Best States for Waste Management in 2026

Seven states have now enacted Extended Producer Responsibility laws for packaging. Do you think EPR will meaningfully change how Americans manage waste, or is it more of an incremental step?

EPR is a useful incremental approach in that it provides financial incentives for manufacturers to consider the design and production of their products. What is needed, particularly in the United States, is less manufacturing of single-use disposable packaging and goods such as fast fashion clothing that are meant to be discarded after little use.

One of the major problems in the perception of waste is the deliberate individualization of waste by manufacturers and their trade associations (including Keep America Beautiful), shifting the burden from manufacturers to consumers to mitigate waste burdens.

If Coca-Cola makes a billion single-use disposable PET bottles, its design and production strategy will have a far greater effect on the waste stream than any one person attempting to recycle, or even one entire city’s attempt to recycle. (See Bartow Elmore’s book Citizen Coke for a discussion of that strategy.) In that way, EPR is a start to addressing the causes of the waste problems.

But policies that lead to making less things (and especially less packaging) are needed. The conclusion of my book, Aluminum Upcycled, elaborates on this point.

EPR’s reach in the United States is slowed by the patchwork of policies across states and the unwillingness of the federal government to lead. What will be interesting to see in the years ahead are the effects of the European Union’s policies enacted since the 2020 Green Deal. The EU passed an Ecodesign for Sustainable Product Regulation in 2024 and anticipates passing a Circular Economy Act later this year. Neither have taken effect yet, but these policies should be looked at in the years ahead to see what effects regulations on producers have on reshaping the waste streams from municipalities, nations, and the continent.

DISCLAIMER: THESE VIEWS ARE THOSE OF THE RESPONDENT, NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE SWEEP STANDARD.

What are a few simple things Americans can do to cut down on the amount of waste we generate? 

Only buy what you need, resist the siren song of the “sale,” and buy things that last.

If you don’t think you are going to use a perishable item, donate it to a food rescue group before the expiration date. Compost green materials and food waste at home if you can. Allow grass clippings and mown leaves to mulch the lawn after cutting.

What’s one waste management practice you’ve seen work well at the local or state level that deserves more national attention? 

Europe is increasingly moving to mixed waste sorting, which allows more material to be recovered. With the proper business model, this is the future of sustainable materials management in the U.S.

Seven states have now enacted Extended Producer Responsibility laws for packaging. Do you think EPR will meaningfully change how Americans manage waste, or is it more of an incremental step? 

EPR is a financing mechanism — a good one — but it’s not a direct waste management technique. Its success will depend on the type of recovery process that is financed.

If it continues to finance the current consumer source separation model, it MAY increase recycling levels to those of 10 years ago. If it funds a more comprehensive mixed waste sorting and co-located recovered material remanufacturing structure, we will see a revolution.

What is your biggest concern about how much waste the U.S. generates, and how do you think that concern should be addressed? 

We spend 80–90% of our educational efforts on the 3rd “R”: Recycling. We need much more emphasis on Reduce and Reuse if we are actually going to move the needle on waste generation, particularly with food waste.

Which countries are doing the best job at managing waste, and what can the U.S. learn from them? 

The Vancouver, B.C., region and Germany are doing a great job with the current source-separation model, but at costs that are significantly higher than most Americans are willing to pay. Even then, they are only able to capture about 2/3 of the material discarded.

Moving to a lower cost mixed-waste “one-bin” system will reduce collection costs — the most expensive portion of the waste management infrastructure, representing about 2/3 of all expenditure — by 20–40%. Mixed waste sorting with co-located manufacturing will allow up to 90% of all discarded materials to be recovered and keep the materials and jobs in the regional wasteshed.

Many Americans have grown skeptical that recycling actually works. Is that skepticism warranted, or is it overblown?

Recycling is absolutely a vital economic and environmental practice. However, the skepticism of the current highly fractured consumer source separation model is fully warranted. We’ve tried the “business as usual” approach for 50 years, and it has failed to achieve even a fraction of what it could or should. We need to try something else.

What are a few simple things Americans can do to cut down on the amount of waste we generate?

At the household level, waste reduction is most effectively achieved by addressing consumption patterns, food management, and disposal behavior.

First, “buying less and buying better” by prioritizing durable, repairable, and reusable products over single-use alternatives where possible lowers overall material demand upstream in the supply chain, which is consistently shown to deliver greater environmental benefits than downstream waste management alone. Extending product lifetimes also lowers demand for virgin materials and the energy associated with manufacturing and transport.

Second, reducing food waste through meal planning, proper storage, and composting addresses one of the largest and most avoidable components of the municipal solid waste stream. Food waste reduction has enormous benefits by lowering disposal volumes, reducing methane emissions from landfills, and improving overall resource efficiency across the food system.

Finally, recycling correctly. Following local acceptance guidelines and minimizing contamination is critical to maintaining the success and viability of recycling systems. Proper sorting at the household level improves material quality, reduces processing costs, and increases the likelihood that collected materials are actually recycled rather than discarded. Collectively, these relatively simple actions, when adopted at scale, can materially reduce waste generation while strengthening the performance of existing waste management systems.

What’s one waste management practice you’ve seen work well at the local or state level that deserves more national attention?

Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) systems represent one of the most empirically supported waste management policies implemented at the local and state levels. When households pay based on the amount of waste they generate — while recycling remains free — waste generation decreases and recycling increases. It aligns behavior with real disposal costs in a very direct way.

Importantly, PAYT does not require new technologies or complex regulatory structures; rather, it leverages behavioral and economic incentives to encourage waste prevention, source separation, and material recovery.

As such, PAYT offers a scalable, cost-effective model that merits broader national consideration—particularly as municipalities seek strategies that reduce landfill dependence, stabilize waste management budgets, and reinforce upstream waste reduction goals.

Seven states have now enacted Extended Producer Responsibility laws for packaging. Do you think EPR will meaningfully change how Americans manage waste, or is it more of an incremental step?

EPR has the potential to be a meaningful shift, but only if it moves beyond a patchwork of state-by-state programs.

Currently, it’s an important step toward aligning incentives — making producers responsible for the end-of-life of packaging that drives better packaging design and more stable recycling funding. However, without national harmonization, there is a risk of adding complexity and cost without maximizing environmental and social benefits.

A more coordinated approach across states would give producers clearer signals, enable consistent labeling and infrastructure investment, and ultimately make waste management less complicated and more effective for consumers. The real impact will depend on how harmonized and well-enforced these programs are, and whether they prioritize waste reduction, not just recycling.

What is your biggest concern about how much waste the U.S. generates, and how do you think that concern should be addressed?

My primary concern is that waste in the United States is still largely addressed as an end-of-life management challenge rather than as a systems challenge rooted in how products are designed, produced, and consumed. As a result, most policy and technological solutions focus on disposal and downstream recycling, while insufficient attention is paid to upstream decisions, such as reduction, material selection, or product design, which predetermine waste generation and limit end-of-life options.

Addressing this challenge requires a more coordinated approach that connects how products are designed, how materials are regulated, how waste systems are funded, and how consumers make everyday choices.

Products and packaging should be designed from the start to last longer, be reused, or be recycled, supported by clear rules and strong investment in collection and recycling infrastructure. At the same time, consumers need better information and incentives to use less, waste less, and make more deliberate purchasing decisions.

Meaningful progress will only occur when waste is treated as a system-wide issue shaped by both industry choices and consumer behavior, not just a problem to manage after the trash is already created.

Which countries are doing the best job at managing waste, and what can the U.S. learn from them?

A few countries, such as Germany, South Korea, and Japan, are often cited as leaders in waste management, but it’s important to understand why and with what trade-offs.

They generally landfill far less waste than the U.S., due in part to physical constraints on landfill space, as well as policy tools such as landfill bans and taxes, mandatory recycling targets, and more coordinated systems that combine producer responsibility, enforceable sorting rules, and economic incentives that make waste reduction visible to households and businesses.

That said, lower landfilling does not automatically mean better outcomes. These countries rely heavily on incineration with energy recovery and, in some cases, exporting materials — approaches that reduce landfill volumes but raise legitimate concerns about emissions, residual waste, and shifting environmental burdens elsewhere. Their performance reflects strong governance and system design more than any single technology.

The key lesson for the U.S. is not simply to landfill less, but to manage waste more intentionally: establish consistent national standards, provide predictable funding for recycling and waste systems, ensure transparency about where materials actually go, and prioritize waste prevention and product design upfront.

In short, better waste management requires clear rules and incentives that influence how products are made, how systems are funded, and how consumers use and discard materials—not just different ways of dealing with trash after it’s created.

Many Americans have grown skeptical that recycling actually works. Is that skepticism warranted, or is it overblown?

Some skepticism is warranted. Recycling in the United States has often been oversold as a standalone solution while receiving inconsistent investment and support, leading to confusion, contamination, and public frustration. When recycling systems are poorly funded, fragmented across jurisdictions, or expected to manage materials that were never designed to be recyclable, performance suffers, and trust erodes.

At the same time, skepticism can be overstated. Recycling does work when materials are intentionally designed for recovery and when collection, sorting, and end-market infrastructure are widely available, adequately financed, and transparently managed. In that sense, the problem is not recycling as a concept, but the way it has been implemented, too often as an afterthought rather than as part of a coordinated materials management system.

Restoring confidence will require clearer rules, better system design, and more honest communication about what recycling can and cannot achieve.

What are a few simple things Americans can do to cut down on the amount of waste we generate?

Learn what is available to help cut down waste. From a household perspective, being an aware consumer of what you are purchasing and learning ways to manage that waste, such as recycling bottles, cans, tubs, jugs, cardboard, paper, and composting food scraps and landscape maintenance trimmings.

It starts with reducing and reusing, as we see in the EPA’s waste hierarchy. Individuals can learn more about reducing single-use plastic waste with the global Plastic Free July campaign or Zero Waste Month.

Start small with a few items to cut back on. Leave your reusable bags, coffee mug, cutlery and other items in your car, near your bike or an easy place to remember to reduce waste.

Overall, when looking to reduce the amount of waste we generate, consider the 3R’s: Reduce, reuse and recycle — and compost. Check what other recycling services are available in your community; start by checking your local municipality’s website for “recycling.”

If your community does not provide recycling services, get in touch with your state recycling organization and get involved to make that change in your community. If you cannot find your state recycling organization, contact the National Recycling Coalition, and we can assist. Contact [email protected].

For those wanting to really get involved, please join the Annual Zero Waste Forum. It’s open to the public, and you can learn waste reduction practices from across the country.

What’s one waste management practice you’ve seen work well at the local or state level that deserves more national attention?

Pay As You Throw (PAYT) programs help to reduce trash to landfill and increase recycling and composting at the household level. PAYT programs offer smaller-size trash can options that cost less and larger-size trash can options. They are typically combined with recycling and organics (curbside composting) collection.

PAYT programs let the customer select their waste service size and, in turn, can potentially save money for those who select the smaller trash can size options and use their recycling and organics cans more.

Other local and state-level actions that work include local community recycling centers and yard waste drop-off facilities (in addition to curbside collection programs) to manage the extra materials that exceed your curbside services.

Also, local ordinances requiring recycling and organics collection at all households and commercial businesses should also receive attention. These practices increase waste diversion and reduce landfill waste on a municipal scale.

Seven states have now enacted Extended Producer Responsibility laws for packaging. Do you think EPR will meaningfully change how Americans manage waste, or is it more of an incremental step?

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) can bring meaningful change by including the life cycle of product packaging for manufacturers and producers and by incentivising how products are packaged based on their recyclability.

EPR could change how communities manage waste by incentivising recycling services in communities that currently do not have collection programs. To date, EPR programs are a bit different in each state it has been implemented and are being watched closely by other states evaluating implementation.

What is your biggest concern about how much waste the U.S. generates, and how do you think that concern should be addressed?

We are privileged to have so much in our country. There are several sectors that can approach waste differently.

• From the consumer and household sector, the 3Rs come to mind: Reduce, reuse, and recycle. Household consumers should consider recyclability and reuse in their purchasing decisions and take advantage of their community’s recycling and composting programs.
• In the commercial sector, there are many opportunities available to recycle and compost food scraps from grocery stores and restaurants.
• In the construction sector, waste separation and recycling could result in a huge reduction in landfilling. Various construction materials, like cardboard, metal, wood, and other construction materials, can easily be separated from the trash and recycled.

Which countries are doing the best job at managing waste, and what can the U.S. learn from them?

The U.S. is doing ok on improving recycling, but higher results are state-by-state, in which efforts are supported at the state and local community levels.

The EPA has provided some grants to support recycling infrastructure too, but they tend to be awarded for regional or local approaches.

Globally, there are many countries with different approaches to waste management and recycling. Some of the best programs have a national approach to waste, recycling, and composting. That approach is standard across the entire country, and with that standard, everyone has access to waste diversion, and the companies that collect waste know that that is expected and required for all households.

Many Americans have grown skeptical that recycling actually works. Is that skepticism warranted, or is it overblown?

Recycling does work! Overall, recycling — when provided by reputable service providers — gets recycled. There are strong markets for materials like bottles, tubs, jugs, paper, and cardboard.

The biggest area of skepticism I hear about is with recycling plastic. The challenge is that there are too many different types of plastics, and not all of them are accepted for recycling because of their particular chemical composition.

Advanced recycling, or chemical recycling, does have some technologies that can recycle a mix of plastics into plastics again, but buyer be wary: Some “advanced recycling” labels are not recycling at all but simply incineration — adding yet more confusion and skepticism for the public.

Check with your local collection company and ask them how they manage recycling and where it goes — they would be happy to answer that.

What are a few simple things Americans can do to cut down on the amount of waste we generate?

There are a lot of small things people can do that make a big difference.

• Buying only what you need, especially with food, can reduce waste at home.
• Using reusable items instead of single-use plastics helps a lot too.
• Even choosing products with less packaging sends a message to companies that consumers care about waste reduction.

What’s one waste management practice you’ve seen work well at the local or state level that deserves more national attention?

Composting programs have worked very well in places that take them seriously. When cities require people to separate food waste from trash, it reduces what goes to landfills and lowers methane emissions. It also creates useful compost that can improve soil. Expanding composting nationwide would address one of the biggest parts of our waste stream: Organic material.

Seven states have now enacted Extended Producer Responsibility laws for packaging. Do you think EPR will meaningfully change how Americans manage waste, or is it more of an incremental step?

I think EPR is an important step. When companies are responsible for the packaging they create, they have a reason to design it better and use less material. It shifts some responsibility away from taxpayers and puts it back on producers. That said, it’s not a complete solution. It needs to work alongside better infrastructure and clearer recycling systems.

What is your biggest concern about how much waste the U.S. generates, and how do you think that concern should be addressed?

My biggest concern is how much organic waste ends up in landfills and creates methane. That has real climate impacts. We need stronger composting systems, better landfill gas capture, and policies that reduce waste at the source. The focus should be on preventing waste before it’s created, not just managing it after.

Which countries are doing the best job at managing waste, and what can the U.S. learn from them?

Countries like Denmark, Japan, and Sweden do a strong job because their systems are consistent and people know exactly what to do. They have clear sorting rules, strong producer responsibility policies, and national coordination. The U.S. could learn from that consistency. Right now, our system varies too much, which creates confusion.

Many Americans have grown skeptical that recycling actually works. Is that skepticism warranted, or is it overblown?

Some skepticism makes sense because recycling systems aren’t always clear, and contamination is a real issue. But recycling does work when it’s done correctly. Materials like aluminum and cardboard are highly recyclable and valuable. The problem isn’t recycling itself — it’s how inconsistent and underfunded the system can be. With better education and clearer standards, recycling can be much more effective.