogy, so that people really take this seriously? I mean, the problem with our society is that we’re accustomed to throwing everything away.
Erin Murphy 24:40
Yeah, so there’s a lot of really great research that’s being done on microplastic exposure in other marine and aquatic organisms, and those are more similar to what’s happening in humans. But that human research, and the research on sort of sub-lethal microplastic risks — like the risks to cardiovascular systems, nervous system, gastrointestinal tracts — those are all pretty new, and so this body of research is really building, and I think we’re going to learn a lot in the next decade.
Mitch Ratcliffe 25:14
Do you see an acceleration of your ability to make those kinds of conclusions — well-grounded conclusions — emerging as a result of the advent of something like artificial intelligence? Are we at the dawn of a scientific revolution?
Erin Murphy 25:33
You know, that’s a good question. I don’t know in what ways AI will change the way that we’re doing research. Definitely, the rate at which we are producing research has increased. There’s more people working on these issues, and the scientific process is really just about iterating as a community and building on what we know. And so I think what we’re seeing here is a large-scale interest in this plastics issue and a big concern by the scientific community and by the public.
And as we learn more, we can answer more complicated questions. And so I was only able to do my work because over the last five decades, people have been studying what plastic is in the animals and reporting on that, and we have thousands of published papers now that tell us about what animals are consuming. And each one of those papers is really important in producing this bigger picture. And as we have, you know, similarly more studies on these sort of individual systems and humans, using model organisms like mice, we will be able to do the same sort of thing of painting this bigger picture for humans as well.
Mitch Ratcliffe 26:48
So as we get this higher-resolution view of what we’re doing, both to the planet and to ourselves, how does Ocean Conservancy potentially use those storytelling opportunities to get us to think about things like plastic bans, or the impact of extended producer responsibility on not just what ends up in the environment, but what we design so that it doesn’t end up in the environment in the future? It’s a big, complicated, multifaceted story. Where are we going?
Erin Murphy 27:17
Yeah, that is true, and I am not the policy expert at Ocean Conservancy, but the work that they do is amazing. And they, you know, they go and they talk to the public about these issues and educate the public through blogs and other resources to make sure that people understand the scale of the problem. And they work really closely with local decision makers who are interested in addressing these problems and help them develop bills, help them build support for bills. And, you know, we’ll meet with legislators and other leaders to help them kind of understand the reason that these policies are useful.
So Ocean Conservancy in the last 10 years has done a lot of work on state bills, like helping to push forward California’s SB 54, or specific bills that are targeting problematic plastics. Like recently, Florida passed a balloon release ban. Ocean Conservancy was also really involved in pushing that.
And I think we have seen with plastic pollution — what, for me, one of the things that’s most comforting in studying plastic pollution is actually that people do really seem to care about this issue and do seem willing to make change. So when people find out what I research — strangers — they always tell me about what they’re doing to reduce their plastic footprint, and I think that’s just a sign that there is appetite for change, and people want to understand how to do it. And as an organization, we’re just trying to leverage that passion and that stewardship that does kind of inherently exist in people, especially when they see the plastics that they’re using, and use that and sound science to help develop policies that can actually make a change on this issue.
Mitch Ratcliffe 29:06
Building on what you mentioned a moment ago, based on your findings about which plastics are the most lethal, it sounds like it’s a blend. But should policymakers prioritize specific materials, or just look at broad categories? No more of this type.
Erin Murphy 29:23
I think we need to do both. So we did find that different plastics pose different levels of risk, and I think there’s policies that are smaller and easier to implement, like balloon release bans and bag bans, that are effective in targeting some of these problematic plastics specifically. You know, using that Hawaiian monk seal example as well, having very targeted and strategic cleanups can be really important for protecting animals at sea turtle nesting beaches or seabird nesting areas. There’s these areas that we know are of particular importance for animals.
But still, the total plastic thresholds that we found were also low, and we see all types of plastics in these animals. So at the end of the day, there is too much plastic in the ocean, and we do need sweeping reforms along the entire plastics life cycle, from production to management to disposal, to meaningfully address this issue and protect our oceans.
And it takes longer to implement these policies because it does require some pretty extensive system-wide changes. But I think policies like California’s SB 54, which aims to reduce 25% of single-use plastics used, that’s really a step in the right direction. And so our policy team is on the front lines of making sure that that bill is fully implemented and that we understand the benefits of that policy by monitoring outcomes and effectiveness of it.
Mitch Ratcliffe 30:56
You mentioned earlier that on the International Coastal Cleanup Day, which is a distributed event all over the world but a day, they collected more than a million plastic bags last year. Is the goal in the long term to no longer need to do those cleanups? Or do you anticipate that we’re always going to be needing to do those cleanups?
Erin Murphy 31:18
Yeah, I think unfortunately, at this point, it’s hard to imagine a world where cleanups aren’t necessary. I think when we did that study in 2020, that was led by Lau et al., it was pretty alarming to see how much we would have to reduce plastic production and how well we would have to manage waste to no longer need cleanups at all, and we really did find that cleanups needed to be an important part of this solution.
And there’s already a lot of legacy plastics in the ocean. So I think as far as we can look forward, cleanups will always be an important part of the suite of solutions that we use.
They’re also really effective for monitoring what’s happening in our ocean. So I mentioned earlier that study that was published in Science that showed that plastic bag bans are effective. We were really excited to see that they actually used Ocean Conservancy International Coastal Cleanup data to do that analysis, and it really just emphasizes the value of citizen science. When you go out and collect data during a cleanup on your beach, we can see what changes occur through time in terms of what debris you’re seeing, and that helps us better understand whether it’s targeted policies or these broader policies, if they’re being effective or not.
Mitch Ratcliffe 32:42
What does the Ocean Conservancy do to help people do citizen science beyond the International Coastal Cleanup?
Erin Murphy 32:49
So that program has been going on for 40 years, and that’s really, in terms of citizen science, our main body of work. But we are interested in having citizens engage in other ways. So we often have — you can sign up for our newsletter and get information about opportunities to call your senators or write your senators or legislators about important ocean issues that are coming up.
And we also just have a lot of educational material so that people can start their own cleanup events, or find cleanup events to participate in, so that individuals can be engaged in being part of the solution.
Mitch Ratcliffe 33:31
You’ve mentioned a couple of items of research that you are beginning to pursue now. But if you had unlimited resources for the remainder of your career, what would you like to investigate and build on those findings with?
Erin Murphy 33:44
Yeah, it’s pretty hard to imagine unlimited resources, especially now, I know. But yeah, you know, we already started working on answering some of these next questions that are remaining for us, and I’m really excited about the work that we’re going to be doing over the next three to five years. And I will not be surprised if, you know, this body of work, trying to understand what’s happening to ocean animals, becomes a career-long question for me.
But in the short term, the things we’re really trying to get at is, first, that entanglement piece, which you mentioned — what is the lethality of plastic entanglement. And we also just launched a working group with scientists from all over the world to take what we have learned about the lethality of plastic ingestion and to build out, include what we are learning right now in our research about entanglement, and then bring in that exposure piece.
So that question you asked earlier about how much plastic is a puffin eating, how often does it have a lethal dose — that’s really what we want to get at. We want to know if we have an idea of what’s in the environment, how likely is that to have population-level effects for species? How likely are they to eat a lethal dose? How likely are they to die? And are we worried about populations because of this?
And right now, governments around the world are really trying to determine how to effectively address plastic pollution, and these sorts of comprehensive risk assessments are really helpful in setting targets. And so that’s really what I want to keep getting at: How can we take everything we know and help decision makers better understand, you know, a reasonable goal? Because a perfect goal is an ocean with no plastic, and I think we have to keep working towards that collectively. But it’s also really important to understand what species are being adversely affected and what we can do to immediately protect them now.
Mitch Ratcliffe 35:46
Well, it’s a multi-generational challenge, and I really applaud the work that you’re doing. How can folks keep up with the work that you’re undertaking?
Erin Murphy 35:55
Yeah, we have a brand new website at oceanconservancy.org, and we have a lot of information there, you know, specifically on what our plastics team is doing, but on what our entire organization is doing in terms of bills that we’re working on. They can also sign up for our newsletter to get information about what the organization is working on, and that will give them ample opportunities to participate in being part of the solution to the plastics crisis.
Mitch Ratcliffe 36:20
Erin, thanks so much for your time today. It’s been a fascinating conversation and an encouraging one.
Erin Murphy 36:26
Thank you. It was great to be here.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Mitch Ratcliffe 36:34
Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Dr. Erin Murphy, manager of ocean plastics research at the Ocean Conservancy, and she’s the lead author of the recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that quantifies, for the first time at this scale, how much plastic it takes to kill seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals.
You can explore the Ocean Conservancy’s wide-ranging work and sign up for a beach cleanup event at oceanconservancy.org. Ocean Conservancy is all one word, no space, no dash. Oceanconservancy.org.
The numbers Erin and her colleagues reported should stop us in our tracks. The volumes we heard about are disturbing, but imagine — one in five animals had plastic in their gut when they died. For sea turtles, it was one in two. What makes that study especially useful for policymakers is its differentiation by plastic type. Rubber fragments can be targeted because balloons are the deadliest material for seabirds. Soft plastics like bags are the top killer for sea turtles. Ghost fishing gear poses the greatest risk to marine mammals like whales. And each of these findings points to a specific, actionable policy lever: balloon release bans like Florida’s recent legislation, bag bans like California’s, and better gear-marking and recovery programs for the fishing industry.
But the targeted approach is only part of the answer. As Erin emphasized, the total plastic thresholds her team found were low across the board, meaning that every type of plastic poses a threat. “At the end of the day,” she said, “there is too much plastic in the ocean, and we need to do sweeping reforms along the entire plastics life cycle, from production to management to disposal.” That’s a very important quote. Keep it in mind.
A 2020 Ocean Conservancy-backed study quantified what “sweeping” means: a 40% reduction in global plastic production, waste management reaching 98 to 99% effectiveness in its collection and processing of plastic so it doesn’t reach nature, and annual cleanups of the 40% of plastic that still escapes into the environment — and that’s just to return to the 2010 leakage rates.
So that brings us to the elephant in the room — or maybe more to the point, the sperm whale with an entire greenhouse in its stomach — the global plastics treaty negotiations. Which were supposed to deliver a binding international agreement, collapsed in August 2025 in Geneva after oil-producing nations blocked provisions that called for production caps and toxic chemical phase-outs. More than 100 countries in the group known as the High Ambition Coalition were pushing for full life-cycle regulation for plastics, but the requirement that the negotiations reach a consensus gave a handful of petrochemical states an effective veto power. And effective it was.
So between the Busan round in late 2024 and the end of the Geneva talks in 2025, an estimated 7.4 million more metric tons of plastic entered the ocean. The world currently produces more than 460 million metric tons of plastic annually, and only 9% of that is being recycled. Every day, the equivalent of 2,000 garbage trucks of plastic is dumped into our oceans, rivers, and lakes.
However, the collapse of the treaty talks does not mean the end of progress. Erin pointed to evidence that targeted interventions can work. For example, communities in Hawaii conducted large beach cleanups and saw the Hawaiian monk seal population rebound. A study published in Science confirms that bag bans reduce plastic on beaches by between 25 and 47%. California’s SB 54 law aims to cut single-use plastics by 25%. And Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup, which is now in its 40th year, removed more than a million plastic bags from beaches last year. That cleanup data, collected by citizen scientists worldwide, is a research tool providing the time-series evidence that tells us whether policies are working.
So here’s what I want you to leave with from this conversation. Erin’s research focuses exclusively on acute mortality from ingested macroplastics — that’s obstruction, perforation, and torsion of the digestive tract. It does not capture the chronic effects of plastic and chemical exposure or entanglement, which her team will study next. That means the lethal thresholds that she reported likely underestimate the total harm plastic inflicts on marine life.
And the parallel crisis in human health is building from the same source of pollution, which has scattered microscopic shards of plastic across the planet, from the seas to the highest peaks. Most of these microplastics began as macroplastics, like those that are killing puffins and turtles. They break down in the environment into fragments small enough to enter our bloodstream, lungs, liver, and even women’s placentas. As Erin put it, it is all a part of the same crisis.
So one of the most encouraging things that Erin said was also the simplest. When strangers learn about what she studies, they stop and they tell her what they are doing to reduce their plastic footprint. That instinct to environmental stewardship is a real and powerful phenomenon, even if it’s currently being actively suppressed by governments. And the public’s will to protect nature is the foundation that policy, science, and investment will ultimately build on.
The ocean doesn’t need our sympathy. It needs a 40% cut in plastic production, waste systems that actually work, and the political will to treat a binding plastics agreement as a matter of human survival rather than an inconvenience for a few petrochemical companies. Until international negotiations deliver that agreement, the work continues at every other level: state legislatures, coastal cleanups, citizen science, and research programs like Erin’s that give decision makers the evidence-based targets that they’ve been asking for.
So stay tuned, folks, for more conversations about the solutions that can still turn this crisis around. And I hope you’ll take a moment to take a look at any of the more than 540 episodes of Sustainability In Your Ear in our archives. Take the time to share just one of them with your friends or your family. Writing a review on your favorite podcast platform will help your neighbors find us. Folks, you’re the amplifiers that can spread more ideas to create less waste. So please tell your friends, family, and co-workers they can find Sustainability In Your Ear on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or whatever purveyor of podcast goodness they prefer.
Thank you all 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 and its oceans. Have a green day.
The post Sustainability In Your Ear: The Ocean Conservancy’s Dr. Erin Murphy Documents the Lethality of Ocean Plastics appeared first on Earth911.
https://earth911.com/podcast/sustainability-in-your-ear-the-ocean-conservancys-dr-erin-murphy-documents-the-lethality-of-ocean-plastics/
What’s not to love about a go-to dress in your wardrobe? The right one can be dressed up or down, it can be worn alone, or worn as a skirt with the right top layered on. A dress is arguably the easiest outfit to put together that still looks put together. The right sustainable dress is the kind of closet staple you can reach for on any kind of summer day, even when you have no idea what to wear.
From t-shirt dresses and house dresses to chic midi frocks and fun mini’s for a night out, this roundup of sustainable dresses has just about everything.
So if you’re looking for that perfect eco-friendly dress to complement your wardrobe this year, I’ve got you covered with this guide to sustainably and ethically-made dresses. This guide has brands with both casual and more formal dresses, but if you’re shopping for exclusively special occasion dresses, I’d recommend also browsing my guide to formal dresses.
What Qualifies As (More) Sustainable Dresses?
Wearing what we have in our closets is the most sustainable approach! But if you’re here, you probably already evaluated that option and you’re looking to add something fresh to your closet.
Secondhand Dresses are Sustainable Dresses
The second most sustainable option is to look secondhand. ThredUp can be a versatile option for pieces at any price point and The RealReal is my favorite choice for more premium brands.
Online secondhand marketplaces like Poshmark or Depop are also good options — but something to watch out when it comes to peer-to-peer marketplaces is that they can sometimes contain new fast fashion disguised as “vintage” pieces, so it can require some additional digging.
For more suggestions, find my full guide to secondhand clothing retailers in this post.
If you’re looking for a new sustainably-made dress, here are some considerations:
- Materials: what is it made from? Is it made with a natural fabric like hemp, linen, or organic cotton? Perhaps made from deadstock or upcycled materials?
- Production Practices: does the brand take efforts to not overproduce? Do they produce in small batches? (No matter how “eco-conscious” the material is, if a brand is throwing away 30% of their stock, that’s not sustainable!)
- Timelessness and Quality: this doesn’t have to mean boring and doesn’t necessarily mean the brand never participates in a trend. But does the brand constantly hop on every single trend and push you to buy more and more? Or do they encourage slow mindful consumption with well-designed dresses? Do they pay attention to construction and details that ensure you’ll be wearing this dress year after year?
- Manufacturing: most brands do not produce their own clothing, but are they sourcing from facilities that pay their workers fairly? Do those facilities minimize waste, use renewable energy, and responsibly manage chemical usage?
- Ethical Production: who made the dress? were they paid fairly and were they working in safe conditions? do they have worker’s rights, such as the right to organize? how does the brand ensure this? Certifications can be helpful here. But sometimes factories cannot afford these, so look for other assurances, such as that the founder personally visits the factories.
- Ownership: is it a small woman-owned business or major fashion brand owned by billionaires? What are your values when it comes to where your money is going?
I know that’s a lot! But these are elements to start looking for as you browse through brands. This isn’t about perfection — it’s just about learning and doing the best we can.
My Top Picks for Ethical and Sustainable Dresses
To help you out (because I get it — it’s complicated!) I’ve curated retailers and brands with sustainable and ethical dresses. These brands aren’t necessarily perfect, but they’re doing things better for people and the planet. I’ve included “Conscious Qualities” by each brand or retailer, so you can get an idea about why the brand is on the list and which sustainability criteria they meet.
I’ve also curated brands at a range of price points, to accommodate for different budgets.
This Guide’s Price Range Key:
- $ = Dresses under $100
- $$ = Dresses $100 – $200
- $$$ = Dresses $200+
Keep in mind that while price and quality aren’t necessarily directly tied to each other, lower prices may sometimes mean a sacrifice on quality and the highest quality picks are often on the higher end of the price spectrum. Better quality fabrics cost more, more skilled seamstresses are typically paid more, and many of the details that take a piece from good to great — such as pockets, well-fastened buttons, and linings — add to the product cost as well.
This article features affiliate links, which means we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you (which helps us fund this website) if you choose to purchase through one of these links. As always, we only feature brands that meet high standards for sustainability that we love and that we think you’ll love too!
1. Christy Dawn
Best for romantic dresses
Crafting “dresses you want to live in”, Christy Dawn’s pieces are a fairytale come true with their romantic silhouettes and dreamy prints. The sustainably-minded brand sources organic cotton as well as regenerative organic cotton grown in India by their partners Oshadi Collective. This “Farm-to-Closet” collection is also vegetable-dyed and block-printed in India using traditional time-honored practices.
Conscious Qualities: Organic & Regenerative Fabrics, Local & Ethical Production
Size Range: XS-3XL
Price Range: $$$
2. Whimsy + Row
Best for cocktail dresses
If you want a sustainable dress that doesn’t scream “sustainable”, Los Angeles-based Whimsy + Row is the brand for you.
The slow fashion label manufacturers their clothing in limited batches just a few miles away from their office and sources repurposed fabrics (i.e. deadstock) and lower-impact natural materials (such as linen and organic cotton) for their unapologetically feminine clothing. And don’t sleep on their bridesmaid dress options!
Conscious Qualities: Lower Impact Fabrics, Small Batch Production
Size Range: XS-XL
Price Range: $$-$$$
3. Tradlands
Best for work-friendly dresses
Created out of co-founder Sadie’s desire for classic, high-quality pieces, Tradlands is designed with longevity and versatility top of mind. And their effortless dresses are just as simple to care for — Tradlands uses natural — but washable! — fibers like cotton and linen.
The 100% cotton tiered dress I have from Tradlands (this one’s similar) is one of my summer go-to’s — breathable, flattering, and easy to dress up or down. I can wear it as a house dress working from home, or paired with jewelry and elegant sandals to dinner. (Monofiber fabrics — i.e. 100% of one fiber — is also easier to recycle than fabric blends.)
Conscious Qualities: Natural Fibers, Small Batch Production, Extended Sizing
Size Range: XS-4XL
Price Range: $$
4. Magic Linen
Best for 100% linen dresses
Versatile, breezy, and perfect for simmering temps, Magic Linen’s relaxed styles offer everything you need to feel calm and collected all summer long. Crafted from pure linen that has been stone-washed to provide unparalleled softness against your skin, these relaxed fits are the ideal intersection between vacation chic and functional style.
All of Magic Linen’s summer-ready pieces are created on a made-to-order basis, ensuring their garments are not overproduced. The brand also minimizes wastage by repurposing most of its fabric offcuts to create smaller items.
Conscious Qualities: Lower Impact Natural Materials, Woman-Owned, Made-To-Order
Size Range: US 2–18
Price Range: $$-$$$
5. Rare & Fair
Best for elegant evening dresses
Made thoughtfully with time-honored practices by master artisans and craftspeople in small batches, Rare & Fair has truly exceptional sustainable dresses. Each piece is made in a fully transparent, traceable process from fiber to final stitch.
Conscious Qualities: Sustainable Fabrics & Processes, Artisan Made, Cultural Preservation
Size Range: XXS-XL
Price Range: $$$
6. tentree
Best for casual weekend dresses
When warm weather approaches, all you want is a dress you can breathe easy in. And if your style skews minimalist, all you desire is a dress that has interesting details but doesn’t make too much of a fuss or song and dance about itself. Lucky for you, tentree has an array of simple dresses that fit the bill.
Button-down, wrap, cami, or even hooded, these pieces make everyday dressing feel like a breeze. Made from breathable materials like modal, hemp, TENCEL
Lyocell, linen, and organic cotton, these dresses are an ideal investment for the long haul.
Conscious Qualities: Eco Materials, Supply Chain Transparency, Plants Trees, Circularity Programs
Size Range: XS–XL
Price Range: $$-$$$
7. OMNES
Best for wedding guest dresses
Finding an ethical dress for a wedding, graduation, or black tie event is not easy. Most sustainable brands lean casual! But OMNES is a rare exception. Their occasion wear holds its own against conventional designer options, with elevated silhouettes and polished prints that look nothing like they came with an eco-conscience attached.
OMNES’ dresses are made from responsibly sourced materials including organic cotton, linen, LENZING ECOVERO viscose, and certified recycled polyester (from plastic bottles, which isn’t ideal — but considering 88% of polyester is virgin (fossil fuel-based), we’ll take it as a step in the right direction).
Conscious Qualities: Carbon Offset (125%), Audited Supply Chain, Lower Impact Materials, Living Wage Employer
Size Range: 4–18
Price Range: $$$
8. OhSevenDays
Best for elevated, independent designer dresses
OhSevenDays’ dresses feature feminine silhouettes, muted colors, and unique details to impress. Made from deadstock fabrics sourced from Istanbul, Turkey. The slow fashion brand also offers a transparent behind the scenes look at their production process, all done in-house by a team of four tailors.
With the level of detail on OhSevenDays dresses, all you need is an elevated pair of sustainably-made sandals and you’ve got a complete look.
Conscious Qualities: Reclaimed Fabrics, Transparent Production
Size Range: S-L + custom sizing
Price Range: $
9. No Nasties
Best for vacation dresses with vibrant hues
No Nasties creates 100% organic cotton fair trade dresses perfect for wearing to the beach with flip flops or pairing with heeled sandals for date night. Their versatile sustainable dresses are comfy, organic, and affordable with most pieces priced at under $100.
Conscious Qualities: Organic Fabrics, Traceable Supply Chain, Fair Trade
Size Range: XS-L
Price Range: $
10. MATE
Best for non-toxic dresses
There’s nothing more satisfying than finding summer dresses that make you look instantly put together without much effort – and MATE’s curation checks every box.
From breezy maxi dresses to functional dresses that come with a removable belt bag, their styles are made using GOTS Certified Organic Linen, ideal for keeping the heat at bay when the mercury rises to unbearable temperatures.
What’s more? You can work up a sweat feeling relieved knowing that all of their pieces are made using non-toxic dyes that don’t rely on harmful chemicals like pesticides, BPA, PFAS, and formaldehyde.
Size Range: XS – XL
Price Range: $$
11. Míe
Best for dresses you won’t see anywhere else
Míe is an independent fashion brand prioritizing natural fibers like linen and distinguished design details like tiered puff sleeves and unique necklines. Based in Nigeria and only sold in select global retailers, you’re unlikely to see anyone else wearing something similar.
Each dress is designed and handcrafted responsibly at their atelier in Lagos, Nigeria.
Conscious Qualities: Natural Fibers, Black Woman-Owned
Size Range: XS-3XL
Price Range: $$$
12. Reformation
Best for girls night out dresses
Reformation is one of the more transparent and accountable mainstream sustainable brands. In 2023, Reformation used 97% recycled, regenerative, or renewable materials and nearly 1 in 5 of their sales were resale, vintage, or rental. They also have a number of circularity programs. (Find more details in their sustainability report.)
That said, they’re still a growth-focused brand selling trend-driven clothing, which has inherent sustainability limits.
Conscious Qualities: Responsible Material Sourcing, Circularity Initiatives, Traceability
Size Range: 0 – 12 and 14 – 24 in select styles
Price Range: $$$
13. Toad & Co
Best for casual summer dresses
Crafted from fabrics like hemp, TENCEL, and organic cotton, and designed with easygoing silhouettes, Toad & Co’s has the perfect natural fiber dresses for warm sunny days.
The airy dresses can be worn as naturally breathable house dresses or with their delicate details and subtle prints, easily worn out with a pair of strappy sandals or slingbacks.
My top picks would be the brands midi dresses, but they also have wrap and tank dresses that hit mid-thigh if you prefer a shorter hemline.
Conscious Qualities: Lower Impact Fabrics, Resale Program, Factory Transparency
Size Range: XS-XL
Price Range: $$
14. LANIUS
Best for effortless warm-weather dresses
Some fair trade brands make you choose between doing good and looking good. LANIUS, a family-run slow fashion house out of Cologne in Germany, doesn’t ask you to compromise. Founded in 1999, the brand has spent 25 years making feminine, considered designs in certified organic materials under fair conditions.
Their casual dresses are the kind you reach for on repeat. Think organic linen that feels weightless against the skin, relaxed silhouettes that work for a farmers market or the office, and details like a a slightly flared hem that elevate without fuss. And in case you needed more reason to love this brand’s ethos: they only produce two collections per year, prioritizing intentionality over hype.
Conscious Qualities: GOTS Certified, Fair Wear Foundation Audited, Organic & Natural Materials, No Harmful Chemicals, Care & Repair Program
Size Range: 34–44 (German sizing, roughly US 4–14)
Price Range: $$
15. Beaumont Organic
Best for elevated everyday dresses
Beaumont Organic makes the kind of dresses that feel intentional without trying too hard. Rooted in natural materials and quiet craftsmanship, their pieces sit somewhere between elevated basics and timeless wardrobe investments — the sort of thing you reach for because it just feels right.
Their linen dresses are a standout. Take the Ottillie-May: a boxy, sleeveless silhouette that blooms into a shirred waistband and A-line skirt, with pockets. Made entirely in Portugal — from spinning and weaving to dyeing and finishing — the supply chain is fully traceable and listed right on the product page.
The brand offers free repair and resale schemes, visits suppliers regularly, and builds exclusively with living wage factories. Beaumont Organic is fashion with a long view.
Conscious Qualities: Fully Traceable Supply Chain, Living Wage Factories, Natural & Organic Materials, Made in Portugal, Repair & Resale Program
Size Range: XS-L
Price Range: $$$
You Might Also Be Wondering…
Are sustainable dresses worth the higher price tag?
It depends! The key here is to look at cost-per-wear. A $250 organic linen dress you wear 80 times costs $3.12 per wear. A $40 fast fashion dress you wear 5 times costs $8 per wear. More sustainable dresses tend to have timeless design and be made with higher quality materials and construction, meaning they last longer, hold their shape better, and don’t need replacing as often. That said, always look at the care instructions! Natural fibers may require a bit more attention than synthetic fibers (such as air-drying instead of throwing in a machine dryer) but they’re well worth the additional effort.
And there are also genuinely affordable sustainable options (like No Nasties and tentree) that prove sustainability doesn’t always mean expensive. Some brands are priced very competitively with their less sustainably-minded couterparts.
What certifications should I look for when buying a sustainable dress?
The most meaningful certifications for dresses are:
- GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) for organic fibers and other sustainability assurances during production
- OEKO-TEX STANDARD 100 for chemical safety in finished garments (note that this is a product certification, not a material certification — and many brands miscommunicate this label)
- Made in Fair Trade Certified factories which ensure that the brand is paying into a premium that goes to a Community Development Fund that workers can vote on to determine how to use those funds
However, many small brands cannot afford to buy certified products, fabrics, or pay into fair trade programs. There are other ways to ensure ethical sourcing as well, so look into a brand’s sustainability or sourcing pages too.
What’s the most sustainable type of fabric for a dress?
This is a nearly impossible question to answer because no single fiber is the “best” by all measures. There are so many considerations (land use, water use, biodegradability, longevity, carbon emissions, and so on) that I cannot tell you the single “best” fiber.
That said, I avoid synthetic materials, which are made from fossil fuels and release microplastics into our environment when washed. Among natural options, different fibers have different use cases, so I recommend looking for the best version of each. This deep dive has much more on fabrics.
But even then there are nuances — is 50% organic cotton blend with hemp or linen better than a 100% conventional cotton fabric considering that monofiber fabrics are much easier to recycle at the end of their life? As you can see, the most sustainable question is complicated.
Should I buy secondhand instead of new sustainable dresses?
From a pure environmental standpoint, secondhand is almost always the better choice — no new resources used, no new manufacturing emissions. Platforms like ThredUp, The RealReal, Poshmark, and Depop are great starting points. That said, buying new from sustainably-minded brands does serve a purpose: it signals market demand for responsible production and can support artisans, ethical manufacturers, and/or women-owned small businesses, depending on the brand. The best approach in my mind? Check secondhand first. If you can’t find what you need, then invest in a quality piece from a trusted more sustainable brand if you can.
What sustainable dresses come in plus sizes or extended sizes?
Size inclusivity is an area where sustainable fashion has historically underperformed — but it’s improving. LOUD BODIES is the standout on this list, offering 15 sizes from XXS to 10XL. Christy Dawn goes up to 3XL in some styles, Míe up to 3XL, and Tradlands to 4XL. When shopping, always check the full size range on the brand’s website, as some brands offer extended sizes only in select styles.
The post 15 Best Sustainable Dresses That Are Anything But Basic (2026) appeared first on Conscious Life & Style.
What’s not to love about a go-to dress in your wardrobe? The right one can be dressed up or down, it can be worn alone, or worn as a skirt with the right top layered on. A dress is arguably the easiest outfit to put together that still looks put together. The right sustainable dress is the kind of closet staple you can reach for on any kind of summer day, even when you have no idea what to wear.
From t-shirt dresses and house dresses to chic midi frocks and fun mini’s for a night out, this roundup of sustainable dresses has just about everything.
So if you’re looking for that perfect eco-friendly dress to complement your wardrobe this year, I’ve got you covered with this guide to sustainably and ethically-made dresses. This guide has brands with both casual and more formal dresses, but if you’re shopping for exclusively special occasion dresses, I’d recommend also browsing my guide to formal dresses.
What Qualifies As (More) Sustainable Dresses?
Wearing what we have in our closets is the most sustainable approach! But if you’re here, you probably already evaluated that option and you’re looking to add something fresh to your closet.
Secondhand Dresses are Sustainable Dresses
The second most sustainable option is to look secondhand. ThredUp can be a versatile option for pieces at any price point and The RealReal is my favorite choice for more premium brands.
Online secondhand marketplaces like Poshmark or Depop are also good options — but something to watch out when it comes to peer-to-peer marketplaces is that they can sometimes contain new fast fashion disguised as “vintage” pieces, so it can require some additional digging.
For more suggestions, find my full guide to secondhand clothing retailers in this post.
If you’re looking for a new sustainably-made dress, here are some considerations:
- Materials: what is it made from? Is it made with a natural fabric like hemp, linen, or organic cotton? Perhaps made from deadstock or upcycled materials?
- Production Practices: does the brand take efforts to not overproduce? Do they produce in small batches? (No matter how “eco-conscious” the material is, if a brand is throwing away 30% of their stock, that’s not sustainable!)
- Timelessness and Quality: this doesn’t have to mean boring and doesn’t necessarily mean the brand never participates in a trend. But does the brand constantly hop on every single trend and push you to buy more and more? Or do they encourage slow mindful consumption with well-designed dresses? Do they pay attention to construction and details that ensure you’ll be wearing this dress year after year?
- Manufacturing: most brands do not produce their own clothing, but are they sourcing from facilities that pay their workers fairly? Do those facilities minimize waste, use renewable energy, and responsibly manage chemical usage?
- Ethical Production: who made the dress? were they paid fairly and were they working in safe conditions? do they have worker’s rights, such as the right to organize? how does the brand ensure this? Certifications can be helpful here. But sometimes factories cannot afford these, so look for other assurances, such as that the founder personally visits the factories.
- Ownership: is it a small woman-owned business or major fashion brand owned by billionaires? What are your values when it comes to where your money is going?
I know that’s a lot! But these are elements to start looking for as you browse through brands. This isn’t about perfection — it’s just about learning and doing the best we can.
My Top Picks for Ethical and Sustainable Dresses
To help you out (because I get it — it’s complicated!) I’ve curated retailers and brands with sustainable and ethical dresses. These brands aren’t necessarily perfect, but they’re doing things better for people and the planet. I’ve included “Conscious Qualities” by each brand or retailer, so you can get an idea about why the brand is on the list and which sustainability criteria they meet.
I’ve also curated brands at a range of price points, to accommodate for different budgets.
This Guide’s Price Range Key:
- $ = Dresses under $100
- $$ = Dresses $100 – $200
- $$$ = Dresses $200+
Keep in mind that while price and quality aren’t necessarily directly tied to each other, lower prices may sometimes mean a sacrifice on quality and the highest quality picks are often on the higher end of the price spectrum. Better quality fabrics cost more, more skilled seamstresses are typically paid more, and many of the details that take a piece from good to great — such as pockets, well-fastened buttons, and linings — add to the product cost as well.
This article features affiliate links, which means we earn a small commission at no additional cost to you (which helps us fund this website) if you choose to purchase through one of these links. As always, we only feature brands that meet high standards for sustainability that we love and that we think you’ll love too!
1. Christy Dawn
Best for flowy, romantic dresses
Crafting “dresses you want to live in”, Christy Dawn’s pieces are a fairytale come true with their romantic silhouettes and dreamy prints. The sustainably-minded brand sources organic cotton as well as regenerative organic cotton grown in India by their partners Oshadi Collective. This “Farm-to-Closet” collection is also vegetable-dyed and block-printed in India using traditional time-honored practices.
Conscious Qualities: Organic & Regenerative Fabrics, Local & Ethical Production
Size Range: XS-3XL
Price Range: $$$
2. Whimsy + Row
Best for flirty and feminine frocks
If you want a sustainable dress that doesn’t scream “sustainable”, Los Angeles-based Whimsy + Row is the brand for you.
The slow fashion label manufacturers their clothing in limited batches just a few miles away from their office and sources repurposed fabrics (i.e. deadstock) and lower-impact natural materials (such as linen and organic cotton) for their unapologetically feminine clothing. And don’t sleep on their bridesmaid dress options!
Conscious Qualities: Lower Impact Fabrics, Small Batch Production
Size Range: XS-XL
Price Range: $$-$$$
3. Tradlands
Best for effortless house dresses
Created out of co-founder Sadie’s desire for classic, high-quality pieces, Tradlands is designed with longevity and versatility top of mind. And their effortless dresses are just as simple to care for — Tradlands uses natural — but washable! — fibers like cotton and linen.
The 100% cotton tiered dress I have from Tradlands (this one’s similar) is one of my summer go-to’s — breathable, flattering, and easy to dress up or down. I can wear it as a house dress working from home, or paired with jewelry and elegant sandals to dinner. (Monofiber fabrics — i.e. 100% of one fiber — is also easier to recycle than fabric blends.)
Conscious Qualities: Natural Fibers, Small Batch Production, Extended Sizing
Size Range: XS-4XL
Price Range: $$
4. Magic Linen
Best for 100% linen dresses
Versatile, breezy, and perfect for simmering temps, Magic Linen’s relaxed styles offer everything you need to feel calm and collected all summer long. Crafted from pure linen that has been stone-washed to provide unparalleled softness against your skin, these relaxed fits are the ideal intersection between vacation chic and functional style.
All of Magic Linen’s summer-ready pieces are created on a made-to-order basis, ensuring their garments are not overproduced. The brand also minimizes wastage by repurposing most of its fabric offcuts to create smaller items.
Conscious Qualities: Lower Impact Natural Materials, Woman-Owned, Made-To-Order
Size Range: US 2–18
Price Range: $$-$$$
5. Rare & Fair
Best for special occasionwear
Made thoughtfully with time-honored practices by master artisans and craftspeople in small batches, Rare & Fair has truly exceptional sustainable dresses. Each piece is made in a fully transparent, traceable process from fiber to final stitch.
Conscious Qualities: Sustainable Fabrics & Processes, Artisan Made, Cultural Preservation
Size Range: XXS-XL
Price Range: $$$
6. tentree
Best for casual weekend dresses
When warm weather approaches, all you want is a dress you can throw on. And if your style skews minimalist, all you desire is a dress that has interesting details but doesn’t make too much of a fuss or song and dance about itself. Lucky for you, tentree has an array of simple dresses that fit the bill.
Button-down, wrap, cami, or even hooded, these pieces make everyday dressing feel like a breeze. Made from breathable materials like modal, hemp, TENCEL
Lyocell, linen, and organic cotton, these dresses are an ideal investment for the long haul.
Conscious Qualities: Eco Materials, Supply Chain Transparency, Plants Trees, Circularity Programs
Size Range: XS–XL
Price Range: $$-$$$
7. MATE
Best for non-toxic dresses
There’s nothing more satisfying than finding summer dresses that make you look instantly put together without much effort – and MATE’s curation checks every box.
From breezy maxi dresses to functional dresses that come with a removable belt bag, their styles are made using GOTS Certified Organic Linen, ideal for keeping the heat at bay when the mercury rises to unbearable temperatures.
What’s more? You can work up a sweat feeling relieved knowing that all of their pieces are made using non-toxic dyes that don’t rely on harmful chemicals like pesticides, BPA, PFAS, and formaldehyde.
Size Range: XS – XL
Price Range: $ – $$$
8. OhSevenDays
Best for elevated dresses with a point of view
OhSevenDays’ dresses feature feminine silhouettes, muted colors, and unique details to impress. Made from deadstock fabrics sourced from Istanbul, Turkey. The slow fashion brand also offers a transparent behind the scenes look at their production process, all done in-house by a team of four tailors.
With the level of detail on OhSevenDays dresses, all you need is an elevated pair of sustainably-made sandals and you’ve got a complete look.
Conscious Qualities: Reclaimed Fabrics, Transparent Production
Size Range: S-L + custom sizing
Price Range: $
9. No Nasties
Best for vacation dresses with vibrant hues
No Nasties creates 100% organic cotton fair trade dresses perfect for wearing to the beach with flip flops or pairing with heeled sandals for date night. Their versatile sustainable dresses are comfy, organic, and affordable with most pieces priced at under $100.
Conscious Qualities: Organic Fabrics, Traceable Supply Chain, Fair Trade
Size Range: XS-L
Price Range: $
10. Míe
Best for dresses you won’t see anywhere else
Míe is an independent fashion brand prioritizing natural fibers like linen and distinguished design details like tiered puff sleeves and unique necklines. Based in Nigeria and only sold in select global retailers, you’re unlikely to see anyone else wearing something similar.
Each dress is designed and handcrafted responsibly at their atelier in Lagos, Nigeria.
Conscious Qualities: Natural Fibers, Black Woman-Owned
Size Range: XS-3XL
Price Range: $$$
11. Reformation
Best for going out styles
Reformation is one of the more transparent and accountable mainstream sustainable brands. In 2023, Reformation used 97% recycled, regenerative, or renewable materials and nearly 1 in 5 of their sales were resale, vintage, or rental. They also have a number of circularity programs. (Find more details in their sustainability report.)
That said, they’re still a growth-focused brand selling trend-driven clothing, which has inherent sustainability limits.
Conscious Qualities: Responsible Material Sourcing, Circularity Initiatives, Traceability
Size Range: 0 – 12 and 14 – 24 in select styles
Price Range: $$$
12. Toad & Co
Crafted from fabrics like hemp, TENCEL, and organic cotton, and designed with easygoing silhouettes, Toad & Co’s has the perfect natural fiber dresses for warm sunny days.
The airy dresses can be worn as naturally breathable house dresses or with their delicate details and subtle prints, easily worn out with a pair of strappy sandals or slingbacks.
My top picks would be the brands midi dresses, but they also have wrap and tank dresses that hit mid-thigh if you prefer a shorter hemline.
Conscious Qualities: Lower Impact Fabrics, Resale Program, Factory Transparency
Size Range: XS-XL
Price Range: $$
You Might Also Be Wondering…
Are sustainable dresses worth the higher price tag?
It depends! The key here is to look at cost-per-wear. A $250 organic linen dress you wear 80 times costs $3.12 per wear. A $40 fast fashion dress you wear 5 times costs $8 per wear. More sustainable dresses tend to have timeless design and be made with higher quality materials and construction, meaning they last longer, hold their shape better, and don’t need replacing as often. That said, always look at the care instructions! Natural fibers may require a bit more attention than synthetic fibers (such as air-drying instead of throwing in a machine dryer) but they’re well worth the additional effort.
And there are also genuinely affordable sustainable options (like No Nasties and tentree) that prove sustainability doesn’t always mean expensive. Some brands are priced very competitively with their less sustainably-minded couterparts.
What certifications should I look for when buying a sustainable dress?
The most meaningful certifications for dresses are:
- GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) for organic fibers and other sustainability assurances during production
- OEKO-TEX STANDARD 100 for chemical safety in finished garments (note that this is a product certification, not a material certification — and many brands miscommunicate this label)
- Made in Fair Trade Certified factories which ensure that the brand is paying into a premium that goes to a Community Development Fund that workers can vote on to determine how to use those funds
However, many small brands cannot afford to buy certified products, fabrics, or pay into fair trade programs. There are other ways to ensure ethical sourcing as well, so look into a brand’s sustainability or sourcing pages too.
What’s the most sustainable type of fabric for a dress?
This is a nearly impossible question to answer because no single fiber is the “best” by all measures. There are so many considerations (land use, water use, biodegradability, longevity, carbon emissions, and so on) that I cannot tell you the single “best” fiber.
That said, I avoid synthetic materials, which are made from fossil fuels and release microplastics into our environment when washed. Among natural options, different fibers have different use cases, so I recommend looking for the best version of each. This deep dive has much more on fabrics.
But even then there are nuances — is 50% organic cotton blend with hemp or linen better than a 100% conventional cotton fabric considering that monofiber fabrics are much easier to recycle at the end of their life? As you can see, the most sustainable question is complicated.
Should I buy secondhand instead of new sustainable dresses?
From a pure environmental standpoint, secondhand is almost always the better choice — no new resources used, no new manufacturing emissions. Platforms like ThredUp, The RealReal, Poshmark, and Depop are great starting points. That said, buying new from sustainably-minded brands does serve a purpose: it signals market demand for responsible production and can support artisans, ethical manufacturers, and/or women-owned small businesses, depending on the brand. The best approach in my mind? Check secondhand first. If you can’t find what you need, then invest in a quality piece from a trusted more sustainable brand if you can.
What sustainable dresses come in plus sizes or extended sizes?
Size inclusivity is an area where sustainable fashion has historically underperformed — but it’s improving. LOUD BODIES is the standout on this list, offering 15 sizes from XXS to 10XL. Christy Dawn goes up to 3XL in some styles, Míe up to 3XL, and Tradlands to 4XL. When shopping, always check the full size range on the brand’s website, as some brands offer extended sizes only in select styles.
The post The Best Sustainable Dresses — for Any Budget (2026) appeared first on Conscious Life & Style.
Green Living
Sustainability In Your Ear: Kendra MacDonald Steers to the Blue Economy at Canada’s Ocean Supercluster
The ocean produces about half the oxygen we breathe, absorbs roughly 30% of the carbon dioxide we emit, and takes up about 90% of the excess heat those emissions trap, according to the United Nations. It is the planet’s largest life-support system — and also its least-funded one. Of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals, the goal for life below water consistently draws the least money. Canada, which has the longest coastline in the world, is trying to flip that equation, and you can watch it happen close to real time.
Our guest this week is Kendra MacDonald, CEO of Canada’s Ocean Supercluster, a national, industry-led effort to grow what’s come to be called the blue economy. Under her leadership, the Supercluster has grown into a community of roughly 1,000 members co-investing in more than 150 projects. She came to the role after 25 years at Deloitte, where she served as Chief Audit Executive, and she runs it from St. John’s, Newfoundland. The model is built on co-investment: at least two companies put money in, often alongside Indigenous communities, researchers, and global corporations, so no single player carries the risk alone. The projects range from graphene hull coatings that cut a ship’s fuel use to wave-powered desalination and the $4.4 million Membertou Electric Lobster Boat, billed as Canada’s first zero-emission commercial fishing vessel, led by the Membertou First Nation.
Kendra’s thesis fits in seven words: you can go faster alone, but farther together. In our conversation, she’s candid about where that gets hard — most of these collaborations are small companies that don’t individually hold every capability, and the upfront work of sorting out who owns which piece of intellectual property is what separates the partnerships that succeed from the ones that stall. She’s just as candid about the catch: the Supercluster is funded by the Government of Canada to de-risk small Canadian firms, and when those firms succeed, they’re often acquired by international buyers — the value-capture problem at the heart of every public innovation program. That tension between strong science and thin capital, she says, keeps her up at night, and it points back to the blue-finance gap. It also shapes how she talks about aquaculture, which in 2022 surpassed wild capture as the world’s main source of farmed aquatic animals, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and is now the fastest-growing source of animal protein. Kendra rejects the idea that ocean health and productivity are in trade-off, arguing that a healthier ocean is more productive. And just before we recorded, the Trump administration reopened nearly half a million square miles of the Pacific to commercial fishing, the third such rollback in little more than a year. One model treats the ocean as a commons to protect and co-invest in; the other treats marine protection as an obstacle to clear. She thinks the contrast opens a door for Canada to lead.
To learn more about the Ocean Supercluster, visit oceansupercluster.ca. MacDonald writes about ocean-economy investment on her Substack, Saltwater Signals, and she’s easy to find on LinkedIn.
- Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
- Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube
Interview Transcript
Mitch Ratcliffe 0:10
Hello. Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are in this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society, and I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation today.
The topic is accelerating innovation. When we talk about the climate fight, we usually picture it on land: forests and wildfires, EVs and the power grid, solar panels on roofs everywhere. But the largest climate system on the planet is the one we understand the least, and it covers more than 70% of the Earth. The ocean absorbs our heat, feeds billions of people, moves nearly everything we buy, and it’s been treated for most of human history as something to extract from rather than invest in. And that’s the starting point to change, and Canada is one of the places where you can watch that happen in real time.
My guest today is at the center of this epochal shift. Kendra MacDonald is the CEO of Canada’s Ocean Supercluster, a national, industry-led effort to grow what’s come to be called the blue economy. We’ve talked about it on the show several times. Think of it as a table where startups, century-old fishing and shipping companies, Indigenous partners, researchers, and global corporations all sit down together and co-invest in ideas that no single one of them could pull off alone.
Under Kendra’s leadership, that community now spans roughly 1,000 members working together on over 100 projects — everything from graphene hull coatings that cut a ship’s fuel use by making it easier to go through the waves, to wave-power desalination, and an electric lobster boat built in partnership with the Membertou First Nation.
Kendra came to this from 25 years at Deloitte, the global consulting firm, where she last served as Chief Audit Executive. She’s been named to her region’s Top 50 CEO Hall of Fame, and she leads all of this from St. John’s, Newfoundland — a relatively remote vantage point, she’ll tell you, that is a feature, not a limitation of her job. Her thesis in seven words: you can go faster alone, but farther together.
We’re going to test that idea today — on collaboration, on who actually captures the value when small companies scale up, and whether the blue economy can grow and stay healthy at the same time, as well as what it takes to lead through a decade of constant disruption. We’ll get to the conversation right after this brief commercial break.
Hey, welcome to the show, Kendra. How you doing today?
Kendra MacDonald 2:46
I am doing great. How are you?
Mitch Ratcliffe 2:48
I’m doing well, thanks for joining me. I appreciate it. You live in a remote location in Newfoundland; I live in a remote location in southern Oregon, and we both somehow stay connected to the world. How do you do that? From your perspective, your seat is quite connected. How do you stay in touch with folks?
Kendra MacDonald 3:05
Yeah, so, certainly virtual. I started this role late in 2018, and by 2020 we were in the middle of the pandemic, and so it became very natural to connect virtually. So I think that has helped — it’s helped us connect across the country, and people got more used to virtual platforms.
But I do also spend a lot of time in person. I’m just coming from — I was in Ottawa, and I was in Halifax, and next week I’ll be somewhere else. So I do try to get face to face with our members as well, which, from St. John’s, Newfoundland — we’re a big country, so St. John’s to Victoria is about a nine-hour trip. Sometimes it’s easier to get to Europe than it is to get across the country. But I do spend a lot of time trying to get with our members, all over.
Mitch Ratcliffe 3:49
Your members are all related to the ocean, but why does the ocean belong at the center of the conversation now? For someone who doesn’t live near a coast, what’s the connection they should feel between the ocean, their personal health, and well-being?
Kendra MacDonald 4:01
That’s a great question. I mean, I think, in terms of — let’s talk about us as people first. Why the ocean matters: if you think about where your goods come from, over 80% of the goods that we get, whether we’re ordering from Amazon or ordering from wherever, they’re coming by sea. So there’s a huge amount of shipping that happens on the ocean. You think about the internet — most of our internet, if you’re getting it from some kind of overseas site, 98% of that is subsea cables that are going underneath the ocean.
If you look at then what the ocean means for the planet: 70%, but two-thirds, of the planet is ocean. About 50% of the oxygen comes from the ocean, so no matter where you are on the planet, oxygen matters. That’s really important, whether you’re close to the coast or you are not. It absorbs 90% of our excess heat, so a lot of the heat regulation is happening in the ocean. But 30% of our carbon — I don’t know about you, I learned in school all about the rainforest. I didn’t learn very much about the ocean, but the ocean actually plays a huge role in terms of being a carbon sink and absorbing excess carbon.
And then, I guess the last one, maybe 80% of our biodiversity on the planet — although some would argue there’s a lot of it undiscovered — but about 80% of biodiversity actually sits in the ocean. So when you talk about health, and we think about a lot of the natural solutions that we’re starting to see, whether that is natural fabrics going into fashion or natural ingredients going into beauty — we’re starting to see seaweed coming into both nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals, as well as fertilizers, for example. All of those natural ingredients — increasingly, we’re turning to the ocean.
Mitch Ratcliffe 5:40
How does the Ocean Supercluster function to address all of the different kinds of issues that you just described?
Kendra MacDonald 5:46
So that’s a great question. We don’t equally address all of them. Where we really are focused, in terms of trying to grow the ocean economy for Canada, is acceleration of technology commercialization. So the bulk of our projects are in technology commercialization. About 50% of our projects are what’s called domain awareness, or ocean observation — so, how do we understand things better. That has a different flavor.
We are cross-sectoral, so we touch aquaculture, shipping, offshore energy, and we would see different flavors of those technologies being applied. So if you’re an aquaculture farm, you want to make sure that you’re using an underwater drone, for example, to be able to inspect your nets, to make sure that you don’t have escapes. You might be sitting in the Arctic, and you want to better understand what’s happening with the coastline, or be able to monitor diversity.
Increasingly, we’re seeing this trend toward dual-use technologies in defense, for example — so technologies that you can use to find a whale, you could also use, potentially, to be finding a submarine. And then, if you look at offshore wind: how do you do surveys better? How do you remotely monitor infrastructure in the ocean? So there’s all these flavors of how do we better understand the ocean to make better decisions, and also to be able to operate more sustainably across all of these different sectors.
Mitch Ratcliffe 7:03
Now, of course, you just described systems in which there are many stakeholders. Who’s involved in all of these conversations? What’s the structure of the investments that allows communities to participate?
Kendra MacDonald 7:14
Yeah, so we are a co-investment model, so we need to have at least two companies that are co-investing. In a lot of cases, we would also have broader collaborators. So if you look at, for example, in the aquaculture space — aquaculture touches a number of communities all along our coast. We would have a project, for example, on the West Coast that would include an Indigenous community as the final operator and participant in the project. So you’ll see the technology providers, you will see the users of the technology, and then, depending on where it is, you will also see a community problem that the solution is trying to solve.
Mitch Ratcliffe 7:55
When you joined this industry, were you surprised by the way it actually operates? Is it different than land-centered business?
Kendra MacDonald 8:05
Yes. And no. So, my background — I worked with a large consulting firm, was part of Deloitte. I’m an auditor by background, so I spent a lot of time looking at systems, and I was actually a systems auditor — so, on the information technology side of how information is produced to get to the financial statements. And so I had spent a lot of time looking at digitalization of industries. You’re seeing increasingly digital, whether it’s media or transportation — these trends — and so that same trend is coming into ocean, where you’re seeing more and more instrumentation to be able to get more information, make better decisions, all the same things that we are trying to do in a number of sectors.
Where it gets more complicated is the environment that you’re operating in. So we don’t have a data network now the way that we would — I know there are still remote parts on land, so we don’t have as good a bandwidth — but they get much more remote when you start going on the ocean. You’re trying to now put technologies into salty water, high pressure, low visibility, and so the operating conditions become much more difficult for the types of problems that you’re trying to solve.
Mitch Ratcliffe 9:14
This is a national sovereign wealth fund, or a variation thereon. Sovereignty is playing a greater and greater role in geopolitics right now, and you’ve said you can go faster alone but farther together. How does Canada need to work with the rest of the world in order to really leverage the investments that you’re making?
Kendra MacDonald 9:33
So, great question. We are part of what’s called the Blue Tech Cluster Alliance, and Canada right now is chairing that. That includes a number of clusters around the world — so right now it’s Canada, the US, Japan, Ireland, the UK, France, Norway, Portugal, and Spain. I think I got all nine; hopefully I didn’t miss anybody. And so we are constantly looking at how do we create conditions so that the companies can engage with each other and work together to be able to solve global problems, because if you look at the ocean, it’s all interconnected. Decisions that you’re making in one country do eventually work through, around the entire world.
And so, for these big challenges that we’re trying to solve for — can we work together to be able to move faster? Can we bring more breadth of thinking to a problem? I was somewhere the other day, and I said, you know, in some cases we’re competing, in some cases we’re cooperating. And so we’re trying to do that at a national scale, and we are also trying to do that at a global scale. So you are seeing more and more focus on what we call, in our defense industrial strategy, sovereign capabilities — so how do you build the sovereign capabilities, but how do you also work with your partners to be able to learn from each other and be able to go further together.
Mitch Ratcliffe 10:53
Collaboration like that isn’t easy. Where do you find that it becomes more difficult? What are the big challenges you’re facing right now?
Kendra MacDonald 11:00
Yes. So collaboration is, I would say, like any other relationship, right? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. And I would say the devil is in the details. If you think about your personal relationships — or for me, with my husband — did we spend enough time in advance talking about how we wanted to raise our kids, or where we wanted to live, or whose career was the priority? All of those things. So that plays in. Now, you’re probably not signing on for life when you’re collaborating at a business level, but you need to spend the time really looking at: is what we’re trying to achieve consistent? How do we incent the teams? Are we going to get to a common outcome?
When we collaborate with other governments, for example, you look at political cycles, and at IP sharing — so are we very clear on background IP that we’re bringing, foreground IP, how that IP is being shared or held going forward? We are co-funding, so we fund a portion, the companies fund a portion. Are we clear on who is funding what? What happens if it starts going over budget? What happens if we’re not achieving the outcomes on the timelines that we intended? What happens if one company is achieving their outcomes, but the other one’s not?
And so it really does require a lot of discussion. We now have over 150 projects. You’ve got those that come to the table, I would say, with a light-touch thinking on their collaboration; you’ve got others that spend a lot more time thinking through it. And those ones that spend a lot more time thinking through it — not only do they have a better chance of success, we will often see them recognize the benefits. Because I think one of the key benefits of collaboration: we have a lot of small companies working together, and they don’t have all the capabilities to do everything. We are in a world where getting some of these capabilities is challenging, especially technical expertise. And so now, if you can work with a partner, you can deliver a bigger solution to a broader problem, and that helps you be able to get further than you would be able to get on your own.
Mitch Ratcliffe 13:04
97% or so of your projects are actually led by smaller startup businesses. How do you keep those small firms from getting swallowed when they sit down at the table with a multinational who might be a partner?
Kendra MacDonald 13:15
Yeah. So I would say, when we first created the Supercluster, that was one of the big concerns — that you would have these collaborations between small and large, and so the small would be at high risk of losing their IP. I would say we haven’t seen that, partially because we don’t have a lot of large companies; we have a lot of small working with small, so they are more hyper-aware of this challenge. But also, the model was really designed to allow the companies to choose how they bring their IP in, and then how it’s shared going forward. A lot of our larger companies — and maybe it’s just the nature of the companies that we work with — they’re really interested in being first customer or having early access to the data, but they’re not necessarily trying to take over the IP of the company in terms of how it’s designed.
We also do actually have an IP director and some pretty strong guidelines within the program, so that IP director is someone that companies can consult. To make sure that — smaller companies don’t necessarily have the IP expertise — so, how do we help them in thinking through the types of questions they want to be asking? How do we make sure we have an IP chart in every one of our agreements that lays out the background IP and the foreground IP, and then someone that helps the companies to be able to work through that? So it’s not perfect, but we haven’t actually seen, knock on wood, at this point, a lot of concerns around IP going to the larger companies. What we do see is we shine a light on these companies, and then they get internationally acquired. So that is the actual question: how do you maintain the benefits to Canada, in a program that is Government of Canada–funded, in a situation where you’re seeing them scale with funding that comes from somewhere else?
Mitch Ratcliffe 15:00
So would you describe that governance model as templated, applied across all deals, or are each of them negotiated? Is the governance negotiated individually?
Kendra MacDonald 15:09
So I would say there is flexibility within a frame. You have flexibility in terms of how you do the sharing, but everyone has to think through the sharing. Same thing with governance — so we have a steering committee model, and you can think about who’s on that steering committee, and you have some flexibility. And then there is some common reporting. So there is definitely a common structure, and then you have some flexibility within your particular project on how you want to operate with your partners.
Mitch Ratcliffe 15:38
Earlier, you mentioned that sometimes collaboration doesn’t work, and that learning is really important to the progress that the industry can make, even though the individual entity didn’t make the success expected. How do you integrate that kind of learning, and what’s your tolerance for risk in the context of the lessons you need to learn about such a big topic that we understand so little about?
Kendra MacDonald 16:02
Yeah, so that’s a great question. We do a number of member education sessions, and talking about experience with collaboration is one of those things. Certainly we spend more time, for example, on collaboration with Indigenous communities, because speed — and speed of trust, and how you engage — is very important for the success of the project. It’s important always, but when you get into more complexity around different cultures, we try to do some education and some help and some learnings there.
And then I would say our evaluators, now that we’re 150-plus projects in, they are getting better at the types of questions to ask. There is a presentation that is done by the various participants, and so you can ask very pointed questions and get a sense of: are these three individual companies that are giving you a presentation, or are they companies that have actually thought this through together — are they synchronized in terms of their responses? You can tell that there is sort of some magical sauce that is already being demonstrated, in how they work together in that presentation.
Mitch Ratcliffe 17:10
I think we have the lay of the land — or maybe the better way to put it is the contour of the shore. I want to take a quick commercial break, folks. We’re going to be right back to continue the conversation.
Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Let’s continue my conversation with Kendra MacDonald. She’s CEO of Canada’s Ocean Supercluster program, and it’s a national, industry-led innovation cluster focused on transforming Canada’s ocean economy through collaboration, technology, and, importantly, sustainability. Kendra, let’s talk about some phrases that listeners should understand, and the first one is sustainable aquaculture, which makes some environmentalists nervous, given the history of the industry. What does getting sustainable aquaculture right look like, and how do you hold the line on that?
Kendra MacDonald 17:58
Yeah, so I think a couple of things are important to understand around aquaculture. The first is that it is already one of the most sustainable sources of animal protein in the world, when you compare it to land-based agriculture, for example. The second is that it has already tipped — so if you look at since 2022, we actually get more of our fish coming out of aquaculture than coming out of wild fishery. So we are predominantly aquaculture around the world. And then the third one, and the World Bank, I think, just came out with this recently: we’re expecting to see possibly up to 22 million new jobs by 2050 in aquaculture. So it continues to be the fastest-growing source of protein.
Now, having said that, agriculture has been around much longer, and so has developed maybe more sustainability practices. Aquaculture is trying really hard to catch up really quickly. And so we need to make sure — and any of the aquaculture farmers I talk to recognize they want to make sure — that it is sustainable. So you are seeing a lot of technology solutions that are being brought to make sure that it is doing more good than harm, whether that is genomics, for example. We have a project on the West Coast that is looking at how do you look at genomics data to be able to improve animal health. We have a project that is looking at alternative sources of food — so how do you create a different food out of methanol as an input — because fish feed is part of the big footprint of aquaculture.
How do you reduce the die-offs, which is another big risk? That’s tied to environment, so now you’re seeing a change — the heating of waters that happens really quickly, and then you end up with a die-off. So how do you manage the cages? How do you manage the environmental monitoring and tracking to be able to reduce that risk? So it is already a sustainable source of food; we need to do much better, or continue on that journey as fast as we can, to make sure that the aquaculture farms are minimizing their input. So it is definitely a concern to continue to monitor, but I think there’s been a lot of progress made and will continue to be made.
Mitch Ratcliffe 20:16
We’ve had a few folks who work in the area on the show, and of course it remains controversial as to whether or not we’re recreating the concentrated animal feeding operations that we have on land in the sea. The next phrase that I want to ask you about is the blue economy, and that can sound to a lot of people like a license to industrialize the ocean. How do you think in terms of keeping growth and protection from becoming a zero-sum trade-off in the projects that you fund?
Kendra MacDonald 20:42
Well, that’s a great question. So, just as we launched in 2018, the High Level Panel on Sustainability for the Ocean at that time had 18 countries — it continues to increase in terms of the number of countries that are involved — and they really talked about protection, production, and prosperity as interlinked. And so that is one of the things that we really focus on. It’s not always that we have our environmental objectives and our economic objectives linking, but actually, a healthier ocean is also a more productive ocean. So that’s one of the things that we focus on: if we can improve the health of our ocean, that actually also improves the economic output of the ocean, which is really important.
I think the other piece that is really important is — and the High Level Panel came out with a report that said about a third to half of the solutions around improving the overall sustainability and health of the planet come from ocean solutions, whether that is offshore energy or more sustainable protein or carbon dioxide removal. So we need ocean to be a really important part of the overall health-of-the-planet conversation. So what excites me is, because they come together, a lot of the solutions that we see are, as a minimum, trying not to cause harm, and in a lot of cases trying to leave the ocean better than they found it, in terms of the solutions they’re developing.
Mitch Ratcliffe 22:05
We touched on sovereignty in the first segment, and I want to ask about this in the context of the fact that most of the ocean is not owned by anybody — it isn’t claimed by anybody. How do we avoid a tragedy of the commons as we move toward a more comprehensive aquacultural solution to humanity’s food and protein needs? In particular, are there treaties? Are there agreements that we need to have in place, or are we setting the stage already with the legislation and agreements that are in place now?
Kendra MacDonald 22:38
Yeah, so there are a number of agreements that are in place, and this is not my area of expertise, but, for example, I just completed my master’s, and I did one of my courses on maritime law. So you look at hundreds and hundreds of years of law trying to govern international shipping, which is very international in terms of moving through international waters as well as moving through international ports. You are seeing it now — so in January, they approved, through the United Nations … a lot of the agreements need to be agreed to, obviously, by multiple countries, and so the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreement was approved. So, how do we manage and protect biodiversity in our common waters?
You’re also seeing the conversation play out in the Arctic, as more waters are becoming more accessible — and so what does that mean in terms of rights and access? I haven’t seen it play out as much in terms of food, particularly; I see it much more in terms of things like carbon dioxide removal solutions and protection of biodiversity. But how we use those waters as they become more accessible, as we have more technology, as we have more instrumentation, and how we work together, is really important, and it does require international agreement. And so, how do we get — especially in this moment in time that we’re in — how do we get the international alignment that we need to protect our ocean and manage what happens in the deep ocean, at the same time as we have a shift in the geopolitical environment?
Mitch Ratcliffe 24:07
The times we’re in are challenging. The Trump administration, the week that we’re speaking, removed fishing protections in three protected marine areas, with — for lack of a better word — a rogue regime stirring up the entire sustainability conversation globally. Is this an opportunity for Canada to step forward, in Mark Carney’s terms, for a middle power to consolidate a bloc and really begin to lead the world in a different direction?
Kendra MacDonald 24:35
So, I think so. I think that Canada was working hard to step forward already, and this allows us to provide additional leadership in this space. We have seen, with the Ocean Supercluster and just the growth in the blue economy overall, that Canada has some really strong capabilities. You talk about marine protected areas as a perfect example — so we have worked hard in terms of increasing our marine protected areas. Now, looking at how do you monitor and actually ensure the effectiveness of those areas — I think that’s really important as well.
But yes, I think we are seeing more interest in working with Canada, and interest in Canadian technologies. I used to say, you know, internationally, no one’s really paying attention to what’s going on in Canada. I think that has changed in terms of what we are seeing, and so there is an interest. I think the US is still an important part of the Canadian conversation — they are important neighbors, they are an important market — but I do think that Canada has a strong … we’re seeing the whole climate conversation moving, but we have a strong reputation for clean tech, and I think clean tech and ocean tech very much align, and so there’s an opportunity to lead a broader conversation around the world.
Mitch Ratcliffe 25:49
Is more capital flowing to Canada now that the United States is a place where international investors are treading more carefully?
Kendra MacDonald 25:57
That’s a great question. Certainly, the flow of capital is a huge focus for us, and continues to be a challenge for our companies. So I think, on the one hand, there is more interest. On the other hand, you are seeing a slowdown in access to capital overall, you’re seeing a change in some of those models, and you’re seeing — certainly in sustainable solutions, in some of these big areas — the whole blue finance conversation is really accelerating. So Sustainable Development Goal 14, which is life below water, is the least funded of the Sustainable Development Goals. And so there is a tremendous focus on being able to increase the creativity of financial models — it hurts my accountant heart to say “creativity” — but trying to find better ways to bring philanthropic dollars and the capital markets together to be able to fund some of these solutions.
So that is a beyond-Canada challenge. Capital continues to be a challenge. How do we help our companies scale in Canada? We don’t have the funds focused on the blue economy the way that you are seeing them now emerge in a number of countries, certainly in Europe, for example. But more broadly, there’s a bigger push to be able to get more investors to be focused on the blue economy — opportunities, but also challenges.
Mitch Ratcliffe 27:16
When I was doing some of the reading to get ready for this conversation, I noticed that you said the shipping sector’s decarbonization efforts are not as slow as they used to be, which is sort of faint praise. What’s actually changed, and how do you see Canada leading that movement versus being one of the followers — or is being an important follower more important?
Kendra MacDonald 27:36
Yeah, so I think we are not as big a player in the international shipping space, but what is driving that is international regulations. You have seen a bit of a slowdown in terms of the push to decarbonization, but the International Maritime Organization is really pushing for decarbonization. You are also seeing the bigger companies, as they’re focused on their supply chain and decarbonizing throughout their supply chain, that that also puts a push on the shipping companies in terms of dealing with decarbonization.
You are also seeing an acceleration of some of the solutions that are being developed to help, because it’s considered a hard-to-abate industry. The alternative fuels conversation continues to move forward, so you are seeing this focus in the short term on how do you improve operational effectiveness — so something like better prediction of weather. If you can change the route just a little bit, you can actually save on diesel, and that obviously helps with emissions. We have a project in ports that is actually looking at how do you park the boats more effectively in the ports to be able to reduce emissions, how do you move the cargo around more efficiently to be able to reduce emissions. So there’s an operational effectiveness piece, but then there is this broader agenda of how do you get alternative fuels that are significantly less emissions.
Mitch Ratcliffe 28:55
We’ve been talking in various ways about systems throughout this conversation, and you’ve made a lot of comments about women’s leadership and also the AI readiness gap, which, if we can solve it, will allow us to see into those systems much more deeply than we do now. What are you seeing in those areas, and what would you say to a female leader who is hesitating at the edge of a hard decision right now — where they don’t necessarily feel like they have the data, or they feel like they have the data, but not the commitment of a group of stakeholders? What’s your advice?
Kendra MacDonald 29:26
Yeah, so I would say dig in and try it. I wouldn’t necessarily say that for the big-ticket item to start with — so ideally you are doing some testing and things before you get to that item — but adoption is a huge challenge when it comes to AI. And I can speak to that, certainly, from a Canadian perspective, because Canada are leaders in AI research, and yet we are much slower to adopt the technology. And that’s not just an AI problem; we see that in a lot of technologies that Canada has developed, that they’re slow to adopt. But we know that AI is fundamentally changing, or going to fundamentally change, the way that businesses operate.
I think we’re in an interesting moment in time where companies are looking and saying, well, I’m not sure I’m getting the value of the spend, I’m not sure that we’re actually measuring the productivity savings, I’m doing pilots, but I don’t necessarily have enterprise-wide impact. And so if you, as a female leader, can really cut through the noise, continue to experiment, and really try to reinvent — I heard a futurist speak the other day, and they said, you know, use a comic strip to reinvent what the world could look like. So how do you fundamentally reinvent what the world could look like, and then start experimenting to be able to get there?
But I think the key thing is, nobody should say — no one is an expert. We don’t have a lot of experts; we’re all learning through this journey together. So make sure that you stay on the learning journey, and don’t just stay on the side waiting for it to all play itself out, because then you will be too far behind.
Mitch Ratcliffe 30:59
Do you feel like AI is a key to unlocking the major challenges that we face, or is the jury still out?
Kendra MacDonald 31:07
I think, in my experience — you talked about the internet — in my experience with technology, it is less about the technology, and it’s more about being able to articulate the challenges. I think what AI allows is a very powerful technology that can tackle these challenges, maybe in a way that other technologies previously couldn’t. I went through the blockchain and cryptocurrency, when that was happening; the internet, when it came in — it was going to fundamentally change businesses. I think the hard part is actually defining the problem. And so I think if you can better define the problem — I don’t think it’s just about the technology, I actually think it’s about the business models. It is about the overall systems and processes that surround it.
If we focus only on the technology — and I think that’s the moment that we’re in, as companies are trying to find their AI strategy — well, it’s not. It’s a business strategy that’s enabled by AI. You might not need an agentic AI; you might just need a much more powerful database and analytics tool that doesn’t take you right out on the edge of the technology, but would be much more efficient in solving your problem. And so that’s the trick: stepping back and saying, what is the problem we’re trying to solve? Globally, what are the problems that we’re trying to solve? And then how do we bring these much more powerful tools to be able to solve that problem in a different way?
Mitch Ratcliffe 32:24
What does Canada’s ocean economy look like in 2035 if things go the way that you would like them to go? And what’s different? What does it mean for the rest of the world, not just for Canada?
Kendra MacDonald 32:37
That’s a great question. So we’ve actually set ourselves an ambition, 2035, which is five times growth. Canada has the longest coastline in the world, and we have the fourth-largest ocean territory, but we don’t even contribute world-average percentage to our GDP. So we are definitely under scale, and so we’re working very, very hard to be able to grow our ocean economy. And so I think, if we do that — although if we grow by five times, it’s still a relatively small percentage of the $3 trillion US dollar economy that’s expected by 2030, and in fact even bigger; they’ve got now projections out to 2050.
And so I think, in that situation, Canada is — certainly in terms of the Arctic conversation, half of our coastline is in the Arctic, and the Arctic will continue … I mean, imagine what the Arctic looks like in 2035. So industry is different, community is different, and I think we can be a big part of the leadership in that conversation, but also with the capabilities that we have around ocean technology, and making sure that we are relevant to industries all around the world. So it means a lot more domestic activity in Canada. It means using our own waters to be able to have aquaculture — aquaculture is a very small percentage of our overall coastline — so stronger domestic, but also stronger leadership in terms of exporting those capabilities to the rest of the world, and being a key player in the Arctic conversation.
Mitch Ratcliffe 34:02
What keeps you up at night when you’re thinking about Ambition 2035? What are the things that need to go right that are absolutely critical to the success — not just of that plan, but of our transition to a more sustainable economy overall?
Kendra MacDonald 34:16
Yeah, so our ability to scale solutions is maybe the number one thing that keeps me up at night, in terms of how do we ensure that we are not just bringing solutions to a certain size and then they’re going somewhere else to scale, or they’re not scaling at all. So we have — I talked about this challenge — how do we get enough blue financing to be able to scale the solutions that we need, whether that’s food, whether that’s energy, etc., across the sectors? I think it’s quite lumpy in terms of which ocean sectors get funding and which ones do not. And so, you know, there’s lots of great ideas out there, but can we scale the ones that we need for the planet that we want, fast enough?
Mitch Ratcliffe 35:04
How do we scale while also recognizing that local ecosystems are unique? In other words, how do we avoid turning the ocean into the monoculture environment that land-based agriculture is?
Kendra MacDonald 35:17
Yeah, so that’s a great question. I think community. So I had the opportunity to spend some time in South Africa, with Ocean Innovation Africa, and the number of things that they are doing in the ocean economy — and I spent some time in Northern Canada, and it was surprising, the parallels in the community conversation. And so, how do you make sure — the ocean touches so many communities, it is rural and urban, it is all along our coasts — how do you make sure that how you do that is inclusive of those communities, and the needs of those communities, and is right-sized for the needs of those communities?
So if you look at here, we have Fogo Island and the Fogo Island Inn and the Shorefast Foundation, and one of the things that they’re focused on, in working with communities, is there’s not a same-size-fits-all in terms of meeting community needs, economic development, inclusion, and capacity building — but that we need to be thinking that through as we build out these solutions. I think communities is a key part of this, but I think ocean is a key part of the solutions for sustainable, prosperous communities.
Mitch Ratcliffe 36:29
The Ocean Supercluster does a lot of work. It’s really interesting. How can people follow along as you continue to move this rock up the hill?
Kendra MacDonald 36:36
Absolutely. So you can certainly find us easily on oceansupercluster.ca, and we have a newsletter that you can sign up for to get more information. I also personally write on some of the opportunities — certainly investment opportunities — in the ocean economy. I have Saltwater Signals, which is my Substack that I write, and so between those two, you should be able to find lots of information. If, for whatever reason, you can’t, I’m also very easy to find on LinkedIn, so feel free to reach out to me and get more information.
Mitch Ratcliffe 37:08
Kendra, thanks so much. It’s been a fascinating conversation. Really appreciate the time today.
Kendra MacDonald 37:12
Thank you.
Mitch Ratcliffe 37:19
Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Kendra MacDonald, CEO of Canada’s Ocean Supercluster, a national, industry-led effort to grow the blue economy by getting startups, century-old fishing and shipping firms, Indigenous partners, researchers, and global corporations to co-invest in projects. You can learn more about the Supercluster’s roughly 1,000 members and 150-plus projects at oceansupercluster.ca — Ocean Supercluster is all one word, no space, no dash. And Kendra writes about ocean economy investments on her Substack, which is called Saltwater Signals.
The ocean covers more than 70% of the planet, produces about half the oxygen we breathe, and absorbs something like 90% of the excess heat and a third of the carbon that we put into the atmosphere. We’ve spent most of human history treating the ocean as a place to extract from rather than to invest in or to preserve, and frankly, it was a pretty big thing, and we were overawed by it. But now we have a better understanding of how the systems work. Kendra’s model is a wager that the way to change that is structural, not inspirational. You can go faster alone, she says, but farther together. And the interesting part is what “together” actually requires, and that’s where I want to spend these few minutes.
First, she said, the devil’s in the details. Collaboration in the blue economy doesn’t succeed because everyone loves the ocean; it succeeds because partners do the unglamorous upfront work of establishing who owns background IP, who owns foreground IP, who funds what, and what happens when a project runs over budget — as well as what happens when one company hits its milestones and the other doesn’t. These are the kinds of rules of the game that make it feasible to play for small and large companies, communities, and investors. Kendra said her Ocean Supercluster evaluators have gotten good enough, 150 projects in, that they can sit through a pitch and tell whether three companies actually planned together or just showed up in the same room and tried to make a sale. The ones who did the hard prenuptial work aren’t only more likely to succeed, they are more likely to capture a larger share of the benefit.
That’s a lesson that travels well beyond saltwater. It’s the same discipline that Kevin Shaffer of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District described when we talked in January about how wastewater utilities build successful cross-sector partnerships. The value is real, but only if the governance is there first.
Then there’s the limits of any early-stage accelerator. The capital can only go so far, and Kendra gets points for raising that issue before I did. The Supercluster is funded by the Government of Canada to de-risk small Canadian companies, and it works. In her words, the program shines a light on those companies, and they get acquired internationally, scaling on capital from foreign investors. That’s the value-capture problem at the heart of every public innovation program: the country that pays to nurture a technology isn’t guaranteed to be the country that profits when it scales.
It connects to the bigger gap that she flagged: blue finance. Sustainable Development Goal 14 — that’s life below water — is the least funded of all the SDGs, and the funds dedicated to the ocean economy that are emerging in Europe haven’t really emerged in Canada yet. You can build the best pipeline of companies in the world and still watch the returns sail off into another harbor, or have no financing show up in the first place, so that things don’t get off the ground. That tension between strong science and thin capital is the thing that she says keeps her up at night, and it should keep policymakers up at night as well.
Finally, the reframe I want all of us to think about is that health and productivity are not a trade-off. In fact, they cannot be if we’re going to survive as a species. The fear baked into the phrase “blue economy” is that it’s a license to industrialize the ocean, and Kendra’s answer is that a healthier ocean is a more productive ocean, and she frames protection and prosperity as interlinked rather than opposed. And I don’t think that’s rhetoric.
Mitch Ratcliffe 41:17
Aquaculture quietly passed a milestone in 2022: for the first time, farmed aquatic animals outproduced wild-caught fish — that is, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization — and the sector is now the fastest-growing source of animal protein on the planet. Whether that growth recreates the worst of factory farming or leaves the water better than it found it depends entirely on whether we accept her premise that the two goals pull in the same direction. And that’s also the circular economy logic that Elizabeth Blankenship Singh of Overlay Capital described during another interview earlier this year. She said the system only works long-term when doing the right thing and making money are united in a clear mission.
There’s a sharp edge under all of this, and it’s why the timing of this conversation matters. The week that we recorded, the Trump administration in Washington signed a proclamation reopening nearly half a million square miles of Pacific Ocean to commercial fishing, and that was the third such rollback in 16 months. So you have one model that treats the ocean as a commons to protect and co-invest in, and another that treats marine protection as an obstacle that must be cleared out of the way. Kendra thinks this opens a door for Canada — with its longest coastline in the world and a credible clean-tech reputation — to lead a different conversation than the one that’s starting in Washington. And perhaps so, but leadership in the blue economy will be measured the same way Milwaukee’s Kevin Shaffer measures a utility’s value to the community: not by what you announced, but by what’s still standing two or three decades from now. Canada has set itself a 2035 goal to grow its blue economy fivefold, and we’ll be watching to find out whether the capital shows up to match that amazing coastline.
Hey folks, if this conversation gave you something to think about, please share it with one person who would find it useful, because you folks are the amplifiers that spread more ideas to create less waste, and word of mouth is how this show reaches its next listener. You’ll find more than 500 episodes of Sustainability In Your Ear waiting for you in our archives on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or whatever purveyor of podcast goodness you prefer. Please subscribe and leave a review, and pass an episode along. Thanks 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, folks, 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: Kendra MacDonald Steers to the Blue Economy at Canada’s Ocean Supercluster appeared first on Earth911.
https://earth911.com/podcast/sustainability-in-your-ear-kendra-macdonald-steers-to-the-blue-economy-at-canadas-ocean-supercluster/
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change11 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
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测