Increase Building Deconstruction & Recycling

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Use Waste as a Resource
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
Increase Building Deconstruction & Recycling
Solution in Action
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Increase
Solution Title
Building Deconstruction & Recycling
Classification
Worthwhile
Lawmakers and Policymakers
Practitioners
Business Leaders
Nonprofit Leaders
Investors
Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
Thought Leaders
Technologists and Researchers
Communities, Households, and Individuals

Increase Decentralized Composting

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Use Waste as a Resource
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
Increase Decentralized Composting
Solution in Action
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Increase
Solution Title
Decentralized Composting
Classification
Worthwhile
Lawmakers and Policymakers
Practitioners
Business Leaders
Nonprofit Leaders
Investors
Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
Thought Leaders
Technologists and Researchers
Communities, Households, and Individuals

Increase Recycling

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Use Waste as a Resource
Image
Metal items
Coming Soon
On
Summary

Recycling is a mechanical process that repurposes waste into new products without altering their chemical structure. This solution focuses on four common waste types: metals, paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass. It reduces GHG emissions by minimizing reliance on energy-intensive primary material production, reducing demand for raw materials, and diverting paper from landfills, where decomposition can produce methane.

Our focus is on postconsumer municipal solid waste (MSW) collected through residential and commercial recycling programs. Textiles, rubber, wood, and e-waste are also important waste streams but are excluded in our scope due to limited availability of global data. Organic waste is addressed separately in other Drawdown Explorer solutions, including Increase Centralized Composting, Increase Decentralized Composting, and Produce Biochar.

Income & work,Health,Equality
Land resources,Water resources,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Increase Recycling is a Highly Recommended climate solution, with paper, cardboard, and metals delivering the most greenhouse gas savings.
Overview

Mechanical recycling mitigates GHG emissions by reducing the need for more energy-intensive and pollutant-emitting raw material extraction and processing (Stegmann et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2018; Zier et al., 2021) and reducing production of methane from decomposing paper in landfills (Demetrious & Crossin, 2019; Lee et al., 2017). 

Recyclable materials constitute a significant portion of global MSW, with average compositions of approximately 14% paper and cardboard, 10% plastics, 4% glass, and 3.5% metals (Kaza et al., 2018; United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2024). Recycling reprocesses postconsumer materials into secondary raw materials or products without altering their chemical composition..

Figure 1 illustrates a typical single-stream recycling system at a materials recovery facility (MRF), where mechanical and optical sorting technologies separate materials by type (Gundupalli et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2022). The sorted materials then undergo cleaning, crushing or shredding, and remelting or repulping in preparation for use in manufacturing new products.

Metals recycling provides ferrous and nonferrous inputs for the metal production sector, which globally emits an estimated 3.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for 2–3 Gt of primary metal output (Azadi et al., 2020). Virgin (primary) metals are extracted from nonrenewable ores; as higher-grade ores are consumed, mining shifts to lower-grade ore deposits, which require more energy-intensive extraction and processing (Norgate & Jahanshahi, 2011). Using recycled metals in place of virgin metals reduces energy requirements for smelting and refining (Daehn et al., 2022) and water use during production. 

Virgin ore processing primarily emits CO₂, with smaller contributions of methane and nitrous oxide. Some primary metal production, particularly aluminum production, emits fluorinated gases (F-gases) (Raabe et al., 2019; Raabe et al., 2022). Recycling emits significantly less CO₂ than primary production.

Paper and cardboard recycling involves hydropulping, deinking, and reforming recovered fibers into new paper products. Conventional paper is produced from virgin tree pulp and involves harvesting, debarking, chipping, and mechanical or chemical pulping. Pulp-making alone accounts for 62% of energy use and 45% of emissions in paper production (Sun et al., 2018), contributing significantly to the 1.3–2% of global GHG emissions from virgin pulp and paper manufacturing (Furszyfer Del Rio et al., 2022). Recycling uses less energy and produces fewer GHG emissions. Recycling 1 t of paper saves ~17 mature trees (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2016a), lessening deforestation from harvesting and reducing the energy and water required for pulping. Recovering used paper from landfills further avoids decomposition-related methane release.

Plastics recycling involves melting plastic waste into resin, forming it into granules or pellets, and using it to manufacture new products. The primary production of plastics represents 4.5–5.3% of total global GHG emissions (Cabernard et al., 2022; Karali et al., 2024), with ~75% occurring in the early life-cycle stages. More than 99% of plastics are derived from fossil fuels. Recycling plastics reduces CO₂ and methane emissions by replacing petroleum-based feedstock with recycled plastic. 

Glass recycling crushes glass waste into cullet, which can then be melted and reintroduced as a raw material in glass manufacturing. Virgin glass production requires melting raw materials such as silica sand, soda ash, and limestone at ~1,500 °C (Baek et al., 2025; Westbroek et al., 2021) and releases CO₂ from decomposition of carbonates. Cullet use releases no CO₂ from carbonate decomposition and lowers the melting temperature, reducing furnace fuel combustion. 

This assessment evaluates metal, paper and cardboard, plastic, and glass recycling separately to better capture the distinct emissions profiles and cost requirements of each material, providing a clearer understanding of the climate benefits and trade-offs. 

Allwood, J. M., Music, O., Loukaides, E. G., & Bambach, M. (2025). Cut the scrap: Making more use of less metal. CIRP Annals, 74(2), 895–919. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2025.04.013 

Aparcana, S., & Salhofer, S. (2013). Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(5), 1106–1115. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0546-8

Awino, F. B., & Apitz, S. E. (2024). Solid waste management in the context of the waste hierarchy and circular economy frameworks: An international critical review. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 20(1), 9–35. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4774

Ayodele, T. R., Alao, M. A., & Ogunjuyigbe, A. S. O. (2018). Recyclable resources from municipal solid waste: Assessment of its energy, economic and environmental benefits in Nigeria. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 134, 165–173. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.017

Azadi, M., Northey, S. A., Ali, S. H., & Edraki, M. (2020). Transparency on greenhouse gas emissions from mining to enable climate change mitigation. Nature Geoscience, 13(2), 100–104. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0531-3

Baek, C. R., Kim, H. D., & Jang, Y.-C. (2025). Exploring glass recycling: Trends, technologies, and future trajectories. Environmental Engineering Research, 30(3), Article 240241. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2024.241

Bajpai, P. (2014). Introduction. In Recycling and deinking of recovered paper (pp. 1–18). Elsevier. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-416998-2.00001-5

Barford, A., & Beales, A. (2025, April 3). Decent work opportunities and challenges in recycling [ILO Technical brief]. International Labour Organization. Link to source: https://www.ilo.org/publications/decent-work-opportunities-and-challenges-recycling 

Bauer, F., Nielsen, T. D., Nilsson, L. J., Palm, E., Ericsson, K., Fråne, A., & Cullen, J. (2022). Plastics and climate change—Breaking carbon lock-ins through three mitigation pathways. One Earth, 5(4), 361–376. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.03.007

Berardocco, C., Delawter, H., Putzu, T., Wolfe, L. C., & Zhang, H. (2022). Life cycle sustainability assessment of single stream and multi-stream waste recycling systems. Sustainability, 14(24), Article 16747. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416747 

BioCubes. (n.d.). BioCubes: An inventory of biomass and technomass [Interactive infographic]. Retrieved August 8, 2025, from Link to source: https://biocubes.net/ 

Bogner, J., Abdelrafie Ahmed, M., Díaz, C., Faaij, A., Gao, Q., Hashimoto, S., Marecková, K., Pipatti, R., & Zhang, T. (2007). Waste management. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Working group III contribution to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 585–618). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg3-chapter10-1.pdf

Burinskienė, A., Lingaitienė, O., & Byčenkaitė, G. (2025). Dynamics of trade of recycled raw materials and the connection with the circular economy. Discover Sustainability, 6, Article 680. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01502-4

Cabernard, L., Pfister, S., Oberschelp, C., & Hellweg, S. (2022). Growing environmental footprint of plastics driven by coal combustion. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 139–148. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00807-2

Campbell, R., Bond, D. E., Connellan, C., Mohen, P., & Foo, J. (2022, May 5). From trash to treasure: Green metals from recycling [Insight]. White & Case. Link to source: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/trash-treasure-green-metals-recycling 

Chamas, A., Moon, H., Zheng, J., Qiu, Y., Tabassum, T., Jang, J. H., Abu-Omar, M., Scott, S. L., & Suh, S. (2020). Degradation rates of plastics in the environment. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 8(9), 3494–3511. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b06635

Charpentier Poncelet, A., Helbig, C., Loubet, P., Beylot, A., Muller, S., Villeneuve, J., Laratte, B., Thorenz, A., Tuma, A., & Sonnemann, G. (2022). Losses and lifetimes of metals in the economy. Nature Sustainability, 5(8), 717–726. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00895-8

Chen, D. M.-C., Bodirsky, B. L., Krueger, T., Mishra, A., & Popp, A. (2020). The world’s growing municipal solid waste: Trends and impacts. Environmental Research Letters, 15(7), Article 074021. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8659

Ciacci, L., Harper, E. M., Nassar, N. T., Reck, B. K., & Graedel, T. E. (2016). Metal dissipation and inefficient recycling intensify climate forcing. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(20), 11394–11402. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02714 

Close the Glass Loop. (2025, July 1). Overview of glass packaging collection systems in Europe. Link to source: https://closetheglassloop.eu/overview-of-glass-packaging-collection-systems-in-europe/

Colangelo, S. (2024). Reducing the environmental footprint of glass manufacturing. International Journal of Applied Glass Science, 15(4), 350–366. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijag.16674

Cudjoe, D., Zhu, B., Nketiah, E., Wang, H., Chen, W., & Qianqian, Y. (2021). The potential energy and environmental benefits of global recyclable resources. Science of The Total Environment, 798, Article 149258. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149258

Daehn, K., Basuhi, R., Gregory, J., Berlinger, M., Somjit, V., & Olivetti, E. A. (2022). Innovations to decarbonize materials industries. Nature Reviews Materials, 7(4), 275–294. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00376-y

Damgaard, A., Larsen, A. W., & Christensen, T. H. (2009). Recycling of metals: Accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management & Research, 27(8), 773–780. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09346838

Das, S. K., Green, J. A. S., & Kaufman, J. G. (2010, February). Aluminum recycling: Economic and environmental benefits. Light Metal Age, 22–24. Link to source: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fecb6479b54c51485875e10/t/60ac1db2e0db640cb17e0eef/1621892530735/Aluminum+Recycling_+Economic+and+Environmental+...+-+Phinix%2C+LLC.pdf 

DebRoy, T., & Elmer, J. W. (2024). Metals beyond tomorrow: Balancing supply, demand, sustainability, substitution, and innovations. Materials Today, 80, 737–757. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2024.09.007

Deer, R. (2021, May 5). Why is glass recycling going away? Roadrunner Waste & Recycling. Link to source: https://www.roadrunnerwm.com/blog/why-is-glass-recycling-going-away

Delbari, S. A., & Hof, L. A. (2024). Glass waste circular economy—Advancing to high-value glass sheets recovery using industry 4.0 and 5.0 technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 462, Article 142629. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142629

Demetrious, A., & Crossin, E. (2019). Life cycle assessment of paper and plastic packaging waste in landfill, incineration, and gasification-pyrolysis. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 21(4), 850–860. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00842-4

de Sa, P., & Korinek, J. (2021, March 1). Resource efficiency, the circular economy, sustainable materials management and trade in metals and minerals (OECD Trade Policy Paper No. 245). OECD Publishing. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1787/69abc1bd-en

Diaz, R., & Warith, M. (2006). Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid wastes: Development of the WASTED model. Waste Management, 26(8), 886–901. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.05.007

Dokl, M., Copot, A., Krajnc, D., Fan, Y. V., Vujanović, A., Aviso, K. B., Tan, R. R., Kravanja, Z., & Čuček, L. (2024). Global projections of plastic use, end-of-life fate and potential changes in consumption, reduction, recycling and replacement with bioplastics to 2050. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 51, 498–518. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.09.025

Dong, X., Song, J., & Duan, H. (2022). Prioritizing countries for implementing waste recycling under socioeconomic support. Journal of Environmental Management, 322, Article 116158. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116158

Dussaux, D., & Glachant, M. (2019). How much does recycling reduce imports? Evidence from metallic raw materials. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(2), 128–146. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2018.1520650

Egger, P. H., & Keuschnigg, C. (2024). Resource dependence, recycling, and trade. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 128, Article 103064. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2024.103064

European Paper Recycling Council. (2024). European declaration on paper recycling 2021-2030: Monitoring report 2023. Confederation of European Paper Industries. Link to source: https://www.cepi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/EPRC-Monitoring-Report_2019.pdf 

Ferdous, W., Manalo, A., Siddique, R., Mendis, P., Zhuge, Y., Wong, H. S., Lokuge, W., Aravinthan, T., & Schubel, P. (2021). Recycling of landfill wastes (tyres, plastics and glass) in construction – A review on global waste generation, performance, application and future opportunities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 173, Article 105745. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105745

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). FAO‑FAOSTAT: Forestry production and trade [Data set]. Retrieved April 25, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO/visualize 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Global demand for wood products. In State of the world’s forests 2009 (pp. 62–73). Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/i0350e/i0350e02a.pdf 

Furszyfer Del Rio, D. D., Sovacool, B. K., Griffiths, S., Bazilian, M., Kim, J., Foley, A. M., & Rooney, D. (2022). Decarbonizing the pulp and paper industry: A critical and systematic review of sociotechnical developments and policy options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 167, Article 112706. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112706

Gailani, A., Cooper, S., Allen, S., Pimm, A., Taylor, P., & Gross, R. (2024). Assessing the potential of decarbonization options for industrial sectors. Joule, 8(3), 576–603. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2024.01.007

Geyer, R., Kuczenski, B., Zink, T., & Henderson, A. (2016). Common misconceptions about recycling. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(5), 1010–1017. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12355

Glass Packaging Institute. (n.d.). Facts about glass recycling. Retrieved March 24, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.gpi.org/facts-about-glass-recycling 

Gorman, M. R., Dzombak, D. A., & Frischmann, C. (2022). Potential global GHG emissions reduction from increased adoption of metals recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 184, Article 106424. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106424

Gundupalli, S. P., Hait, S., & Thakur, A. (2017). A review on automated sorting of source-separated municipal solid waste for recycling. Waste Management, 60, 56–74. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.015

Guo, J., Ali, S., & Xu, M. (2023). Recycling is not enough to make the world a greener place: Prospects for the circular economy. Green Carbon, 1(2), 150–153. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.greenca.2023.10.006 

Halog, A., & Anieke, S. (2021). A review of circular economy studies in developed countries and its potential adoption in developing countries. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1), 209–230. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00017-0

Hendrickson, T. P., Bose, B., Vora, N., Huntington, T., Nordahl, S. L., Helms, B. A., & Scown, C. D. (2024). Paths to circularity for plastics in the United States. One Earth, 7(3), 520–531. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.02.005

Houssini, K., Li, J., & Tan, Q. (2025). Complexities of the global plastics supply chain revealed in a trade-linked material flow analysis. Communications Earth & Environment, 6(1), Article 257. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02169-5

International Paper. (n.d.). Paper’s life cycle: The recycling process [Infographic]. Retrieved June 10, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.internationalpaper.com/resources/infographic/papers-life-cycle-recycling-process

Karali, N., Khanna, N., & Shah, N. (2024). Climate impact of primary plastic production. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Link to source: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6cc1g99q

Kaza, S., Yao, L. C., Bhada-Tata, P., & Van Woerden, F. (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Urban Development Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. Link to source: https://hdl.handle.net/10986/30317 

Klotz, M., Haupt, M., & Hellweg, S. (2022). Limited utilization options for secondary plastics may restrict their circularity. Waste Management, 141, 251–270. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.01.002

Klotz, M., Haupt, M., & Hellweg, S. (2023). Potentials and limits of mechanical plastic recycling. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 27(4), 1043–1059. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13393

Lee, U., Han, J., & Wang, M. (2017). Evaluation of landfill gas emissions from municipal solid waste landfills for the life-cycle analysis of waste-to-energy pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 335–342. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.016

Li, H., Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., Allen, R. D., Bai, X., Benson, C. H., Beckham, G. T., Bradshaw, S. L., Brown, J. L., Brown, R. C., Cecon, V. S., Curley, J. B., Curtzwiler, G. W., Dong, S., Gaddameedi, S., García, J. E., Hermans, I., Kim, M. S., Ma, J., Mark, L. O., … Huber, G. W. (2022). Expanding plastics recycling technologies: Chemical aspects, technology status and challenges. Green Chemistry, 24(23), 8899–9002. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2GC02588D

Liu, Y., Park, S., Yi, H., & Feiock, R. (2020). Evaluating the employment impact of recycling performance in Florida. Waste Management, 101, 283–290. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.10.025

Maximize Market Research Private Limited. (2025). Glass recycling market – Global market forecast and growth opportunities: Forecast 2025–2032 [Report summary]. Link to source: https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/market-report/glass-recycling-market/22548/ 

McGinty, D. B. (2021, February 3). 5 opportunities of a circular economy. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/insights/5-opportunities-circular-economy 

Miserocchi, L., Franco, A., & Testi, D. (2024). Status and prospects of energy efficiency in the glass industry: Measuring, assessing and improving energy performance. Energy Conversion and Management: X, 24, Article 100720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2024.100720

Monclús, L., Arp, H. P. H., Groh, K. J., Faltynkova, A., Løseth, M. E., Muncke, J., Wang, Z., Wolf, R., Zimmermann, L., & Wagner, M. (2025). Mapping the chemical complexity of plastics. Nature, 643(8071), 349–355. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09184-8

Nayanathara Thathsarani Pilapitiya, P. G. C., & Ratnayake, A. S. (2024). The world of plastic waste: A review. Cleaner Materials, 11, Article 100220. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2024.100220

Ng, K. S., & Phan, A. N. (2021). Evaluating the techno-economic potential of an integrated material recovery and waste-to-hydrogen system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 167, Article 105392. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105392

NIH Environmental Management System. (n.d.). Benefits of recycling. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved August 26, 2025, from Link to source: https://nems.nih.gov/environmental-programs/pages/benefits-of-recycling.aspx 

Nordahl, S. L., & Scown, C. D. (2024). Recommendations for life‑cycle assessment of recyclable plastics in a circular economy. Chemical Science, 15, 9397–9407. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SC01340A

Norgate, T., & Jahanshahi, S. (2011). Reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of primary metal production: Where should the focus be? Minerals Engineering, 24(14), 1563–1570. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2011.08.007

Obradovic, D., & Mishra, L. N. (2020). Mechanical properties of recycled paper and cardboard. The Journal of Engineering and Exact Sciences, 6(3), 0429–0434. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.18540/jcecvl6iss3pp0429-0434

Olafasakin, O., Ma, J., Bradshaw, S. L., Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., Benson, C., Huber, G. W., Zavala, V. M., & Mba-Wright, M. (2023). Techno-economic and life cycle assessment of standalone single-stream material recovery facilities in the United States. Waste Management, 166, 368–376. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.05.011

Oo, P. Z., Prapaspongsa, T., Strezov, V., Huda, N., Oshita, K., Takaoka, M., Ren, J., Halog, A., & Gheewala, S. H. (2024). The role of global waste management and circular economy towards carbon neutrality. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 52, 498–510. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.021

Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. (2022a). Global plastics outlook database [Data set]. Link to source: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?tm=recycled%20plastics&pg=0&hc[Measure]=&hc[Plastic%20end-of-life%20fate]=&snb=13&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_PW%40DF_PW&df[ag]=OECD.ENV.EEI&df[vs]=1.0&dq=..A.REC.&pd=1990%2C2019&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false&vw=tb 

Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. (2022b). Global plastics outlook: Economic drivers, environmental impacts and policy options [Report]. OECD Publishing. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en 

Pivnenko, K., Laner, D., & Astrup, T. F. (2016). Material cycles and chemicals: Dynamic material flow analysis of contaminants in paper recycling. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(22), 12302–12311. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01791

Plastics Europe. (2022). Plastics – the facts 2022 [Report]. Link to source: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2022/ 

Plastics Europe. (2023). Plastics – the fast facts 2023 [Infographic]. Link to source: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-fast-facts-2023/ 

Plastics Europe. (2024a). Plastics – the fast facts 2024 [Infographic]. Link to source: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-fast-facts-2024/ 

Plastics Europe. (2024b). The circular economy for plastics – A European analysis 2024 [Report]. Link to source: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/the-circular-economy-for-plastics-a-european-analysis-2024/ 

Raabe, D., Tasan, C. C., & Olivetti, E. A. (2019). Strategies for improving the sustainability of structural metals. Nature, 575(7781), 64–74. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1702-5

Raabe, D., Ponge, D., Uggowitzer, P. J., Roscher, M., Paolantonio, M., Liu, C., Antrekowitsch, H., Kozeschnik, E., Seidmann, D., Gault, B., De Geuser, F., Deschamps, A., Hutchinson, C., Liu, C., Li, Z., Prangnell, P., Robson, J., Shanthraj, P., Vakili, S., … Pogatscher, S. (2022). Making sustainable aluminum by recycling scrap: The science of “dirty” alloys. Progress in Materials Science, 128, Article 100947. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2022.100947

Rajmohan, K. V. S., Ramya, C., Raja Viswanathan, M., & Varjani, S. (2019). Plastic pollutants: Effective waste management for pollution control and abatement. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 12, 72–84. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2019.08.006

Rissman, J., Bataille, C., Masanet, E., Aden, N., Morrow, W. R., Zhou, N., Elliott, N., Dell, R., Heeren, N., Huckestein, B., Cresko, J., Miller, S. A., Roy, J., Fennell, P., Cremmins, B., Koch Blank, T., Hone, D., Williams, E. D., de la Rue du Can, S., … Helseth, J. (2020). Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry: Review and assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070. Applied Energy, 266, Article 114848. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114848

Singh, N., & Walker, T. R. (2024). Plastic recycling: A panacea or environmental pollution problem. npj Materials Sustainability, 2, Article 17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44296-024-00024-w

Sobhani, Z., & Palanisami, T. (2025). Emerging contaminants in organic recycling: Role of paper and pulp packaging. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 215, Article 108070. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.108070

Stegmann, P., Daioglou, V., Londo, M., van Vuuren, D. P., & Junginger, M. (2022). Plastic futures and their CO2 emissions. Nature, 612(7939), 272–276. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05422-5

SUEZ in the UK. (n.d.). Material recycling facility. SUEZ. Retrieved March 19, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.suez.co.uk/en-gb/our-offering/communities-and-individuals/education-tools-and-resources/what-happens-to-waste/recycling/materials-recycling-facility 

Sun, M., Wang, Y., Shi, L., & Klemeš, J. J. (2018). Uncovering energy use, carbon emissions and environmental burdens of pulp and paper industry: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 92, 823–833. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.036 

Uekert, T., Singh, A., DesVeaux, J. S., Ghosh, T., Bhatt, A., Yadav, G., Afzal, S., Walzberg, J., Knauer, K. M., Nicholson, S. R., Beckham, G. T., & Carpenter, A. C. (2023). Technical, economic, and environmental comparison of closed-loop recycling technologies for common plastics. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 11(3), 965–978. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c05497

United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Global waste management outlook 2024: Beyond an age of waste – Turning rubbish into a resource [Report]. United Nations Environment Programme & International Solid Waste Association. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/resources/global-waste-management-outlook-2024

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2023, April 4). Unwaste trendspotting alert no. 4: Paper and cardboard waste [Bulletin]. Link to source: https://www.unodc.org/res/environment-climate/asia-pacific/unwaste_html/Unwaste_Trendspotting_Alert_No.4.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey. (2021) Mineral commodity summaries 2021. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2021 

U.S. Geological Survey. (2022). Iron and steel scrap. In Mineral commodity summaries 2022 (pp. 90–91). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016a). Environmental factoids [Archived]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WasteWise Program. Retrieved March 24, 2025, from Link to source: https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/smm/wastewise/web/html/factoid.html 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016b). Greenhouse gas inventory guidance: Direct emissions from stationary combustion sources. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/stationaryemissions_3_2016.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Recycling basics and benefits. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basics-and-benefits 

Valenzuela-Levi, N., Araya-Córdova, P. J., Dávila, S., & Vásquez, Ó. C. (2021). Promoting adoption of recycling by municipalities in developing countries: Increasing or redistributing existing resources? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, Article 105173. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105173

van Ewijk, S., Stegemann, J. A., & Ekins, P. (2021). Limited climate benefits of global recycling of pulp and paper. Nature Sustainability, 4(2), 180–187. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00624-z

Watari, T., Fishman, T., Wieland, H., & Wiedenhofer, D. (2025). Global stagnation and regional variations in steel recycling. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 220, Article 108363. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108363

Westbroek, C. D., Bitting, J., Craglia, M., Azevedo, J. M. C., & Cullen, J. M. (2021). Global material flow analysis of glass: From raw materials to end of life. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(2), 333–343. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13112

World Bank. (2018). What a waste global database: Country-level dataset (Last updated: 2024, June 4) [Data set]. Link to source: https://datacatalogfiles.worldbank.org/ddh-published/0039597/3/DR0049199/country_level_data.csv 

World Wildlife Fund. (2023). Who pays for plastic pollution? [Report]. Link to source: https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/671/6lohrny0o2_ENGLISH_WWF_ENABLING_GLOBAL_EQUITY_WEBV.pdf 

Yang, H., Ma, M., Thompson, J. R., & Flower, R. J. (2018). Waste management, informal recycling, environmental pollution and public health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 72(3), 237–243. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-208597

Yokoi, R., Watari, T., & Motoshita, M. (2022). Future greenhouse gas emissions from metal production: Gaps and opportunities towards climate goals. Energy & Environmental Science, 15(1), 146–157. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EE02165F

Yuan, X., Wang, J., Song, Q., & Xu, Z. (2024). Integrated assessment of economic benefits and environmental impact in waste glass closed‑loop recycling for promoting glass circularity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 444, Article 141155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141155

Zhang, X., Liu, C., Chen, Y., Zheng, G., & Chen, Y. (2022). Source separation, transportation, pretreatment, and valorization of municipal solid waste: A critical review. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(10), 11471–11513. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01932-w

Zheng, J., & Suh, S. (2019). Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of plastics. Nature Climate Change, 9(5), 374–378. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0459-z

Zhou, X., Zhang, H., Zheng, S., & Xing, W. (2022). The global recycling trade for twelve critical metals: Based on trade pattern and trade quality analysis. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 33, 831–845. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.011

Zhu, X., Konik, J., & Kaufman, H. (2025). The knowns and unknowns in our understanding of how plastics impact climate change: A systematic review. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 13, Article 1563488. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1563488 

Zier, M., Stenzel, P., Kotzur, L., & Stolten, D. (2021). A review of decarbonization options for the glass industry. Energy Conversion and Management: X, 10, Article 100083. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2021.100083

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Nina-Francesca Farac, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Emily Cassidy

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated recycling effectiveness as the net emissions savings from avoided primary manufacturing and landfilling, minus the emissions associated with recycling, as outlined in Equation 1 (see Caveats for more information on technical substitutability ratios [TSRs]). We included landfilling emissions only for materials that generate meaningful end-of-life GHG impacts. Paper and cardboard emit both biogenic CO₂ and methane emissions from anaerobic decomposition (Lee et al., 2017), and plastics contribute minor emissions from landfill handling due to their inert nature (Chamas et al., 2020; Zheng & Suh, 2019). Metals and glass are also considered inert and do not biodegrade. Their landfilling emissions are primarily from collection and transport, which fall outside the scope of this analysis.

left_text_column_width

Equation 1.

$$Effectiveness = ([Primary\ manufacturing_{emissions} \times TSR]\ + \ Landfilling_{emissions})\ - \ Recycling_{emissions}$$

Metals recycling has a high carbon abatement potential of 1,480,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt metal waste recycled (1,650,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt metal waste recycled, 20-year basis) (Table 1a). In our analysis, metal recycling emissions were about one-third of those from primary metal production. 

Paper and cardboard recycling has a similar carbon abatement potential of 1,000,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt paper and cardboard waste recycled (1,000,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt paper and cardboard waste recycled, 20-year basis) (Table 1b). Although recycling lowers fossil fuel use in pulping, our estimates showed only slightly lower emissions than primary manufacturing. In contrast, preventing CO₂ and methane release from decomposing paper in landfills have comparable emissions to primary production, making landfill diversion the larger climate impact.

Plastics recycling is the most effective of the four materials at reducing emissions, eliminating approximately 2,000,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt plastic waste recycled (3,000,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt plastic waste recycled, 20-year basis) (Table 1c). This is largely due to the high emissions intensity of virgin plastic production, which reached global production volumes of 374 Mt in 2023 (Plastics Europe, 2024a) and relies heavily on fossil fuels both as feedstocks and as energy sources for heat generation. While pellet-to-product conversion contributes to overall emissions, plastic pellet manufacturing accounts for most GHGs emitted in the plastic supply chain (Zhu et al., 2025). For studies without clearly defined boundaries, we assumed the reported emissions primarily reflected pellet production.

Glass recycling is the least effective at reducing emissions but still abates a meaningful amount at 79,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt glass waste recycled (84,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt glass waste recycled) (Table 1d). Emissions savings come from reduced fuel use in high-temperature melting furnaces and avoiding CO₂ release during the processing of raw materials (Baek et al., 2025).

While nitrous oxide is also released from fuel combustion during recycling of metals, paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass, it represents a small share of total CO₂‑eq emissions, so we considered it negligible (U.S. EPA, 2016b; Diaz & Warith, 2006).

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /Mt metal waste recycled, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 1,410,000
Mean 1,480,000
Median (50th percentile) 1,480,000
75th percentile 1,550,000

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /Mt paper and cardboard waste recycled, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 600,000
Mean 1,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 1,000,000
75th percentile 2,000,000

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /Mt plastic waste recycled, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 2,000,000
Mean 2,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 2,000,000
75th percentile 2,000,000

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /Mt glass waste recycled, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 58,000
Mean 79,000
Median (50th percentile) 79,000
75th percentile 100,000
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Emissions mitigation from recycling metals and paper and cardboard results in net cost savings, while plastics break even and glass remains cost-intensive. Initial capital costs for all four material recycling systems are higher than for landfilling, but operating costs are lower. Net landfilling costs are overall profitable for all four materials (see Increase Centralized Composting and Improve Landfill Management for more information on landfilling costs). While operational costs for recycling can vary based on the design and efficiency of MRFs, overall savings can result from reduced landfill tipping fees, lower disposal volume, and revenue from selling recovered materials. These economic factors are determined by energy savings, market demand, and materials-specific recovery efficiencies.

Metals recycling generates net net savings of US$200 million/Mt metal waste recycled, or US$100/t CO₂‑eq mitigated (Table 2a). In addition to significantly reduced energy use and raw material costs (DebRoy & Elmer, 2024), metals recycling delivers high-quality materials comparable to newly mined metals (Damgaard et al., 2009). This drives strong market demand, with revenues often covering – and in some cases exceeding – the costs of separation and/or reprocessing alone.

Paper and cardboard recycling has the highest net savings of the four recycling streams compared to landfilling, with US$400 million/Mt paper and cardboard waste recycled. Combining effectiveness with the net costs presented here, we estimated a savings per unit climate impact of US$400/t CO₂‑eq (Table 2b). This reflects the energy and resource efficiency of paper recycling, along with revenue generation from recovered paper sales (Bajpai, 2014).

Plastics recycling costs US$8 million/Mt less than landfilling, yielding a cost saving of US$4/t CO₂‑eq (Table 2c). However, plastics recycling shows the most variability, ranging from modest savings to higher costs than primary material production. Inexpensive virgin plastics, high contamination risk, complex sorting and reprocessing, and weak or volatile market value (Li et al., 2022) make recycling plastics economically challenging without supportive policies or subsidies.

Glass recycling has a net cost of US$700 million/Mt glass waste recycled and the highest cost per unit of climate impact (US$9,000/t CO₂‑eq , Table 2d). This is due to high processing costs, low market value for cullet (e.g., selling for a fraction of the recycling cost; Figure A1), and contamination that limits resale or reuse (Bogner et al., 2007; Ng & Phan, 2021; Olafasakin et al., 2023). Although glass recycling is costly, the societal and environmental benefits are far higher than those of landfilling (Colangelo, 2024).

Financial data were geographically limited. We based cost estimates on global reports with selected studies from India, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and the United States for landfilling and Canada, the European Union, Germany, Philippines, and the United States for recycling. Transportation and collection of recyclables can add notable costs to waste management, but we did not include them in this analysis. We calculated amortized net cost for landfilling and recycling by subtracting revenues from operating costs and amortized initial costs over a 30-year facility lifetime. Furthermore, revenues reflect market-based prices, which are subject to change based primarily on demand for recyclables.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median -100

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median -400

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median -4

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median 9,000
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

We did not consider a learning curve for the Increase Recycling solution due to a lack of global data quantifying cost reductions specific to mechanical recycling technologies. Recycling systems use well-established processes that are already mature and widely deployed.

Recycling costs depend largely on regional factors, including material availability, market prices, infrastructure, and transportation distances. Consumer sorting habits and contamination rates also influence recycling performance and often outweigh potential learning-based cost decreases from technological improvements. Additionally, many mechanical recycling facilities operate near or at peak process efficiency, leaving little room for the technological upgrades that typically lower costs over time.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Increase Recycling is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Manufacturing emissions reductions due to recycling of metals, paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass are generally both permanent and additional, depending on local regulations and recycling practices. While recycling reduces the need for virgin production of raw materials and associated emissions, several caveats affect the extent of its climate benefits. 

Permanence

There is a low risk that the avoided emissions from increased recycling will be reversed in the next 100 years. Using recycled materials in place of newly extracted (virgin) resources avoids emissions from extraction, refining, and manufacturing. These reductions are considered permanent because the avoided activities occur to a lesser extent and fewer associated emissions are released. Recycling uses less energy and therefore reduces burning of fossil fuels and emits less GHG. Avoided methane emissions from landfilled paper waste also has high permanence.

Additionality

Emissions reductions from increasing recycling are additional when improvements go beyond what would happen anyway under existing law or infrastructure. Increases in recycled rates, expansion to underdeveloped areas, and improvements in recycled material quality can result in additional climate benefits (Awino & Apitz, 2024; Halog & Anieke, 2021; Oo et al., 2024; Valenzuela-Levi et al., 2021). Efforts to enable or expand closed-loop recycling are also considered additional, especially for glass bottle recycling and in regions without this infrastructure.

Other Caveats

Material-specific limitations also apply. Material losses during product use and end-of-life processing limit metals recycling. Many metals are locked in products with long lifespans, difficult-to-separate designs, or technically unrecoverable applications, reducing availability for recycling (Ciacci et al., 2016; Guo et al., 2023). While improved recycling can decrease losses (Charpentier Poncelet et al., 2022), stagnant recycled metal inputs do not match growing metal demand (Watari et al., 2025).

Paper and cardboard can be recycled only five to seven times before fibers degrade beyond usability (Bajpai, 2014; Obradovic and Mishra, 2020), limiting long-term recyclability. Plastic recycling faces similar limits because many plastics degrade after a few cycles and mechanical processes are highly sensitive to contamination (Klotz et al., 2022; Klotz et al., 2023). For glass, downcycling is common due to quality control issues and variable regional demand for high-purity cullet. Van Ewijk et al. (2021) also emphasized that the benefits of paper recycling depend substantially on the carbon intensity of the energy used, highlighting the need to power recycling with low-carbon electricity.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Worldwide, we estimated that metals are recycled at a rate of 740 Mt/yr (Table 3a). We based this on a study by Gorman et al. (2022), which reported that approximately 1,277 Mt of metals were produced globally in 2018 using recycled feedstocks. This value included all types of scrap metals: postconsumer, pre-consumer, and home scrap reused within factories. To isolate postconsumer recycling, we applied a 58% share based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 2022), which gives a typical breakdown of scrap types across major metals. While this ratio is U.S.-based, we used it as a global proxy due to limited international data. Our current adoption estimate accounts for processing losses, contamination, and quality limits that prevent a full 1:1 replacement of virgin metals (Gorman et al., 2022).

We estimated current paper and cardboard recycling at 160 Mt/yr, the median among two global datasets and one report (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2023; Table 3b). The most recent global data were compiled in 2023 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ([FAO], n.d.), and an earlier dataset from a World Bank analysis from 174 countries in 2018 (World Bank, 2018). To estimate postconsumer recycled paper, we assumed a 75% share of total paper waste based on industry averages (European Paper Recycling Council, 2024)..

Plastics are currently recycled at a rate of 35.9 Mt/yr, based on one global dataset (173 countries; World Bank, 2018), two reports, and one study (Table 3c). Plastics Europe (2024a, 2024b) provides data on global mechanically recycled (postconsumer) plastics production, derived from estimations and statistical projections. We assumed the share of postconsumer plastics from Houssini et al. (2025) and World Bank (2018) to be 100% because the vast majority of plastic waste appears to originate from postconsumer sources.

Glass has the lowest current recycling rate at 27 Mt/yr, calculated as the midpoint among one global dataset (168 countries; World Bank, 2018), two reviews (Delbari & Hof, 2024; Ferdous et al., 2021), and one report (Maximize Market Research Private Limited, 2025) (Table 3d). For values based on total waste generation, we used a global production-based recycling rate, which may underestimate actual glass waste recycling due to limited data on postconsumer glass waste.

Since the World Bank (2018) provided data on waste generation in metric tons per year, we applied global recycling rates of 59.3%, 9%, and 21% to the total waste generated for paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass, respectively (see Appendix for details).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current adoption level.

Unit: Mt/yr, 2018

Estimate (Gorman et al., 2022) 740

Unit: Mt/yr, 2023

25th percentile 150
Mean 160
Median (50th percentile) 160
75th percentile 180

Unit: Mt/yr, 2023

25th percentile 31.2
Mean 32.0
Median (50th percentile) 35.9
75th percentile 36.6

Unit: Mt/yr, 2020

25th percentile 24
Mean 24
Median (50th percentile) 27
75th percentile 27
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Postconsumer metals recycling has grown steadily in recent years (Table 4a, Figure 2). We used global data on secondary metals production from Gorman et al. (2022), a 39.1% share of recycled metals from the total addressable market (Gorman et al., 2022), and a 58% postconsumer scrap factor (U.S. Geological Survey, 2022) to estimate the metals recycling adoption trend from 2014 to 2018. Annual adoption varies across this period. Taking the median annual change, we estimate a global adoption trend of 12 Mt/yr/yr, or 1.6% growth year-over-year (YoY). The mean annual change is estimated as 11 Mt/yr/yr, indicating consistent growth in the recovery of metals from end-of-life products.

Paper and cardboard recycling has gradually but inconsistently grown over the past two decades (Table 4b, Figure 2). Using worldwide recovered paper production data from the FAO (n.d.), we estimated the annual change in paper and cardboard waste recycled from 2003 to 2023. We applied a 75% factor to restrict this to postconsumer collection. While early years (2003–2016) in the data generally showed positive adoption, albeit with some fluctuations, more recent years (2017–2023) reflect declines, including noticeable drops in 2021–2022 (–1.9 Mt/yr/yr) and 2022–2023 (–5.4 Mt/yr/yr). The overall adoption trend is mixed despite a brief spike in 2020–2021. Taking the median annual change over the full 20-year period, we estimated a global trend of 2.2 Mt/yr/yr or a 1.3% YoY growth. The mean annual change is slightly higher at 2.8 Mt/yr/yr (2.0% YoY growth), indicating moderate but uneven progress in the recovery of paper and cardboard.

Plastics recycling is slowly increasing as a share of global plastic waste management, but the overall trend remains modest (Table 4c, Figure 2). We used data from the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development ([OECD], 2022a) to estimate global adoption trends from 2000–2019 and supplemented this with 2019–2023 estimates from Plastics Europe (2022, 2023, 2024a). The adoption trend fluctuates from year to year, reflecting variability in collection rates, contamination levels, and recycling infrastructure. Taking the median annual change in recycled plastic waste across 23 years, we estimated a global adoption trend of 1.3 Mt/yr/yr, or 8.5% YoY growth. The mean annual change is slightly higher at 1.4 Mt/yr/yr, suggesting a slow growth in recycling capacity compared with plastic production volumes. However, this progress is uneven across geographies, with some countries expanding recycling systems while others face barriers, including limited infrastructure and low incentives for recovery.

Glass recycling showed a median annual change of 0 Mt/yr/yr and a mean of 0.8 Mt/yr/yr (3.7% growth YoY) from 2009–2019 (Table 4d, Figure 2). These estimates are based on Chen et al. (2020), who modeled World Bank data (Kaza et al., 2018) to generate a global dataset of waste treatment quantities across 217 countries. The apparent absence of change likely reflects limited availability of global data and inconsistent reporting rather than truly flat adoption. Although the dataset from Chen et al. (2020) is comprehensive, it is modeled rather than based on reported figures.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Adoption trend.

Unit: Mt/yr/yr, 2014–2018

25th percentile 2.3
Mean 11
Median (50th percentile) 12
75th percentile 20

Unit: Mt/yr/yr, 2003-2023

25th percentile 0.15
Mean 2.8
Median (50th percentile) 2.2
75th percentile 5.9

Unit: Mt/yr/yr, 2000-2023

25th percentile 0.93
Mean 1.4
Median (50th percentile) 1.3
75th percentile 1.8

Unit: Mt/yr/yr, 2009-2019

25th percentile 0
Mean 0.8
Median (50th percentile) 0
75th percentile 0
Left Text Column Width

Figure 2. Trends in recycling adoption of metals (2014–2018), paper & cardboard (2003–2023), plastics (2000–2023), and glass (2009–2019). Adapted from Chen et al. (2020), Gorman et al. (2022), FAO (n.d.), OECD (2022a), and Plastics Europe (2022, 2023, 2024a).

Sources: Chen, D. M.-C., Bodirsky, B. L., Krueger, T., Mishra, A., & Popp, A. (2020). The world’s growing municipal solid waste: Trends and impacts. Environmental Research Letters, 15(7), Article 074021; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). FAO‑FAOSTAT: Forestry production and trade [Data set]. Retrieved April 25, 2025; Gorman, M. R., Dzombak, D. A., & Frischmann, C. (2022). Potential global GHG emissions reduction from increased adoption of metals recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 184, Article 106424; Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. (2022a). Global plastics outlook database [Data set]; Plastics Europe. (2022). Plastics – the facts 2022 [Report]; Plastics Europe. (2023). Plastics – the fast facts 2023 [Infographic]; Plastics Europe. (2024a). Plastics – the fast facts 2024 [Infographic].

Enable Download
On
Adoption Ceiling

Metals recycling adoption is expected to remain high, with the global ceiling estimated at 2,100 Mt/yr (Table 5a). This corresponds to 68.2% of total projected metals production by 2050, based on the “maximum scenario” in Gorman et al. (2022). The scenario reflects a best-case technical potential of recycled metals adoption under full utilization of scrap feedstocks (Gorman et al., 2022). It assumes that all available postconsumer, pre-consumer, and home scrap can be recovered and can fully replace as much virgin material as possible using current technologies. We isolated the postconsumer portion as a 58% share of available metal scrap, as outlined in USGS (2022) data. 

There is also a strong potential for increased paper and cardboard recycling, with an estimated adoption ceiling of 360 Mt/yr (Table 5b). We assumed a recovery rate of 85% of total global paper production, accounting for practical limits imposed by fiber degradation, contamination, and processing inefficiencies. According to UNODC (2023), about 48% of paper globally is produced from recycled materials, leaving considerable room for improvement. The 85% ceiling also assumes that not all types of paper can be recovered (e.g., sanitary paper or heavily coated grades). Because this value is based on production rather than discarded paper waste, it may slightly underestimate the ceiling based on postconsumer waste generation. 

We estimated the adoption ceiling for plastics recycling at 180 Mt/yr (Table 5c). Technical barriers such as contamination, material heterogeneity, and plastic degradation constrain large-scale adoption. We therefore assumed and applied a 70% recycling rate to postconsumer plastic waste streams. We obtained similar estimates across multiple sources reporting global plastic waste generation (Houssini et al., 2025; OECD, 2022b; Stegmann et al., 2022). 

We estimated a ceiling of 100 Mt/yr for glass recycling (Table 5d) based on a 90% recovery rate from global waste generation estimates (Chen et al., 2020; Ferdous et al., 2021). Although glass is considered infinitely recyclable, losses due to contamination, sorting inefficiencies, and market constraints limit complete recovery. We included modeled estimates from Chen et al. (2020) to provide a more comprehensive global ceiling due to the scarcity of global data on glass recycling. 

For metals and paper and cardboard, values are derived from single datasets; for plastics, rounding across multiple datasets produced identical values across percentiles. Therefore, only the median is shown for these three subsolutions.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mt/y

Estimate (Gorman et al., 2022) 2,100

Unit: Mt/y

Estimate (UNODC, 2023) 360

Unit: Mt/y

Median (50th percentile) 180

Unit: Mt/y

25th percentile 94
Mean 100
Median (50th percentile) 100
75th percentile 110
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

For sources reporting global recycling rates or tonnage for all materials except metals, we define low and high achievable adoption as 25% or 50% increase in the most recently available material-specific recycle rate, respectively.

For metals recycling, achievable adoption is largely shaped by the dynamics of secondary metal production in global commodity markets, which in turn depends on the relative quantity of scrap available (Ciacci et al., 2016). We set achievable adoption at 1,300–1,400 Mt/yr by 2050 (Table 6a), based on the “plausible” and “ambitious” scenarios from Gorman et al. (2022), respectively. These estimates represent 41–48% of projected global metals production and incorporate both postconsumer and pre-consumer scrap, with the postconsumer share standardized at 58% across scenarios (USGS, 2022). Major commodity metals included in these estimates are steel, aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, iron, nickel, and manganese, which together represent more than 99% of all metal demand by mass from 2014–2018 (USGS, 2021). Material availability and infrastructure for downstream scrap processing remain key hurdles (Allwood et al. 2025), although industrial-scale recovery systems are already well established in many high-income countries (Campbell et al., 2022; de Sa & Korinek, 2021).

We estimated the achievable adoption range for paper and cardboard recycling at 220–260 Mt/yr (Table 6b), with an assumed postconsumer share of 75% applied to the total global recycling volumes reported by FAO (n.d.) and UNODC (2023). This range reflects expanded municipal collection, improvements in fiber separation technologies, and increased demand for recovered pulp in paper manufacturing. 

Plastics recycling has substantial opportunity for growth, given <10% global recycling rates and the exponential growth of plastic accumulation in the environment (Dokl et al., 2024; Nayanathara Thathsarani Pilapitiya & Ratnayake, 2024). A 25–50% increase in global mechanically recycled plastic volumes would bring the achievable range to 45–54 Mt/yr (Table 6c). While meaningful, these levels are 8–9 times smaller than the 414 Mt of plastic produced in 2023 (Plastics Europe, 2024a). Constraints include the complexity of sorting mixed plastic streams, limited market demand for lower-grade recycled pellets, and insufficient investment in complementary technologies such as chemical recycling, which remains below 0.5 Mt/yr.

For glass recycling, we set an achievable adoption range of 36–48 Mt/yr by 2050, based on harmonized waste modeling and forward-looking estimates from Chen et al. (2020) and Delbari and Hof (2024). However, this scale-up depends substantially on reducing contamination at the collection stage, expanding color- and ceramic-sorting technologies, and improving closed-loop markets for container glass (Baek et al., 2025; Yuan et al., 2024).

left_text_column_width
Enable Download
Off

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption.

Unit: Mt/yr

Current adoption 740
Achievable – low 1300
Achievable – high 1400
Adoption ceiling 2100

Unit: Mt/yr

Current adoption 160
Achievable – low 220
Achievable – high 260
Adoption ceiling 360

Unit: Mt/yr

Current adoption 36
Achievable – low 45
Achievable – high 54
Adoption ceiling 180

Unit: Mt/yr

Current adoption 27
Achievable – low 36
Achievable – high 48
Adoption ceiling 100
Left Text Column Width

Increased recycling has strong potential for climate impact, especially in reducing emissions from virgin material production and landfilling waste (see Appendix for waste sector emissions). 

Metals recycling has the highest current and achievable GHG emissions savings of the four material categories (Table 7a). At a >500 Mt/yr current adoption rate, we estimate current metals recycling avoids 1.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (1.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis). Our low and high achievable adoption levels reduce 1.9 and 2.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (2.1 and 2.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis), respectively, with annual GHG reductions up to 3.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (3.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis) using the adoption ceiling. 

Paper and cardboard recycling currently avoids 0.16 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.16 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis) (Table 7b). Achievable GHG reduction is 0.22–0.26 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.22–0.26 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis), with a maximum potential of 0.36 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.36 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis).

Plastics recycling has a lower current climate impact of 0.07 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis), but it has the potential to increase to a ceiling matching that of recycling paper and cardboard (Table 7c). We estimated low and high achievable adoption levels avoid 0.09 and 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.1 and 0.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis), respectively, with GHG emissions savings of 0.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis) at the adoption ceiling. The 20-year impacts highlight the mitigated methane emissions associated with oil refining for virgin plastic production, with recycling plastics reducing both the need for petrochemical feedstocks and the volume of waste sent to landfills.

Glass recycling has the lowest current and achievable emissions reductions, avoiding 0.0021 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.0023 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis) with the potential to increase to 0.0028–0.0038 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.0030–0.0041 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis) under higher adoption (Table 7d). We estimated a maximum impact ceiling of 0.0079 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.0084 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis). Although emissions savings are relatively small, glass recycling is still worthwhile to benefit from cullet-driven energy reductions, conserve raw materials, and contribute to larger reductions when combined with other materials in municipal recycling programs.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 1.1
Achievable – low 1.9
Achievable – high 2.1
Adoption ceiling 3.1

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.16
Achievable – low 0.22
Achievable – high 0.26
Adoption ceiling 0.36

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.07
Achievable – low 0.09
Achievable – high 0.1
Adoption ceiling 0.4

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.0021
Achievable – low 0.0028
Achievable – high 0.0038
Adoption ceiling 0.0079
Left Text Column Width

In our analysis, we adjusted emissions reductions from recycling using a TSR, since recycled materials often do not replace virgin materials on a 1:1 basis due to differences in quality, durability, or performance (Nordahl & Scown, 2024). To ensure we didn’t overestimate emissions savings, we applied an average material-specific ratio that adjusted the avoided emissions from primary material production. Recycled paper and cardboard and glass were assigned a ratio of 0.83; metals, 0.90; and plastics, 0.80 (Figure 3). These unitless ratios were based on technical literature (Barbato et al., 2024; Rigamonti et al., 2020; UNEP, 2024; Zheng & Suh, 2019) and were applied consistently across all emissions units for effectiveness.

left_text_column_width

Figure 3. Conceptual diagram of a general recycling loop for (a) metals, (b) paper & cardboard, (c) plastics, and (d) glass and how technical substitutability determines the maximum share of recycled content due to quality constraints. Graphics for (b), including the MRF and manufacturing plant for (a), (c), and (d), were modified from International Paper (n.d.). BioRender and Canva were used to make the remaining graphics.

Recycling cycle diagram.

International Paper. (n.d.). Paper’s life cycle: The recycling process [Infographic]. Retrieved June 10, 2025.

Enable Download
On
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Recycling can create jobs and reduce energy costs. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimated that incinerating or landfilling 10 kt of waste creates one or six jobs respectively, while recycling the same amount of waste creates 36 jobs (NIH Environmental Management System [NEMS], n.d.). A case study in Florida found that increasing recycling rates can lead to small amounts of job growth, with most new jobs concentrated in the recycling processing sector (Liu et al., 2020). 

Using recycled materials can reduce the need for imports and support domestic manufacturing (Das et al., 2010; Dussaux & Glachant, 2019). The sale of products manufactured from recyclables instead of virgin materials can translate to economic benefits. A study of recycling systems in Nigeria found that the sale of recyclables could contribute about US$11.7 million to the country’s economy each year and create about 16,562 new jobs (Ayodele et al., 2018).  

Health

Materials in landfills can leach into the surrounding environment (McGinty, 2021). Plastics, along with associated additives such as bisphenol A and phthalates, can degrade into microplastics that enter the surrounding ecosystem and food chain, posing health risks to humans (Bauer et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Rajmohan et al., 2019; Zheng & Suh, 2019).

Equality

In low- and middle-income countries, informal recycling, which involves networks of individuals who sort through waste and sell or recycle it using informal methods, is a common form of waste management (Yang et al., 2018). Increasing recycling in these contexts could formalize this recycling method and improve some of the social and health equity concerns associated with informal recycling, such as exploitation, safety, child labor, and occupational health exposures, and may improve income-earning capabilities (Aparcana & Salhofer, 2013; Yang et al., 2018). Low- and middle-income countries typically face a disproportionate burden of plastic pollution, which could be improved by increasing recycling capacities globally (World Wildlife Fund [WWF], 2023). 

Land Resources

Recycling can benefit land resources and soil quality by reducing materials in landfills and incinerators and by reducing the need to extract virgin materials such as timber and minerals (Dussaux & Glachant, 2019; McGinty, 2021; U.S. EPA, 2025). Rajmohan et al. (2019) estimated that about 22–43% of plastic waste reaches landfills. Plastic waste can degrade into microplastics, leaching into surrounding ecosystems and reducing soil fertility (McGinty, 2021; Rajmohan et al., 2019). The environmental benefits of displacing the need for production using virgin materials through recycling may be more significant than reducing landfilling (Geyer et al., 2016). Recycling, along with the use of wood residues, is projected to reduce the demand for wood and fiber, easing pressures of land resources (FAO, 2009). 

Water Resources

Recycling can reduce the amount of water needed to produce new materials. For example, using recycled steel to make steel requires 40% less water than using virgin materials (NEMS, n.d.).

Air Quality

Increasing recycling reduces the amount of waste in landfills and incinerators and can reduce harmful pollution associated with landfilling and incineration (U.S. EPA, 2025). Additionally, recycling reduces the need to mine and process new materials, thereby reducing air pollution emitted during these processes (U.S. EPA, 2025)

left_text_column_width
Risks

Increasing metals recycling, paper and cardboard recycling, and plastics recycling can inadvertently increase environmental and human exposure to hazardous chemicals if not properly managed. Exposure to heavy metal fumes can occur while processing metal waste, and concealed pressurized or reactive items in scrap can cause fires or explosions. Chemical additives such as mineral oils and printing inks often persist throughout the paper life cycle and can migrate into the environment and food packaging, posing health risks such as chronic inflammation, endocrine disruption, and cancer (Pivnenko et al., 2016; Sobhani & Palanisami, 2025). Flame retardants, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and other pollutants can leach from materials during and after plastics recycling. Microplastics accumulate at higher concentrations in recycled plastics and are released during all recycling stages (Monclús et al., 2025; Singh & Walker, 2024). Additionally, recycled papers and plastics contain unintentionally added substances, which carry different additives whose composition is often unknown (Monclús et al., 2025; Sobhani & Palanisami, 2025).

Increased plastics collection for recycling without global coordination can lead to disproportionate plastic pollution if high-income countries export plastic waste to low-income countries with inadequate recycling infrastructure (Singh & Walker, 2024).

When glass recycling is included in single-stream systems, glass shards can damage MRF machinery and contaminate other recyclable materials, decreasing their market value (Deer, 2021). Additionally, the heavy weight and fragility of glass means recycling trucks require multiple trips, consuming more fuel and increasing transportation costs. 

Another key risk is that materials collected for recycling may ultimately be landfilled when poor market conditions prevent their recovery. 

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

All of these solutions can reuse clean and high-quality recycled materials as a raw material or feedstock or repurpose them as substitute materials in targeted uses. The embodied emissions from the recovered waste used as production or process inputs will be reduced, enhancing the solutions’ net climate impacts and supporting circularity.

left_text_column_width

Recycling paper and cardboard waste reduces deforestation required for extracting and processing primary raw materials.

left_text_column_width

Increased adoption of efficient mechanical recycling systems and equipment can improve the rate and cost of scaling similar highly-efficient, complementary technologies (e.g., chemical recycling). 

left_text_column_width

Competing

Diverting certain paper and cardboard types from landfills lowers methane emissions available to be captured and sold for biogas revenue. Paper and cardboard recycling also can reduce the amount of material available for methane digesters.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

Mt recycled

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
01.41×10⁶1.48×10⁶
units
Current 740 01,3001,400
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 1.1 1.92.1
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-100
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄

Solution Basics

Mt recycled

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
0600,0001×10⁶
units
Current 160 0220260
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.16 0.220.26
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-400
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄

Solution Basics

Mt recycled

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
2×10⁶
units
Current 35.9 04554
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.07 0.090.1
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-4
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄

Solution Basics

Mt recycled

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
058,00079,000
units
Current 27 03648
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.002 0.0030.004
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄

Trade-offs

Ciacci et al. (2016) and van Ewijk and Stegemann (2023) noted that as recycling approaches near-total recovery, energy consumption steeply rises, driven by increased decontamination efforts, sorting challenges, and diminished material quality. However, recycling rates are currently low enough that recycling is less carbon intense than primary material manufacturing.

The eventual quality degradation in secondary materials requires supplementation with virgin resources. However, overall embodied emissions are still lower than they would be for producing all-new materials. 

Glass recycling poses a trade-off between convenience and recycling efficiency in single-stream systems. Only 40% of glass is repurposed into new products, and the glass can contaminate other materials. Multi-stream or source-separated systems require more effort but achieve 90%-plus recycling rates (Berardocco et al., 2022; Deer, 2021).

Watari et al. (2025) noted that countries can achieve high local recycling rates and high recycled content by importing scrap metals from elsewhere, but with the trade-off that metal production emissions are offshored rather than reduced. This also introduces dependencies on international scrap flows and global supply chains (Guo et al., 2023), which can similarly occur for paper, cardboard, and plastics.

left_text_column_width
Action Word
Increase
Solution Title
Recycling
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Establish ambitious recycling goals; incorporate them into climate plans.
  • Ensure public procurement uses recycled materials or products as much as possible.
  • Consult with manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs.
  • Empower citizen leaders to help manage MSW collection and recycling programs; ensure legal and regulatory structures clearly designate citizen and/or local control to avoid political disagreements and interference.
  • Use decision-making models and economic analysis tools to design MSW systems that incorporate aspects such as life-cycle assessments, material flows, cost/benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, management systems, and assessments of immediate impacts on human well-being, especially in low-income and urban settings.
  • Ensure waste management systems and practices are appropriate for the local context and not just imported models from other countries.
  • Coordinate recycling efforts, policies, and budgets horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts), ensuring an inclusive process for local communities.
  • Use financial incentives that are appropriate for the local context such as subsidizing recycling plants, transportation, and pickup; offer tax exemptions and other incentives to low-income communities.
  • Use financial disincentives and taxes appropriate for the local context, such as landfilling fees, rent and/or property taxes, product fees, and collection fees included in utility bills or tied to waste quantity; ensure fees do not burden or stop low-income communities from recycling (possibly by tying collection fees to income bracket).
  • Invest in waste management infrastructure, including waste drop-off and buy-back centers, collection and separation facilities, roads and collection vehicles, education programs, community engagement mechanisms, and research and development for more efficient recycling techniques, behavioral change mechanisms, product design, and alternative materials.
  • Institute bans on landfilling recyclable (or compostable) materials; establish penalties for noncompliance.
  • Enact container deposit programs to encourage recycling and reuse.
  • Mandate standard shapes and color coding for waste bins to facilitate collection and separation.
  • Ban single-use plastics such as shopping bags and water bottles; ensure strong customs enforcement for imports.
  • Enact extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste; set standards for the traceability of materials; require clear labeling for recyclable products.
  • Aim to eliminate government corruption behind illicit waste trade; create monitoring programs to hold waste managers accountable.
  • Incentivize or encourage waste management facilities to run on renewable energy and use electric fleets.
  • Incentivize or encourage manufacturers – including climate solution industries such as solar and wind producers – to use as much recycled materials as possible.
  • Require products made of metal, paper, plastic, or glass to contain a minimum percentage of recycled materials; ensure packaging producers meet recycling obligations potentially through the use of market-based mechanisms such as packaging waste recovery notes (PRNs) and/or packaging waste export recovery notes (PERNS).
  • Work to bring informal waste pickers into the formal MSW system by providing or advocating for training, protective gear, formal employment, free or low-cost childcare services, and other social benefits and purchasing separated recyclable waste.
  • Work with businesses and industries to develop consistent markets for recycled goods and stabilize the price of recycled materials.
  • Carefully enter into transparent public–private recycling partnerships, ensuring legal systems can enforce compliance with contractual terms.
  • Set collection fees, designate collection areas, and establish the amount of monitoring services at the municipal level rather than letting private companies do so.
  • Improve building codes and manufacturing regulations to require the use of recycled materials and material traceability; set standards for building and vehicle demolition to require the recovery of window glass and other recyclable materials.
  • Set recycling-facilitating regulations and standards for product disassembly.
  • Set standards that ease barriers for trading recycled goods and recyclable materials; halt the export of waste from rich countries to low- and middle-income countries; enforce trade standards and ensure illicit trade networks do not circumvent them.
  • Foster cooperation and technology transfers between low- and middle-income countries, avoiding models used in rich countries that are ill-suited for other contexts.
  • Deploy diverse means of engaging the public in recycling, such as volunteer groups, social activities, and musical trucks.
  • Create or improve training programs for waste management professionals that focus on practical skills and knowledge for working with communities to design and manage MSW systems.
  • Partner with schools, manufacturers, retailers, nonprofits, and other community organizations to promote recycling.
  • Establish programs that teach how to separate waste effectively, the waste hierarchy, and why these processes are important; incorporate these concepts into public school curricula.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Place recycling plants as close to points of waste generation as possible.
  • Consult with government officials, manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs; utilize local data to inform planning, development, collection, and sorting techniques.
  • Support and cooperate with citizen leaders to help manage MSW collection and recycling programs.
  • Use decision-making models and economic analysis tools to design MSW systems that incorporate aspects such as life-cycle assessments, material flows, cost/benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, management systems, and assessments of immediate impacts on human well-being, especially in low-income and urban settings.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies for recycling plant construction, transportation, and pickup; if none exist, advocate to policymakers for incentives.
  • Invest in waste management infrastructure, including waste drop-off and buy-back centers, collection and separation facilities, roads, collection vehicles, education programs, community engagement mechanisms, and research and development for more efficient recycling techniques, behavioral change mechanisms, product design, and alternatives to non-recyclable materials.
  • Use energy efficiency equipment and enhanced heat recovery techniques; install smart technology control systems.
  • Use electric equipment and renewable energy sources as much as possible.
  • Work with the renewable energy industry to ensure new solar photovoltaic panels and wind turbines utilize as much recycled materials as possible.
  • Work to bring informal waste pickers into the formal MSW system by providing or advocating for training, protective gear, formal employment, free or low-cost childcare services, and other social benefits and purchasing separated recyclable waste.
  • Work with policymakers, businesses, and industries to develop consistent markets for recycled goods and stabilize the price of recycled materials.
  • Deploy diverse means of engaging the public in recycling, such as volunteer groups, social activities, and musical trucks.
  • Create or improve training programs for waste management professionals that focus on practical skills and knowledge for working with communities to design and manage MSW systems.
  • Partner with schools, manufacturers, retailers, nonprofits, and other community organizations to promote recycling.
  • Establish programs that teach how to separate waste effectively, the waste hierarchy, and why these processes are important; incorporate these concepts into public school curricula.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Use recycled materials in business operations as much as possible and ensure employees recycle.
  • Improve the quality of products, reduce material usage and product weight, and extend product life cycles through design that allows for easy reuse, repair, upgrading, recycling, and remanufacturing.
  • Work with industry peers to set design standards for common products that contain recycled materials.
  • Improve the traceability of materials used in products to enhance sorting efficiency.
  • Collect used products and reuse the materials for future production.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved municipal recycling programs and support for integrating recycled products into your industry.
  • Provide financial assistance to employees for training in sustainable waste management, circular business models, and other related fields.
  • Create or join platforms that allow business-to-business collaboration to increase adoption of recycling and integration of recycled materials into products and business models.
  • Conduct market research on consumer demands and trends to identify potential markets for recycled materials.
  • Fund research or start-ups that aim to boost recycling in your industry.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Ensure procurement uses strategies to reduce waste and use recycled materials as much as possible.
  • Help administer local recycling programs; take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies for recycling plants, transportation, and pickup; ensure services are provided to low-income communities.
  • Consult with government officials, manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs.
  • Help recycling service providers navigate certification and permitting; help identify funding opportunities.
  • Help develop decision-making models and economic analyses for designing recycling systems, incorporating aspects such as life-cycle assessments, material flows, cost/benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, management systems, and assessments of impacts on human well-being, especially in low-income and urban settings.
  • Improve data collection on employment figures in the waste and recycling sectors; work to capture labor statistics for informal waste pickers – especially, women and children involved in the sector that are not captured by current data.
  • Advocate for ambitious public recycling goals, including integration into local and national climate plans.
  • Advocate for international trade standards that ease barriers for trading in recycled goods and recyclable materials; seek to halt the practice of rich countries exporting waste to low- and middle-income countries; advocate for better enforcement of trade standards to ensure illicit trade networks do not circumvent these standards.
  • Create or improve training programs for waste management professionals that focus on practical skills and knowledge for working with communities to design and manage MSW systems.
  • Advocate for bans on discarding recyclable materials to landfills and penalties for noncompliance.
  • Establish or advocate for container deposit programs to encourage recycling and reuse.
  • Advocate for bans on single use plastics such as shopping bags and water bottles.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste; demand standards for traceability and labeling of materials in products to facilitate recycling.
  • Empower citizen leaders to help manage MSW collection and recycling programs; advocate for clear legal and regulatory structures to avoid political disagreements and interference.
  • Help safeguard against government corruption to avoid the illicit waste trade; create monitoring programs to hold waste management companies and/or leadership accountable.
  • Deploy diverse means of engaging the public in recycling, such as volunteer groups, social activities, and musical trucks.
  • Work to bring informal waste pickers into the formal MSW system by providing or advocating for training, protective gear, formal employment, free or low-cost childcare services, and other social benefits.
  • Help facilitate local cooperatives or other management structures for recycling programs; offer to purchase separated recyclable waste from waste pickers.
  • Work with businesses and industry to develop consistent markets for recycled goods and stabilize the price of recycled materials.
  • Partner with schools, manufacturers, retailers, nonprofits, and other community organizations to promote recycling.
  • Establish programs that teach how to separate waste effectively, the waste hierarchy, and why these processes are important; incorporate these concepts into public school curricula.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure portfolio companies and company procurement reduce waste, recycle, and use recycled materials at all stages of the supply chain.
  • Require portfolio companies to measure and report on waste, recycling rates, and use of recycled materials.
  • Provide low-interest loans to recycling service providers for start-up capital, improving efficiency, transitioning to renewable energy, and other development needs.
  • Invest in companies developing or modifying products to be compatible with a circular economy.
  • Fund start-ups that aim to improve sorting technologies, alternative packaging materials, energy efficiency of waste separation equipment, and other industry needs.
  • Offer financial services, notably rural financial market development, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support recycling initiatives.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Ensure your organization’s procurement recycles and uses recycled materials as much as possible
  • Help administer local recycling programs; take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies for recycling plants, transportation, and pickup; ensure services are provided to low-income communities.
  • Foster cooperation and technology transfers between low- and middle-income countries, avoiding models used in rich countries that are ill-suited for other contexts.
  • Offer grants and loans to establish recycling projects, ensuring projects have sustainable means of generating income sources to maintain operations after grant or loan terms end.
  • Provide low-interest loans to recycling service providers for start-up capital, improving efficiency, transitioning to renewable energy, and other development needs.
  • Invest in companies developing or modifying products to be compatible with a circular economy.
  • Fund start-ups that aim to improve sorting technologies, alternative packaging materials, energy efficiency of waste separation equipment, and other industry needs.
  • Offer financial services, notably rural financial market development, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants to support recycling initiatives.
  • Hold community consultations with government officials, manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs.
  • Help recycling service providers navigate certification and permitting processes.
  • Help develop decision-making models and economic analyses for designing recycling systems, incorporating aspects such as life-cycle assessments, material flows, cost/benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, management systems, and assessments of impacts on human well-being, especially in low-income and urban settings.
  • Improve data collection on employment figures in the waste and recycling sectors; work to capture labor statistics for informal waste pickers – especially, women and children involved in the sector that are not captured by current data.
  • Advocate for ambitious public recycling goals and for the goals to be integrated into local and national climate plans.
  • Advocate for international trade standards that ease barriers for trading in recycled goods and recyclable materials; seek to halt the practice of rich countries exporting waste to low- and middle-income countries; advocate for better enforcement of trade standards to ensure illicit trade networks do not circumvent these standards.
  • Create or improve training programs for waste management professionals that focus on practical skills and knowledge for working with communities to design and manage MSW systems.
  • Advocate for bans on discarding recyclable (or compostable) materials to landfills and penalties for noncompliance.
  • Establish or advocate for container deposit programs to encourage recycling and reuse.
  • Advocate for bans on single use plastics such as shopping bags and water bottles.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste; demand standards for the traceability and labeling of materials in products to facilitate the recycling process.
  • Empower citizen leaders to help manage MSW collection and recycling programs; advocate for clear legal and regulatory structures to avoid political disagreements and interference.
  • Help safeguard against government corruption to avoid the illicit waste trade; create monitoring programs to hold waste management companies and/or leadership accountable.
  • Deploy diverse means of engaging the public in recycling, such as volunteer groups, social activities, and musical trucks..
  • Work to bring informal waste pickers into the formal MSW system by providing or advocating for training, protective gear, formal employment, free or low-cost childcare services, and other social benefits.
  • Help facilitate local cooperatives or other management structures for recycling programs; offer to purchase separated recyclable waste from waste pickers.
  • Work with businesses and industry to develop consistent markets for recycled goods and to stabilize the price of recycled materials.
  • Partner with schools, manufacturers, retailers, nonprofits, and other community organizations to promote recycling.
  • Establish programs that teach how to separate waste effectively, the waste hierarchy, and why these processes are important; incorporate these concepts into public school curricula.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Adopt recycling, share your experience, and inform your community how to effectively recycle in your area.
  • Consult with government officials, manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs.
  • Help recyclers navigate certification and permitting; help identify funding opportunities.
  • Help develop decision-making models and economic analyses for designing recycling systems, incorporating aspects such as life-cycle assessments, material flows, cost/benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, management systems, and assessments of impacts on human well-being, especially in low-income and urban settings.
  • Create ways of tracing materials and verifying recycled materials; explore the use of blockchain technology.
  • Conduct climate impact assessments of chemical recycling for plastics at an industrial scale; assess its feasibility to supplement mechanical recycling.
  • Improve data collection on employment figures in the waste and recycling sectors; work to capture labor statistics for informal waste pickers – especially, women and children involved in the sector that are not captured by current data.
  • Research and develop strategies for increasing recycling behavior.
  • Advocate for ambitious public recycling goals and for the goals to be integrated into local or national climate plans.
  • Advocate for international trade standards that ease barriers for trading in recycled goods and recyclable materials; seek to halt the practice of rich countries exporting waste to low- and middle-income countries (“waste dumping”); advocate for better enforcement of trade standards to ensure illicit trade networks do not circumvent these standards.
  • Create or improve training programs for waste management professionals that go into practical skills and knowledge for working with communities to design and manage MSW systems.
  • Advocate for bans on discarding recyclable (or compostable) materials to landfills and penalties for noncompliance.
  • Advocate for container deposit programs to encourage recycling and reuse.
  • Advocate for bans on single use plastics such as shopping bags and water bottles.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste; demand standards for the traceability and labeling of materials in products to facilitate the recycling process.
  • Empower citizen leadership to help manage MSW collection and recycling programs; advocate for clear legal and regulatory structures to avoid political disagreements and interference.
  • Help safeguard against government corruption to avoid the illicit waste trade; create monitoring programs to hold waste management companies and/or leadership accountable.
  • Deploy diverse means of engaging the public in recycling, such as volunteer groups, social activities, and musical trucks.
  • Work with businesses and industry to develop consistent markets for recycled goods and to stabilize the price of recycled materials.
  • Partner with schools, manufacturers, retailers, nonprofits, and other community organizations to promote recycling.
  • Establish programs that teach how to separate waste effectively, the waste hierarchy, and why these processes are important; incorporate these concepts into public school curricula.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve the efficiency of waste separation machinery and develop low-cost, low-maintenance means of waste management – particularly for contexts such as low- and middle-income countries.
  • Improve collecting, sorting, and pre-treating processes to enhance recovery of materials while minimizing degradation and contamination.
  • Improve energy efficiency of equipment such as glass furnaces by enhancing heat recovery; design or improve smart technology control systems.
  • Explore the use of artificial intelligence in separating waste streams.
  • Explore, discover, or improve new uses for recycled or recovered materials.
  • Create ways of tracing materials and verifying recycled materials, such as blockchain technology.
  • Engineer means of reducing the weight of materials in common products such as packaging and glass without sacrificing recyclability or functionality.
  • Improve chemical recycling of plastics – particularly solvent-based purification and de-polymerization – while maintaining low energy consumption and high utilization rates for the remaining waste.
  • Assess the climate impact of industrial-scale chemical recycling of plastics and its feasibility to supplement mechanical recycling.
  • Advance systems for collecting, sorting, and recycling metals, plastics, and glass contained in electronic devices.
  • Improve means of removing ink and adhesives from paper.
  • Improve waste handling techniques and environmental safeguards for the sludge produced during paper recycling; design products using the sludge.
  • Enhance systems for sorting plastics.
  • Research ways to improve recycling or reusing agricultural, construction, and thermoset plastics; find means to recycle polymers such as PVC.
  • Increase the performance of metal-sensing and -sorting equipment such as X-ray detection or spectroscopy; improve means of detecting external impurities, especially in steel scrap.
  • Design recycle-friendly alloys that can be used in a variety of ways and products.
  • Improve technology for sorting colored glass and detecting ceramics.
  • Improve liquefaction technology for plastics to reduce costs, minimize upgrading needs, and produce higher quality products.
  • Research and develop strategies for increasing recycling behavior.
  • Collect up-to-date data on recycled materials - particularly, on glass recycling. 

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Participate in local recycling programs, share your experience with your community, and educate others on how to recycle in your area.
  • Practice conscious consumerism; buy only what’s needed and avoid products that use excessive packaging or have a short lifespan.
  • Form stakeholder groups to monitor and help administer local recycling systems.
  • Reuse products, packaging, and materials as much as possible before recycling or disposing of them.
  • Use your power as a consumer to influence businesses to adopt practices that increase recycling.
  • Participate in or advocate for consultations with government officials, manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs.
  • Advocate for ambitious public recycling goals to be integrated into local or national climate plans.
  • Advocate for bans on discarding recyclable materials to landfills and penalties for noncompliance.
  • Establish or advocate for container deposit programs to encourage recycling and reuse.
  • Advocate for bans on single use plastics such as shopping bags and water bottles.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste; demand standards for the traceability and labeling of materials in products to facilitate recycling.
  • Help safeguard against government corruption to avoid the illicit waste trade; create community monitoring programs to hold waste management companies and/or leaders accountable.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness of recycling as a climate solution: High 

Recycling reduces solid waste, mitigates GHG emissions from landfilled solid waste, and offers significant savings in electricity and fuel consumption (Cudjoe et al., 2021; Kaza et al., 2018; Uekert et al., 2023). UNEP (2024) estimated that 2.1 Gt of municipal solid waste was generated globally in 2020, and projected that to increase to 3.8 Gt by 2050 if action is not taken. Although postconsumer waste contributes ~5% to total global GHG emissions (Oo et al., 2024), around 30–37% of global waste ends up in landfills with only 19% recovered through recycling and composting processes (Kaza et al., 2018; UNEP, 2024).

Three extensive reviews of industrial decarbonization identify four technologies either ready for near-term deployment or already achieving material impact across global industries: electrification, material efficiency, energy efficiency, and circularity driven by increased reuse and recycling (Daehn et al., 2022; Gailani et al., 2024; Rissman et al., 2020). The last includes recovery of the four waste subcategories considered in this solution, where metals and plastics rank among the top six most-produced human-made materials globally (BioCubes, n.d.).

Incorporating recycled metal scraps into manufacturing consumes 30–95% less energy than producing metals from raw feedstocks, where the primary metal sector emits approximately 10% of global GHG emissions from energy-intensive mining, smelting, and refining (Yokoi et al., 2022). Reprocessing 1 t of plastic waste can save up to 130 GJ of energy (Singh & Walker, 2024), and secondary production of plastics with a ~40% global collection rate could mitigate 160 Mt CO₂ /yr in 2050 (Daehn et al., 2022). Glass recycling offers 2–3% energy savings and a 5% reduction in CO₂ emissions from furnace fuel combustion for every 10% increase in cullet content in the melting batch (Baek et al., 2025; Glass Packaging Institute, n.d.; Miserocchi et al., 2024). 

We reiterate that GHG savings from recycling are highly sensitive to assumptions such as material quality, contamination rates, transportation distances, and market conditions. These factors introduce uncertainty because recycling benefits can vary depending on the efficiency of recycling systems in practice and market viability.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 18 reports, 22 reviews and meta-analyses, 41 original studies, nine perspectives, two books, five web articles, and three datasets reflecting the most recent evidence for more than 200 countries. 

left_text_column_width
Appendix

Market Revenue Variability of Recyclables

left_text_column_width

Figure A1. The % revenue from recyclables compared to the % mass of each recyclable processed in an MRF. Values pertain to 2021 and extracted from Bradshaw et al. 2025.

Enable Download
Off

Current Adoption

In addition to applying global recycling rates of 59.3%, 9%, and 21% to the total waste generated for paper & cardboard, plastics, and glass, respectively (World Bank, 2018; Table A1), we also calculated total tonnage recycled using reported recycling percentages and total MSW tonnage for each country. Combined recycled percentages were consistently lower than the total combined percentage of metal, paper & cardboard, plastic, and glass waste in MSW. This indicates ample opportunity for increased recycling, even in regions where it is already well established. 

left_text_column_width

Table A1. Global recycling rates for each of the waste materials analyzed in this solution.

Waste material Global recycling rate (%) Reference
Metals 76a Charpentier Poncelet et al. (2022)
Paper and cardboard 59.3b European Paper Recycling Council (2020)
Plastics 9c OECD (2022b)
Glass 21d Ferdous et al. (2021)
Westbroek et al. (2021)

aEstimated using end-of-life recycling rates from Charpentier Poncelet et al. (2022), weighted by average annual global production for aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, iron, nickel, and manganese 2015–2019. We normalized weights against total metal production (1,619 Mt) to reflect each metal’s contribution to global scrap availability. This approach reflects the dominance of aluminum and iron in global scrap flows.

bBased on the average global paper recycling rate in 2018.

cBased on the global plastic recycling rate in 2019.

dBased on total glass produced in 2018 (a production-based recycling rate, meaning the share of recycled cullet used in total glass production), rather than on total glass waste generated (a waste-based recycling rate). We used this value due to a lack of consistent global data on postconsumer (end-of-life, old scrap) glass waste generation, although it may underestimate the recycling rate of actual discarded glass.

Left Text Column Width

Achievable Adoption

The World Bank (2018) also provided country-specific recycling rates and waste composition fractions of MSW for the materials we considered. Metals, paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass were reported as percentages of MSW by 169, 174, 173, and 168 countries, respectively. However, only 125 countries reported recycling rates, and these rates reflect combined MSW rather than material-specific recovery, so the dataset could not be used to estimate achievable adoption ranges for individual materials. 

Example Calculation of Achievable Adoption

For low achievable adoption, we assumed global recycling increases by 25% of the existing or most recently available rates or total recycled waste tonnage (i.e., recycling volumes) for all four materials except metals. For example, Delbari and Hof (2024) reported 2018 estimates of global glass recycling volumes at 27 Mt annually, so the Adoption – Low recycling rate was calculated at 34 Mt of glass waste recycled/yr. 

For high achievable adoption, we assume that global recycling rates increase by 50% of the existing or most recently available rates or total recycled waste tonnage (i.e., recycling volumes) for all four materials except metals. As an example, Houssini et al. (2025) reported global plastic production in 2022, from which 38 Mt were generated as secondary plastics from plastic mechanical recycling. Therefore, the high adoption recycling rate came out to 57 Mt of plastic waste recycled/yr.

Waste Sector Emissions

According to estimates by Ferdous et al. (2021), Ge et al. (2024), and Oo et al. (2024), the waste sector is responsible for 3.4–5% of total global GHG emissions, with solid waste management of landfills accounting for roughly two-thirds (Ge et al., 2024). In view of this and the energy-intensive production of raw materials, consistently improving recycling efficiency and rates can meaningfully mitigate the world’s carbon output.

left_text_column_width

Sources

Bradshaw, S. L., Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., Boxman, S. E., & Benson, C. H. (2025). Material recovery facilities (MRFs) in the United States: Operations, revenue, and the impact of scale. Waste Management, 193, 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2024.12.008

Charpentier Poncelet, A., Helbig, C., Loubet, P., Beylot, A., Muller, S., Villeneuve, J., Laratte, B., Thorenz, A., Tuma, A., & Sonnemann, G. (2022). Losses and lifetimes of metals in the economy. Nature Sustainability, 5(8), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00895-8

Delbari, S. A., & Hof, L. A. (2024). Glass waste circular economy—Advancing to high-value glass sheets recovery using industry 4.0 and 5.0 technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 462, Article 142629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142629

European Paper Recycling Council. (2020). European declaration on paper recycling 2016-2020: Monitoring report 2019. Confederation of European Paper Industries. https://www.cepi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/EPRC-Monitoring-Report_2019.pdf 

Ferdous, W., Manalo, A., Siddique, R., Mendis, P., Zhuge, Y., Wong, H. S., Lokuge, W., Aravinthan, T., & Schubel, P. (2021). Recycling of landfill wastes (tyres, plastics and glass) in construction – A review on global waste generation, performance, application and future opportunities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 173, Article 105745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105745

Ge, M., Friedrich, J., & Vigna, L. (2024, December 5). 4 charts explain greenhouse gas emissions by countries and sectors. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-countries-and-sectors

Houssini, K., Li, J., & Tan, Q. (2025). Complexities of the global plastics supply chain revealed in a trade-linked material flow analysis. Communications Earth & Environment, 6(1), Article 257. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02169-5

Oo, P. Z., Prapaspongsa, T., Strezov, V., Huda, N., Oshita, K., Takaoka, M., Ren, J., Halog, A., & Gheewala, S. H. (2024). The role of global waste management and circular economy towards carbon neutrality. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 52, 498–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.021

Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. (2022b). Global plastics outlook: Economic drivers, environmental impacts and policy options [Report]. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en 

Westbroek, C. D., Bitting, J., Craglia, M., Azevedo, J. M. C., & Cullen, J. M. (2021). Global material flow analysis of glass: From raw materials to end of life. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(2), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13112

World Bank. (2018). What a waste global database: Country-level dataset (Last updated: 2024, June 4) [Data set]. https://datacatalogfiles.worldbank.org/ddh-published/0039597/3/DR0049199/country_level_data.csv

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Increase Centralized Composting

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Use Waste as a Resource
Image
Centralized composting facility
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

A composting system diverts organic waste (OW) from landfills, reducing the production of methane and other GHG emissions. OW is defined as the combination of food waste and green waste, composed of yard and garden trimmings. Composting transforms it into a nutrient-rich soil supplement.

Our focus is on centralized (city- or regional-level) composting systems for the OW components of municipal solid waste (MSW). Decentralized (home- and community-level) and on-farm composting are also valuable climate actions, but are not included here due to limited data availability at the global level (see Increase Decentralized Composting).

Income & work,Health,Equality
Land resources,Water resources,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Increase Centralized Composting reduces methane and other GHG emissions by diverting organic waste from landfills to facilities that turn it into soil supplements.
Overview

There are many stages involved in a composting system to convert organic MSW into finished compost that can be used to improve soil health (Figure 1). Within this system, composting is the biochemical process that transforms OW into a soil amendment rich in nutrients and organic matter. 

Figure 1. Stages of a composting system. Solution boundaries exclude activities upstream and downstream of centralized MSW composting such as waste collection and compost application. Modified from Kawai et al. (2020) and Manea et al. (2024).

Diagram demonstrating process steps for landfill and compost materials.

Sources: Kawai, K., Liu, C., & Gamaralalage, P. J. D. (2020). CCET guideline series on intermediate municipal solid waste treatment technologies: Composting. United Nations Environment Programme; Manea, E. E., Bumbac, C., Dinu, L. R., Bumbac, M., & Nicolescu, C. M. (2024). Composting as a sustainable solution for organic solid waste management: Current practices and potential improvements.  Sustainability, 16(15), Article 6329.

The composting process is based on aerobic decomposition, driven by complex interactions among microorganisms, biodegradable materials, and invertebrates and mediated by water and oxygen (see the Appendix). Without the proper balance of oxygen and water, anaerobic decomposition occurs, leading to higher methane emissions during the composting process (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al., 2024). Multiple composting methods can be used depending on the amounts and composition of OW feedstocks, land availability, labor availability, finances, policy landscapes, and geography. Some common methods include windrow composting, bay or bin systems, and aerated static piles (Figure 2; Amuah et al., 2022; Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023).

Figure 2. Examples of commonly used centralized composting methods. Bay systems (left) move organics between different bays at different stages of the composting process. Windrows (center) are long, narrow piles that are often turned using large machinery. Aerated static piles (right) can be passively aerated as shown here or actively aerated with specialized blowing equipment.

Decentralized composting examples

Credit: Bays, iStock | nikolay100; Windrows, iStock | Jeremy Christensen; Aerated static pile, iStock | AscentXmedia

Centralized composting generally refers to processing large quantities (>90 t/week) of organic MSW (Platt, 2017). Local governments often manage centralized composting as part of an integrated waste management system that can also include recycling non-OW, processing OW anaerobically in methane digesters, landfilling, and incineration (Kaza et al., 2018). 

Organic components of MSW include food waste and garden and yard trimmings (Figure 2). In most countries and territories, these make up 40–70% of MSW, with food waste as the largest contribution (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2019; Kaza et al., 2018; Manea et al., 2024; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2020; U.S. EPA, 2023). 

Diverting OW, particularly food waste, from landfill disposal to composting reduces GHG emissions (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; FAO, 2019). Diversion of organics from incineration could also have emissions and pollution reduction benefits, but we did not include incineration as a baseline disposal method for comparison since it is predominantly used in high-capacity and higher resourced countries and contributes less than 1% to annual waste-sector emissions (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change [IPCC], 2023; Kaza et al., 2018). 

Disposal of waste in landfills leads to methane emissions estimated at nearly 1.9 Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) annually (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024). Landfill emissions come from anaerobic decomposition of inorganic waste and OW and are primarily methane with smaller contributions from ammonia, nitrous oxide, and CO₂ (Cao et al., 2023; Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). Although CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide are released during composting, methane emissions are up to two orders of magnitude lower than emissions from landfilling for each metric ton of waste (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al, 2023; FAO, 2019; IEA, 2024; Nordahl et al., 2023; Perez et al., 2023). GHG emissions can be minimized by fine-tuning the nutrient balance during composting. 

Depending on the specifics of the composting method used, the full transformation from initial feedstocks to finished compost can take weeks or months (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al., 2024; Perez et al., 2023). Finished compost can be sold and used in a variety of ways, including application to agricultural lands and green spaces as well as for soil remediation (Gilbert et al., 2020; Platt et al., 2022; Ricci-Jürgensen et al., 2020a; Sánchez et al., 2025). 

Abedin, T., Pasupuleti, J., Paw, J.K.S., Tak, Y. C., Islam, M. R., Basher, M. K., & Nur-E-Alam, M. (2025). From waste to worth: Advances in energy recovery technologies for solid waste management. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 27, 5963–5989. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-025-03204-x

Alves Comesaña, D., Villar Comesaña, I., & Mato de la Iglesia, S. (2024). Community composting strategies for biowaste treatment: Methodology, bulking agent and compost quality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(7), 9873–9885. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25564-x 

Amuah, E. E. Y., Fei-Baffoe, B., Sackey, L. N. A., Douti, N. B., & Kazapoe, R. W. (2022). A review of the principles of composting: Understanding the processes, methods, merits, and demerits. Organic Agriculture, 12(4), 547–562. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-022-00408-z

Ayilara, M., Olanrewaju, O., Babalola, O., & Odeyemi, O. (2020). Waste management through composting: Challenges and potentials. Sustainability, 12(11), Article 4456. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114456

Bekchanov, M., & Mirzabaev, A. (2018). Circular economy of composting in Sri Lanka: Opportunities and challenges for reducing waste related pollution and improving soil health. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 1107–1119. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.186

Bell, B., & Platt, B. (2014). Building healthy soils with compost to protect watersheds. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Compost-Builds-Healthy-Soils-ILSR-5-08-13-2.pdf 

Brown, S. (2015, July 14). Connections: YIMBY. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/connections-yimby/

Cai, B., Lou, Z., Wang, J., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., Liu, J., & Gao, Q. (2018). CH4 mitigation potentials from China landfills and related environmental co-benefits. Science Advances, 4(7), Article eaar8400. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8400

Cao, X., Williams, P. N., Zhan, Y., Coughlin, S. A., McGrath, J. W., Chin, J. P., & Xu, Y. (2023). Municipal solid waste compost: Global trends and biogeochemical cycling. Soil & Environmental Health, 1(4), Article 100038. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seh.2023.100038

Casey, J. A., Cushing, L., Depsky, N., & Morello-Frosch, R. (2021). Climate justice and California’s methane superemitters: Environmental equity Assessment of community proximity and exposure intensity. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(21), 14746–14757. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04328

Coker, C. (2020, March 3). Composting business management: Revenue forecasts for composters. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-business-management-revenue-forecasts-composters/

Coker, C. (2020, March 10). Composting business management: Capital cost of composting facility construction. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-business-management-capital-cost-composting-facility-construction/

Coker, C. (2020, March 17). Composting business management: Composting facility operating cost estimates. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-business-management-composting-facility-operating-cost-estimates/ 

Coker, C. (2022, August 23). Compost facility planning: Composting facility approvals and permits. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-facility-approval-permits/

Coker, C. (2022, September 27). Compost facility planning: Composting facility cost estimates. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/compost-facility-planning-cost/

Coker, C. (2024, August 20). Compost market development. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/compost-market-development/

European Energy Agency. (2024). Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector. (Last Updated: April 18, 2024). Eurostat. [Data set and codebook]. Link to source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_air_gge__custom_16006716/default/table 

Farhidi, F., Madani, K., & Crichton, R. (2022). How the US economy and environment can both benefit from composting management. Environmental Health Insights, 16. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302221128454

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2024). The state of food and agriculture 2024 – Value-driven transformation of agrifood systems. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cd2616en

Finlay, K. (2024). Turning down the heat: how the U.S. EPA can fight climate change by cutting landfill emissions. Industrious Labs. Link to source: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/xdjws328/production/657706be7f29a20fe54692a03dbedce8809721e8.pdf

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. (2019). Pollution and health impacts of waste-to-energy incineration [Fact sheet]. Link to source: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/delivering-service-school-based-settings-comprehensive-guide-medicaid-services-and-administrative

González, D., Barrena, R., Moral-Vico, J., Irigoyen, I., & Sánchez, A. (2024). Addressing the gaseous and odour emissions gap in decentralised biowaste community composting. Waste Management, 178, 231–238. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2024.02.042 

International Energy Agency. (2024), Global Methane Tracker 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2024

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2022 – Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Working Group II contribution to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Calvo. Buendia, E., Tanabe, K., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M., Ngarize S., Osako, A., Pyrozhenko, Y., Shermanau, P. and Federici, S. (eds). Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html 

Jamroz, E., Bekier, J., Medynska-Juraszek, A., Kaluza-Haladyn, A., Cwielag-Piasecka, I., & Bednik, M. (2020). The contribution of water extractable forms of plant nutrients to evaluate MSW compost maturity: A case study. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 12842. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69860-9

Kawai, K., Liu, C., & Gamaralalage, P. J. D. (2020). CCET guideline series on intermediate municipal solid waste treatment technologies: Composting. United Nations Environment Programme. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/ietc/resources/publication/ccet-guideline-series-intermediate-municipal-solid-waste-treatment

Kaza, S., Yao, L. C., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F., (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Urban Development. World Bank. Link to source: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/30317 

Krause, M., Kenny, S., Stephenson, J., & Singleton, A. (2023). Quantifying methane emissions from landfilled food waste (Report No. EPA-600-R-23-064). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/food-waste-landfill-methane-10-8-23-final_508-compliant.pdf 

Liu, K-. M., Lin, S-. H., Hsieh, J-., C., Tzeng, G-., H. (2018). Improving the food waste composting facilities site selection for sustainable development using a hybrid modified MADM model. Waste Management, 75, 44–59. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.017

Liu, H., Zhang, X., & Hong, Q. (2021). Emission characteristics of pollution gases from the combustion of food waste. Energies, 14(19), Article 6439. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14196439

Maalouf, A., & Agamuthu, P. (2023). Waste management evolution in the last five decades in developing countries – A review. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 41(9), 1420–1434. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X231160099

Manea, E. E., Bumbac, C., Dinu, L. R., Bumbac, M., & Nicolescu, C. M. (2024). Composting as a sustainable solution for organic solid waste management: Current practices and potential improvements. Sustainability, 16(15), Article 6329. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156329

Martínez-Blanco, J., Lazcano, C., Christensen, T. H., Muñoz, P., Rieradevall, J., Møller, J., Antón, A., & Boldrin, A. (2013). Compost benefits for agriculture evaluated by life cycle assessment. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33(4), 721–732. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0148-7

Martuzzi, M., Mitis, F., & Forastiere, F. (2010). Inequalities, inequities, environmental justice in waste management and health. The European Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 21–26. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp216

Nordahl, S. L., Devkota, J. P., Amirebrahimi, J., Smith, S. J., Breunig, H. M., Preble, C. V., Satchwell, A. J., Jin, L., Brown, N. J., Kirchstetter, T. W., & Scown, C. D. (2020). Life-Cycle greenhouse gas emissions and human health trade-offs of organic waste management strategies. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(15), 9200–9209. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00364 

Nordahl, S. L., Preble, C. V., Kirchstetter, T. W., & Scown, C. D. (2023). Greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions from composting. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(6), 2235–2247. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c05846 

Nubi, O., Murphy, R., & Morse, S. (2024). Life cycle sustainability assessment of waste to energy systems in the developing world: A review. Environments, 11(6), 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments11060123

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Waste - Municipal waste: generation and treatment. (Downloaded: March 20, 2025) [Data set]. Link to source: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_MUNW%40DF_MUNW&df[ag]=OECD.ENV.EPI&dq=.A.INCINERATION_WITHOUT%2BLANDFILL.T&pd=2014%2C&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false&vw=ov 

Pérez, T., Vergara, S. E., & Silver, W. L. (2023). Assessing the climate change mitigation potential from food waste composting. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 7608. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34174-z

Platt, B., Bell, B., & Harsh, C. (2013). Pay dirt: Composting in Maryland to reduce waste, create jobs, & protect the bay. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Pay-Dirt-Report.pdf

Platt, B. (2017, April 4). Hierarchy to Reduce Food Waste & Grow Community, Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/articles/food-waste-hierarchy/

Platt, B., and Fagundes, C. (2018). Yes! In my backyard: A home composting guide for local government. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/articles/yimby-compost/

Platt, B., Libertelli, C., & Matthews, M. (2022). A growing movement: 2022 community composter census. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/articles/composting-2022-census/ 

Ricci-Jürgensen, M., Gilbert, J., & Ramola, A.. (2020a). Global assessment of municipal organic waste production and recycling. International Solid Waste Association. Link to source: https://www.altereko.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Report-1-Global-Assessment-of-Municipal-Organic-Waste.pdf 

Ricci-Jürgensen, M., Gilbert, J., & Ramola, A.. (2020b). Benefits of compost and anaerobic digestate when applied to soil. International Solid Waste Association. Link to source: https://www.altereko.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Report-2-Benefits-of-Compost-and-Anaerobic-Digestate.pdf 

Rynk, R., Black, G., Biala, J., Bonhotal, J., Cooperband, L., Gilbert, J., & Schwarz, M. (Eds.). (2021). The composting handbook. Compost Research & Education Foundation and Elsevier. Link to source: https://www.compostingcouncil.org/store/viewproduct.aspx?id=19341051

Sánchez, A., Gea, T., Font, X., Artola, A., Barrena, R., & Moral-Vico, J. (Eds.). (2025). Composting: Fundamentals and Recent Advances: Chapter 1. Royal Society of Chemistry. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1039/9781837673650 

Souza, M. A. d., Gonçalves, J. T., & Valle, W. A. d. (2023). In my backyard? Discussing the NIMBY effect, social acceptability, and residents’ involvement in community-based solid waste management. Sustainability, 15(9), Article 7106. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097106

The Environmental Research & Education Foundation. (2024). Analysis of MSW landfill tipping fees — 2023. Link to source: https://erefdn.org/product/analysis-of-msw-landfill-tipping-fees-2023/

U.S. Composting Council. (2008). Greenhouse gases and the role of composting: A primer for compost producers [Fact sheet]. Link to source: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.compostingcouncil.org/resource/resmgr/documents/GHG-and-Role-of-Composting-a.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). 2018 wasted food report (EPA Publication No. EPA 530-R-20-004). Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-02/2018_wasted_food_report-v2.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). 2019 Wasted food report (EPA Publication No. 530-R-23-005). National Institutes of Health. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/2019-wasted-food-report_508_opt_ec_4.23correction.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM): Organic Materials Chapters (EPA Publication No. EPA-530-R-23-019). Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/warm_organic_materials_v16_dec.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, January). Approaches to composting. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/approaches-composting

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, April). Benefits of using compost. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/benefits-using-compost

United Nations Environment Programme. (2023). Towards Zero Waste: A Catalyst for delivering the Sustainable Development Goals. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/44102

United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Global Waste Management Outlook 2024 Beyond an age of waste: Turning rubbish into a resource. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/resources/global-waste-management-outlook-2024 

Urra, J., Alkorta, I., & Garbisu, C. (2019). Potential benefits and risks for soil health derived from the use of organic amendments in agriculture. Agronomy, 9(9), 542. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090542

Wilson, D. C., Paul, J., Ramola, A., & Filho, C. S. (2024). Unlocking the significant worldwide potential of better waste and resource management for climate mitigation: With particular focus on the Global South. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 42(10), 860–872. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X241262717

World Bank. (2018). What a waste global database: Country-level dataset. (Last Updated: June 4, 2024) [Data set]. World Bank. Link to source: https://datacatalogfiles.worldbank.org/ddh-published/0039597/3/DR0049199/country_level_data.csv 

Yasmin, N., Jamuda, M., Panda, A. K., Samal, K., & Nayak, J. K. (2022). Emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) during composting and vermicomposting: Measurement, mitigation, and perspectives. Energy Nexus, 7, Article 100092. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2022.100092

Zaman, A. U. (2016). A comprehensive study of the environmental and economic benefits of resource recovery from global waste management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 41–50. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.086

Zero Waste Europe & Bio-based Industries Consortium. (2024). Bio-waste generation in the EU: Current capture levels and future potential (Second edition). LIFE Programme of the European Union. Link to source: https://zerowasteeurope.eu/library/bio-waste-generation-in-the-eu-current-capture-levels-and-future-potential-second-edition/ 

Zhu, J., Luo, Z., Sun, T., Li, W., Zhou, W., Wang, X., Fei, X., Tong, H., & Yin, K. (2023). Cradle-to-grave emissions from food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems. Nature Food, 4(3), 247–256. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00710-3

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Megan Matthews, Ph. D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph. D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated that composting reduces emissions by 3.9 t CO₂‑eq /t OW (9.3 t CO₂‑eq /t OW, 20-yr basis) based on avoided landfill emissions minus the emissions during composting of MSW OW (Table 1). In our analysis, composting emissions were an order of magnitude lower than landfill emissions.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions. 

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/t OW

25th percentile 2.5
Mean 3.2
Median (50th percentile) 3.9
75th percentile 4.3
Left Text Column Width

Emissions data from composting and landfilling OW are geographically limited, but our analysis includes three global reports and studies from the U.S., China, Denmark, and the EU (European Energy Agency [EEA], 2024; Industrious Labs, 2024; Perez et al., 2023; U.S. EPA, 2020; Yang et al., 2017, Yasmin et al., 2022). We assumed OW was 39.6% of MSW in accordance with global averages (Kaza et al., 2018; World Bank, 2018).

We estimated that landfills emit 4.3 t CO₂‑eq /t OW (9.9 t CO₂‑eq /t OW, 20-yr basis). We estimated composting emissions were 10x lower at 0.4 t CO₂‑eq /t OW (0.6 t CO₂‑eq /t OW, 20-yr basis). We quantified emissions from a variety of composting methods and feedstock mixes (Cao et al., 2023; Perez et al., 2023; Yasmin et al., 2022). Consistent with Amuah et al. (2022), we assumed a 60% moisture content by weight to convert reported wet waste quantities to dry waste weights. We based effectiveness estimates only on dry OW weights. For adoption and cost, we did not distinguish between wet and dry OW.

left_text_column_width
Cost

Financial data were geographically limited. We based cost estimates on global reports with selected studies from the U.K., U.S., India, and Saudi Arabia for landfilling and the U.S. and Sri Lanka for composting. Transportation and collection costs can be significant in waste management, but we did not include them in this analysis. We calculated amortized net cost for landfilling and composting by subtracting revenues from operating costs and amortized initial costs over a 30-yr facility lifetime.

Landfill initial costs are one-time investments, while operating expenses, which include maintenance, wages, and labor, vary annually. Environmental costs, including post-closure operations, are not included in our analysis, but some countries impose taxes on landfilling to incentivize alternative disposal methods and offset remediation costs. Landfills generate revenue through tip fees and sales of landfill gas (Environmental Research & Education Foundation [EREF], 2023; Kaza et al., 2018). We estimated that landfilling is profitable, with a net cost of –US$30/t OW. 

Initial and operational costs for centralized composting vary depending on method and scale (IPCC, 2023; Manea et al., 2024), but up-front costs are generally cheaper than landfilling. Since composting is labor-intensive and requires monitoring, operating costs can be higher, particularly in regions that do not impose landfilling fees (Manea et al., 2024). 

Composting facilities generate revenue through tip fees and sales of compost products. Compost sales alone may not be sufficient to recoup costs, but medium- to large-scale composting facilities are economically viable options for municipalities (Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). We estimated the net composting cost to be US$20/t OW. The positive value indicates that composting is not globally profitable; however, decentralized systems that locally process smaller waste quantities can be profitable using low-cost but highly efficient equipment and methods (see Increase Decentralized Composting). 

We estimated that composting costs US$50/t OW more than landfilling. Although composting systems cost more to implement, the societal and environmental costs are greatly reduced compared to landfilling (Yasmin et al., 2022). The high implementation cost is a barrier to adoption in lower-resourced and developing countries (Wilson et al., 2024). 

Combining effectiveness with the net costs presented here, we estimated a cost per unit climate impact of US$10/t CO₂‑eq (US$5/t CO₂‑eq , 20-yr basis) (Table 2). 

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: US$ (2023)/t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)

Median 10
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Global cost data on composting are limited, and costs can vary depending on composting methods, so we did not quantify a learning rate for centralized composting.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Increase Centralized Composting is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than nominal and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

The composting process has a low risk of reversal since carbon is stored stably in finished compost instead of decaying and releasing methane in a landfill (Ayilara et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). However, a composting system, from collection to finished product, can be challenging to sustain. Along with nitrogen-rich food and green waste, additional carbon-rich biomass, called bulking material, is critical for maintaining optimal composting conditions that minimize GHG emissions. Guaranteeing the availability of sufficient bulking materials can challenge the success of both centralized and decentralized facilities.

Financially and environmentally sustainable composting depends not only on the quality of incoming OW feedstocks, but also on the quality of the final product. Composting businesses require a market for sales of compost products (in green spaces and/or agriculture), and poor source separation could lead to low-quality compost and reduced demand (Kawai et al., 2020; Wilson et al., 2024). Improvements in data collection and quality through good feedback mechanisms can also act as leverage for expanding compost markets, pilot programs, and growing community support.

If composting facilities close due to financial or other barriers, local governments may revert to disposing of organics in landfills. Zoning restrictions also vary broadly across geographies, affecting how easily composting can be implemented (Cao et al., 2023). In regions where centralized composting is just starting, reversal could be more likely without community engagement and local government support (Kawai et al., 2020; Maalouf & Agamuthu, 2023); however, even if facilities close, the emissions savings from past operation cannot be reversed.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

We estimated global composting adoption at 78 million t OW/yr, as the median between two datasets (Table 3). The most recent global data on composting were compiled in 2018 from an analysis from 174 countries and territories (World Bank, 2018). We also used an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) analysis from 45 countries (OECD, 2021). However, there were still many countries and territories that did not report composting data in one or both datasets. Although the World Bank dataset is comprehensive, it is based on data collected in 2011–2018, so more recent, high-quality, global data on composting are needed.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current adoption level (2021).

Unit: t OW composted/yr

25th percentile 67,000,000
Mean 78,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 78,000,000
75th percentile 89,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Globally in 2018, nearly 40% of all waste was disposed of in landfills, 19% was recovered through composting and other recovery and recycling methods, and the remaining waste was either unaccounted for or disposed of through open dumping and wastewater (Kaza et al., 2018)

We calculated total tonnage composted using the reported composting percentages and the total MSW tonnage for each country. Composting percentages were consistently lower than the total percentage of OW present in MSW, suggesting there is ample opportunity for increased composting, even in geographies where it is an established disposal method. In 2018, 26 countries/territories had a composting rate above 10% of MSW, and 15 countries/territories had a composting rate above 20% of MSW. Countries with the highest composting rates were Austria (31%), the Netherlands (27%), and Switzerland (21%) (World Bank, 2018).

left_text_column_width
Adoption Trend

We used OECD data to estimate the composting adoption trend from 2014–2021 (OECD, 2021), which fluctuated significantly from year to year (Table 4). Negative rates indicate less OW was composted globally than in the previous year. Taking the median composting rate across seven years, we estimate the global composting trend as 260,000 t OW/yr/yr. However, the mean composting trend is –1.3 Mt OW/yr/yr, suggesting that on average, composting rates are decreasing globally. 

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Adoption trend (2014–2021).

Unit: t OW composted/yr/yr

25th percentile -1,200,000
Mean -1,300,000
Median (50th percentile) 260,000
75th percentile 4,300,000
Left Text Column Width

Although some regions are increasing their composting capacity, others are either not composting or composting less over time. Germany, Italy, Spain, and the EU overall consistently show increases in composting rates year-to-year, while Greece, Japan, Türkiye, and the U.K. show decreasing composting rates. In Europe, the main drivers for consistent adoption were disposal costs, financial penalties, and the landfill directive (Ayilara et al., 2020). 

Lack of reported data could also contribute to a negative global average composting rate over the past seven years. A large decline in composting rates from 2018–2019 was driven by a lack of data in 2019 for the U.S. and Canada. If we assumed that the U.S. composted the same tonnage in 2019 as in 2018, instead of no tonnage as reported in the data, then the annual trend for 2018–2019 is much less negative (–450,000 t OW/yr/yr) and the overall mean trend between 2014–2019 would be positive (1,400,000 t OW/yr/yr).

left_text_column_width
Adoption Ceiling

We estimate the global adoption ceiling for Increase Centralized Composting to be 1.35 billion t OW/yr (Table 5). In 2016, 2.01 Gt of MSW were generated, and generation is expected to increase to 3.4 Gt by 2050 (Kaza et al., 2018). Due to limited global data availability on composting infrastructure or policies, we estimated the adoption ceiling based on the projected total MSW for 2050 and assumed the OW fraction remains the same over time.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling. upper limit for adoption level.

Unit: t OW composted/yr

Median (50th percentile) 1,350,000,000
Left Text Column Width

In reality, amounts of food waste within MSW are also increasing, suggesting that there are sufficient global feedstocks to support widespread composting adoption (Zhu et al., 2023). 

We assume that all OW could be processed via composting, but this ceiling is unlikely to be reached. In practice, organics could also be processed via methane digesters (see Deploy Methane Digesters), incinerated, or dumped, but these waste management treatments have similar environmental risks to landfilling. 

left_text_column_width
Achievable Adoption

Since the global annual trend fluctuates, we used country-specific composting rates and organic fractions of MSW from 2018 to estimate the achievable range of composting adoption (see Appendix for an example). In our analysis, achievable increases in country-specific composting rates cannot exceed the total organic fraction of 2018 MSW. 

For the 106 countries/territories that did not report composting rates, we defined achievable levels of composting relative to the fraction of OW in MSW. When countries also did not report OW percentages, the country-specific composting rate was kept at zero. For the remaining 86 countries/territories, we assumed that 25% of organic MSW could be diverted to composting for low achievable adoption and that 50% could be diverted for high achievable adoption. 

For the 68 countries/territories with reported composting rates, we define low and high achievable adoption as a 25% or 50% increase to the country-specific composting rate, respectively. If the increased rate for either low or high adoption exceeded the country-specific OW fraction of MSW, we assumed that all organic MSW could be composted (see Appendix for an example). Our Achievable – Low adoption level is 201 Mt OW/yr, or 15% of our estimated adoption ceiling (Table 6). Our Achievable – High adoption level is 301 Mt OW/yr, or 22% of our estimated adoption ceiling. 

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: t OW composted/yr

Current adoption 78,000,000
Achievable – low 201,000,000
Achievable – high 301,000,000
Adoption ceiling 1,350,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Our estimated adoption levels are conservative because some regions without centralized composting of MSW could have subnational decentralized composting programs that aren’t reflected in global data.

left_text_column_width

Although our achievable range is conservative compared to the estimated adoption ceiling, increased composting has the potential to reduce GHG emissions from landfills (Table 7). We estimated that current adoption reduces annual GHG emissions by 0.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.73 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis). Our estimated low and high achievable adoption levels reduce 0.78 and 1.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (1.9 and 2.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis), respectively. Using the adoption ceiling, we estimate that annual GHG reductions increase to 5.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (12.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis).

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/yr

Current adoption 0.30
Achievable – low 0.78
Achievable – high 1.2
Adoption ceiling 5.2
Left Text Column Width

The IPCC estimated in 2023 that the entire waste sector accounted for 3.9% of total global GHG emissions, and solid waste management represented 36% of total waste sector emissions (IPCC, 2023). Disposal of waste in landfills leads to methane emissions estimated at nearly 1.9 Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) annually (IEA, 2024). Based on these estimates, current composting adoption reduces annual methane emissions from landfills more than 16%. 

Increasing adoption to low and high achievable levels could reduce the amount of OW going to landfills by up to 40% and avoid 32–50% of landfill emissions. Reaching our estimated adoption ceilings for Increase Centralized Composting and reduction-focused solutions like Reduce Food Loss and Waste could avoid all food-related landfill emissions.

These climate impacts can be considered underestimates of beneficial mitigation from increased composting since we did not quantify the carbon sequestration benefits of compost application and reduced synthetic fertilizer use. Our estimated climate impacts from composting are also an underestimate because we didn’t include decentralized composting. 

left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Composting creates more jobs than landfills or incinerators and can save money compared with other waste management options (Bekchanov & Mirzabaev, 2018; Farhidi et al., 2022; Platt et al., 2013; Zaman, 2016). It is less expensive to build and maintain composting plants than incinerators (Kawai et al., 2020). According to a survey of Maryland waste sites, composting creates twice as many jobs as landfills and four times as many jobs as incineration plants (Platt et al., 2013). Composting also indirectly sustains jobs in the distribution and use of compost products (Platt et al., 2013). Compost is rich in nutrients and can also reduce costs associated with synthetic fertilizer use in agriculture (Farhidi et al., 2022).

Health

Odors coming from anaerobic decomposition landfills, such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, are another source of pollutants that impact human well-being, which can be reduced by aerobic composting (Cai et al., 2018).

Equality

Reducing community exposure to air pollution from landfills through composting has implications for environmental justice (Casey et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2023). A large review of waste sites in the United States and Europe found that landfills are disproportionately located near populations with low socioeconomic status and near racially and ethnically marginalized neighborhoods (Marzutti et al., 2010). Reducing disproportionate exposures to air pollution from landfills may mitigate poor health outcomes in surrounding communities (Brender et al., 2011)

Land Resources

Compost provides an important soil amendment that adds organic matter and nutrients to soil, reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers (Urra et al., 2019; U.S. EPA, 2025). Healthy soils that are rich in organic matter can benefit the surrounding ecosystem and watershed and lead to more plant growth through improved water retention and filtration, improved soil quality and structure, and reduced erosion and nutrient runoff (Bell & Platt, 2014; Martinez-Blanco et al., 2013; U.S. EPA, 2025). By reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers and by improving soils’ ability to filter and conserve water, compost can also reduce eutrophication of water bodies (U.S. EPA, 2025). These soil benefits are partially dependent on how compost is sorted because there may be risks associated with contamination of microplastics and heavy metals (Manea et al., 2024; Urra et al., 2019).

Water Resources

For a description of water resources benefits, please see Land Resources above. 

Air Quality

Composting can reduce air pollution such as CO₂, methane, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter that is commonly released from landfills and waste-to-energy systems (Kawai et al., 2020; Nordahl et al., 2020; Siddiqua et al., 2022). An analysis comparing emissions from MSW systems found composting to have lower emissions than landfilling and other waste-to-energy streams (Nordahl et al., 2020). Composting can also reduce the incidence of landfill fires, which release black carbon and carbon monoxide, posing risks to the health and safety of people in nearby communities (Nguyen et al., 2023).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Before the composting process can start, feedstocks are sorted to remove potential contaminants, including nonbiodegradable materials such as metal and glass as well as plastics, bioplastics, and paper products (Kawai et al., 2020; Perez et al., 2023; Wilson et al., 2024). While most contaminants can be removed through a variety of manual and mechanical sorting techniques, heavy metals and microplastics can become potential safety hazards or reduce finished compost quality (Manea et al., 2024). Paper and cardboard should be separated from food and green waste streams because they often contain contaminants such as glue or ink, and they degrade more slowly than other OW, leading to longer processing time and lower-quality finished compost (Kawai et al., 2020; Krause et al., 2023).

Successful and safe composting requires careful monitoring of compost piles to avoid anaerobic conditions and ensure sufficient temperatures to kill pathogens and weed seeds (Amuah et al., 2022; Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). Anaerobic conditions within the compost pile increase GHGs emitted during composting. Poorly managed composting facilities can also pose safety risks for workers and release odors, leading to community backlash (Cao et al., 2023; Manea et al., 2024; UNEP, 2024). Regional standards, certifications, and composter training programs are necessary to protect workers from hazardous conditions and to guarantee a safe and effective compost product (Kawai et al., 2020). Community outreach and education on the benefits of separating waste and composting prevent “not-in-my-backyard” attitudes or “NIMBYism” (Brown, 2015; Platt & Fagundes 2018) that may lead to siting composting facilities further from the communities they serve (Souza, et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2018).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Increased composting could positively impact annual cropping by providing consistent, high-quality finished compost that can reduce dependence on synthetic fertilizers and improve soil health and crop yields. 

left_text_column_width

High-quality sorting systems also allow for synergies that benefit all waste streams and create flexible, resilient waste management systems. Improving waste separation programs for composting can have spillover effects that also improve other waste streams, such as recyclables, agricultural waste, or e-waste. Access to well-sorted materials can also help with nutrient balance for various waste streams, including agricultural waste.

left_text_column_width

Composting facilities require a reliable source of carbon-rich bulking material. Agricultural waste can be diverted to composting rather than burning to reduce emissions from crop residue burning. 

left_text_column_width

Competing

Diverting OW from landfills will lead to lower landfill methane emissions and, therefore, less methane available to be captured and resold as revenue.

left_text_column_width

Composting uses wood, crop residues, and food waste as feedstocks (raw material). Because the total projected demand for biomass feedstocks for climate solutions exceeds the supply, not all solutions will be able to achieve their potential adoption. This solution is in competition with other climate solutions for raw material.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

t organic waste

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
02.53.9
units/yr
Current 7.8×10⁷ 02.009×10⁸3.01×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.3 0.781.2
US$ per t CO₂-eq
10
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  CH₄

Trade-offs

Robust collection networks and source separation of OW are vital for successful composting, but they also increase investment costs. However, well-sorted OW can reduce the need for separation equipment and allow for simpler facility designs, leading to lower operational costs. The emissions from transporting OW are not included here, but are expected to be significantly less than the avoided landfill emissions. Composting facilities are typically located close to the source of OW (Kawai et al., 2020; U.S. Composting Council [USCC], 2008), but since centralized composting facilities are designed to serve large communities and municipalities, there can be trade-offs between sufficient land availability and distance from waste sources.

We also exclude emissions from onsite vehicles and equipment such as bulldozers and compactors, assuming that those emissions are small compared to the landfill itself.

left_text_column_width
t/person/yr
< 0.17
0.17–0.32
0.32–0.5
> 0.5
No Data

Per capita MSW generation, 2018

Annual generation of MSW per capita. Total global MSW generation exceeded 2 Gt/yr.

World Bank Group (2021). What a waste global database (Version 3) [Data set]. WBG. Retrieved March 6, 2025, from Link to source: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0039597

t/person/yr
< 0.17
0.17–0.32
0.32–0.5
> 0.5
No Data

Per capita MSW generation, 2018

Annual generation of MSW per capita. Total global MSW generation exceeded 2 Gt/yr.

World Bank Group (2021). What a waste global database (Version 3) [Data set]. WBG. Retrieved March 6, 2025, from Link to source: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0039597

Maps Introduction

Globally, 17 countries reported composting more than 1 Mt each of organic waste in 2018, with India, China, Germany, and France reporting more than 5 Mt each (World Bank, 2018). With the exception of Austria, which composted nearly all organic waste generated, even countries with established centralized composting could divert more organic waste to composting. 

The fate from which composting diverts organic waste varies from region to region, but globally over 40% of all waste ends up in landfills. Since organic waste makes up the largest percentage of MSW in most regions, excluding North America, parts of East Asia and the Pacific, and parts of Europe and Central Asia, there is ample opportunity to increase composting. In East Asia and the Pacific, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, diverting organics to composting also avoids disposal in waterways and open dumps, which reduces pollution. In North America and Europe and Central Asia, 15–20% of MSW is incinerated (Kaza et al., 2018), so diverting all organic waste to composting would avoid harmful incineration emissions including CO, NOx, and VOCs (Abedin et al., 2025; Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, 2019; Liu et al., 2021; Nubi et al., 2024).

Diversion of organic waste requires separation of waste streams, and cities with better collection and tracking networks often have more robust composting programs. Higher quality and more frequent reporting on waste generation and disposal worldwide could improve source separation and increase composting. Additionally, city-level and decentralized pilot programs allow for better control over feedstock collection and can bolster support for larger scale, centralized operations. 

Multiple cities in Latin America and the Caribbean represent a resurgence in composting markets . In the 1960s and 1970s, composting facilities were built in cities across Mexico, El Salvador, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Brazil, but many closed due to high operational costs (Ricci-Jürgensen et al., 2020a). In 2018, 15% of waste was recycled or composted in Montevideo, Uruguay, and Bogotá and Medellín, Colombia, and 10% of waste was composted in Mexico City, Mexico, and Rosario, Argentina (Kaza et al., 2018).  

Waste generation is increasing globally, with the largest increases projected to occur in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa (Kaza et al., 2018). As waste generation doubles or triples in these regions, sustainable disposal methods will become more critical for human health and well-being. 

In 2018, Ethiopia reported the highest organic waste percentage in sub-Saharan Africa at 85% of MSW, but no composting (World Bank, 2018). Organic waste percentages are high in other countries in the region, so composting could be a valuable method to handle the growing waste stream. In the Middle East & North Africa, 43% of countries reported composting as of 2018 (Kaza et al., 2018), indicating the presence of infrastructure that could be scaled up to handle increased waste in the future.

Action Word
Increase
Solution Title
Centralized Composting
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Establish zero waste and OW diversion goals; incorporate them into local or national climate plans and soil health and conservation policies.
  • Ensure public procurement uses local compost when possible.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Establish or improve existing centralized composting facilities, collection networks, and storage facilities.
  • Establish incentives and programs to encourage both centralized and decentralized composting.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Invest in source separation education and waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Regulate the use of waste separation technologies to prioritize source separation of waste and the quality of compost products.
  • Ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs with particular attention to underserved communities such as multi-family buildings and rural households.
  • Enact extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Ensure composting plants are placed as close to farmland as possible and do not adversely affect surrounding communities.
  • Streamline permitting processes for centralized compost facilities and infrastructure.
  • Establish laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Establish zoning policies that support both centralized and decentralized composting efforts, including at the industrial, agricultural, community, and backyard scales.
  • Establish fees or fines for OW going to landfills; use funds for composting programs.
  • Use financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support infrastructure, participation, and waste separation.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why it’s important.
  • If composting is not possible or additional infrastructure is needed, consider methane digesters as alternatives to composting.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Work with policymakers and local communities to establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals for local or national climate plans.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to create quality supply streams and develop markets for compost.
  • Invest in source separation education and waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why that’s important.
  • Ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs with particular attention to underserved communities such as multi-family buildings and rural households.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Ensure composting plants are placed as close to farmland as possible and do not adversely affect surrounding communities.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies or exemptions to set up centralized composting infrastructure, increase participation, and improve waste separation.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Consider partnerships through initiatives such as sister cities to share innovation and develop capacity.
  • If additional infrastructure is needed, consider methane digesters as alternatives to composting.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; incorporate the goals into corporate net-zero strategies.
  • Ensure procurement uses strategies to reduce FLW at all stages of the supply chain; consider using the Food Loss and Waste Protocol.
  • Ensure corporate procurement and facilities managers use local compost when possible.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Offer employee pre-tax benefits on materials to compost at home or participate in municipal composting programs.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support composting initiatives.
  • Support extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Educate employees on the benefits of composting, include them in companywide waste diversion initiatives, and encourage them to use and advocate for municipal composting in their communities. Clearly label containers and signage for composting.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Help policymakers establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; help incorporate them into local or national climate plans.
  • Ensure organizational procurement uses local compost when possible.
  • Help administer, fund, or promote local composting programs.
  • Help gather data on local OW streams, potential markets, and comparisons of alternative uses such as methane digesters.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Help ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs with particular attention to underserved communities such as multi-family buildings and rural households.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why that’s important.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure relevant portfolio companies separate waste streams, contribute to compost programs, and/or use finished compost.
  • Invest in companies developing composting programs or technologies that support the process, such as equipment, circular supply chains, and consumer products.
  • Fund start-ups or existing companies that are improving waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support composting initiatives.
  • Invest in companies that adhere to extended producer responsibility or encourage portfolio companies to adopt the policies.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Help policymakers establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; help incorporate them into local or national climate plans.
  • Advocate for businesses to establish time-bound and transparent zero-waste and OW diversion goals.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Provide financing and capacity building for low- and middle-income countries to establish composting infrastructure and programs.
  • Help administer, fund, or promote composting programs.
  • Invest in companies developing composting programs or technologies that support the process, such as equipment, circular supply chains, and consumer products.
  • Fund startups or existing companies that are improving waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Incubate and fund mission-driven organizations and cooperatives that are advancing OW composting.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support composting initiatives.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Help ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs, with particular attention to underserved communities such as multifamily buildings and rural households.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Research and enact effective composting promotional strategies.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why that’s important.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Participate in and promote centralized, community, or household composting programs, if available, and carefully sort OW from other waste streams.
  • If no centralized composting system exists, work with local experts to establish household and community composting systems.
  • Help policymakers establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; help incorporate them into local or national climate plans.
  • Start cooperatives that provide services and/or equipment for composting.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Help gather data on local OW streams, potential markets, and comparisons of alternative uses such as methane digesters.
  • Help develop waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products and/or improve educational programs on waste separation.
  • Develop innovative governance models for local composting programs; publicly document your experiences.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost.
  • Research various governance models for local composting programs and outline options for communities to consider.
  • Research and enact effective composting campaign strategies.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Quantify estimates of OW both locally and globally; estimate the associated potential compost output.
  • Improve waste separation technology to improve the quality of finished compost.
  • Create tracking and monitoring software for OW streams, possible uses, markets, and pricing.
  • Research the application of AI and robotics for optimal uses of OW streams, separation, collection, distribution, and uses.
  • Research various governance models for local composting programs and outline options for communities to consider.
  • Research effective composting campaign strategies and how to encourage participation from individuals.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Participate in and promote centralized composting programs, if available, and carefully sort OW from other waste.
  • If no centralized composting system exists, work with local experts to establish household and community composting systems.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, and businesses to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Take advantage of educational programs, financial incentives, employee benefits, and other programs that facilitate composting.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness as a climate solution: High

Composting reduces OW, prevents pollution and GHG emissions from landfilled OW, and creates soil amendments that can reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers (Kaza et al., 2018; Manea et al., 2024). Although we do not quantify carbon sequestration from compost use in this analysis, a full life-cycle analysis that includes application could result in net negative emissions for composting (Morris et al., 2013).

Globally, the waste sector was responsible for an estimated 3.9% of total global GHG emissions in 2023, and solid waste management represented 36% of those emissions (IPCC, 2023; UNEP, 2024). Emissions estimates based on satellite and field measurements from landfills or direct measurements of carbon content in food waste can be significantly higher than IPCC Tier 1-based estimates. Reviews of global waste management estimated that food loss and food waste account for around 6% of global emissions or approximately 2.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Wilson et al., 2024; Zhu et al., 2023). Facility-scale composting reduces emissions 38–84% relative to landfilling (Perez et al., 2023), and monitoring and managing the moisture content, aeration, and carbon to nitrogen ratios can further reduce emissions (Ayilara et al., 2020).

Unclear legislation and regulation for MSW composting can prevent adoption, and there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to composting (Cao et al., 2023). Regardless of the method used, composting converts OW into a nutrient-rich resource and typically reduces incoming waste volumes 40–60% in the process (Cao et al., 2023; Kaza et al., 2018). A comparative cost and energy analysis of MSW components highlighted that while composting adoption varies geographically and economically, environmental benefits also depend on geography and income (Zaman, 2016). Food and green waste percentages of MSW are higher in lower-resourced countries than in high-income countries due to less packaging, and more than one-third of waste in high-income countries is recovered through recycling and composting (Kaza et al., 2018).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 22 reports, 31 reviews, 12 original studies, two books, nine web articles, one fact sheet, and three data sets reflecting the most recent evidence for more than 200 countries and territories. 

left_text_column_width
Appendix

Global MSW Generation and Disposal

Analysis of MSW in this section is based on the 2018 What a Waste 2.0 global dataset and report as well as the references cited in the report (Kaza et al., 2018; World Bank 2018). In 2018, approximately 2 Gt of waste was generated globally. Most of that went to landfills (41%) and open dumps (22%). Out of 217 countries and territories, 24 sent more than 80% of all MSW to landfills and 3 countries reported landfilling 100% of MSW. The average across all countries/territories was 28% of MSW disposed of in landfills. Both controlled and sanitary landfills with gas capture systems are included in the total landfilled percentage.

Approximately 13% of MSW was treated through recycling and 13% through incineration, but slightly more waste was incinerated than recycled per year. Incineration was predominately used in upper-middle and high-income countries with negligible amounts of waste incinerated in low- and lower-middle income countries.

Globally, only about 5% of MSW was composted and nearly no MSW was processed via methane digestion. However, OW made up nearly 40% of global MSW, so most OW was processed through landfilling, open dumping, and incineration all of which result in significant GHG emissions and pollution. There is ample opportunity to divert more OW from polluting disposal methods toward composting. Due to lack of data on open dumping, and since incineration only accounts for 1% of global GHG emissions, we chose landfilling as our baseline disposal method for comparison.

In addition to MSW, other waste streams include medical waste, e-waste, hazardous waste, and agricultural waste. Global agricultural waste generation in 2018 was more than double total MSW (Kaza et al., 2018). Although these specialized waste streams are treated separately from MSW, integrated waste management systems with high-quality source separation programs could supplement organic MSW with agricultural waste. Rather than being burned or composted on-farm, agricultural waste can provide bulking materials that are critical for maintaining moisture levels and nutrient balance in the compost pile, as well as scaling up composting operations. 

left_text_column_width

Details of a Composting System and Process

Successful centralized composting starts with collection and separation of OW from other waste streams, ideally at the source of waste generation. Financial and regulatory barriers can hinder creation or expansion of composting infrastructure. Composting systems require both facilities and robust collection networks to properly separate OW from nonbiodegradable MSW and transport OW to facilities. Mixed waste streams increase contamination risks with incoming feedstocks, so separation of waste materials at the source of generation is ideal. 

Establishing OW collection presents a financial and logistical barrier to increased composting adoption (Kawai et al., 2020; Kaza et al., 2018). However, when considering a full cost-chain analysis that includes collection, transportation, and treatment, systems that rely on source-separated OW can be more cost-effective than facilities that process mixed organics. 

OW and inorganic waste can also be sorted at facilities manually or mechanically with automated techniques including electromagnetic separation, ferrous metal separation, and sieving or screening (Kawai et al., 2020). Although separation can be highly labor-intensive, it’s necessary to remove potential contaminants, such as plastics, heavy metals, glass, and other nonbiodegradable or hazardous waste components (Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). After removing contaminants, organic materials are pre-processed and mixed to achieve the appropriate combination of water, oxygen, and solids for optimal aerobic conditions during the composting process. 

Regardless of the specific composting method used, aerobic decomposition is achieved by monitoring and balancing key parameters within the compost pile. Key parameters are moisture content, temperature, carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, aeration, pH, and porosity (Cao et al., 2023; Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). The aerobic decomposition process can be split into distinct stages based on whether mesophilic (active at 20–40 oC) or thermophilic (active at 40–70 oC) bacteria and fungi dominate. Compost piles are constructed to allow for sufficient aeration while optimizing moisture content (50–60%) and the initial carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (25:1–40:1), depending on composting method and feedstocks (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al, 2024). Optimal carbon-to-nitrogen ratios are achieved through appropriate mixing of carbon-rich “brown” materials, such as sawdust or dry leaves, with nitrogen-rich “green” materials, such as food waste or manure (Manea et al., 2024). During the thermophilic stage, temperatures exceeding 62 oC are necessary to kill most pathogens and weed seeds (Amuah et al., 2022; Ayilara et al., 2020).

Throughout the composting process key nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium), are mineralized and mobilized and microorganisms release GHGs and heat as by-products of their activity (Manea et al., 2024; Nordahl et al., 2023). Water is added iteratively to maintain moisture content and temperature in the optimal ranges, and frequent turning and aeration are necessary to ensure microorganisms have enough oxygen. Without the proper balance of oxygen and water, anaerobic conditions can lead to higher methane emissions (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al., 2024). Although CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide are released during the process, these emissions are significantly lower than associated emissions from landfilling (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; FAO, 2019; Perez et al., 2023).

Once aerobic decomposition is completed, compost goes through a maturation stage where nutrients are stabilized before finished compost can be sold or used as a soil amendment. In stable compost, microbial decomposition slows until nutrients no longer break down, but can be absorbed by plants. Longer maturation phases reduce the proportion of soluble nutrients that could potentially leach into soils. 

The baseline waste management method of landfilling OW is cheaper than composting; however it also leads to significant annual GHG emissions. Composting, although more expensive due to higher labor and operating costs, reduces emissions and produces a valuable soil amendment. Establishing a composting program can have significant financial risks without an existing market for finished compost products (Bogner et al., 2007; Kawai et al., 2020; UNEP, 2024).

left_text_column_width

Example Calculation of Achievable Adoption

In 2018, Austria had the highest composting rate of 31.2%, and Vietnam composted 15% of MSW (World Bank, 2018). 

For low adoption, we assumed composting increases by 25% of the existing rate or until all OW in MSW is composted. In Austria, OW made up 31.4% of MSW in 2018, so the Adoption – Low composting rate was 31.4%. In Vietnam, the Adoption – Low composting rate came out to 18.75%, which is still less than the total OW percentage of MSW (61.9%).

For high adoption, we assumed that composting rates increase by 50% of the existing rate or until all OW in MSW is composted. So high adoption in Austria remains 31.4% (i.e., all OW generated in Austria is composted). In Vietnam, the high adoption composting rate increases to 22.5% but still doesn’t capture all OW generated (61.9% of MSW).

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Deploy Methane Digesters

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Use Waste as a Resource
Image
Methane digesters
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Methane digesters are specialized devices that use anaerobic digestion to convert agricultural, industrial, or municipal organic waste into biogas and digestate, a nutrient-rich material. Treating organic waste using a methane digester reduces emissions by capturing methane that would have been released during uncontrolled anaerobic decomposition in a landfill or manure lagoon. In addition, the biogas produced by a methane digester can be used as fuel for heat, electricity, or transportation. However, emissions reduction efficacy depends on the type of organic feedstock used and methane leakage rates, which can be high. Methane digesters have been deployed in many parts of the world at various scales, from household to centralized industrial-scale digesters. Capital and operational costs can be high, but the sale of biogas can provide additional sources of revenue for farmers or waste disposal facilities. However, this could also incentivize increased waste production to meet biogas demand, leading to higher emissions. Based on our assessment, methane digesters can reduce emissions under specific conditions. However, due to their high costs, uneven effectiveness, and risk of incentivizing waste production, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

Description for Social and Search
The Deploy Methane Digesters solution is coming soon.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, methane digesters can reduce emissions only under some conditions. However, because of high methane leakage rates, relatively high costs, and the risk that they may incentivize high-emission activities, methane digesters are not broadly applicable for large-scale deployment. We will “Keep Watching” this potential climate solution.

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Limited
Effective Does it consistently work? No
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? No

What is it?

Methane digesters are specialized devices that utilize anaerobic digestion to convert agricultural, industrial, or municipal organic waste into useful products, such as biogas and digestate, in a controlled environment. Using methane digesters to treat organic waste reduces emissions by capturing methane that would have otherwise been released during uncontrolled anaerobic decomposition in landfills, manure lagoons, or other waste facilities. Methane digester-produced biogas, which is roughly 50% methane and 50% CO₂, along with some trace gases, can be used directly as a fuel or refined further into biomethane to replace natural gas use for heat, electricity, transportation, or industrial processes. Biogas can potentially reduce emissions from electricity or heat generation if it is used to replace a more emissions-intensive fuel. Biomethane, also called renewable natural gas, can be used as a drop-in replacement anywhere natural gas is used, such as in industrial processes.

Does it work?

The effectiveness of methane digesters for reducing emissions varies depending on the type of feedstock used and the amount of methane that leaks from the digester and any associated tanks, valves, and pipes. For manure and municipal organic waste, which often degrade in anaerobic environments and can emit methane directly to the atmosphere, capturing that methane in a methane digester and using the resulting biogas to replace a fossil fuel energy source can result in a net emissions reduction if methane leakage rates are low. In contrast, using agricultural crop residues, which typically degrade aerobically and produce CO₂, as feedstock for a methane digester may yield little or no reduction in net GHG emissions, largely due to methane leaks. Use of biogas for energy can also reduce emissions if it replaces a more carbon-intensive fuel. 

Why are we excited?

Methane digesters have been deployed in many parts of the world at various scales, from household to centralized industrial-scale digesters. They can use a wide variety of organic feedstocks from the agricultural, municipal, and industrial sectors. For municipal organic waste and concentrated livestock manure, methane digesters are more effective at reducing emissions than landfilling or most other manure management strategies. The biogas produced can be stored and used for on-site energy needs or as a fuel source for dispatchable electricity that supports intermittent clean energy options such as solar and wind generation. It can also be sold to provide additional sources of revenue for farmers or waste disposal facilities. The use of methane digesters can reduce noxious odors from waste, and the digestate can be used as material for animal bedding or fertilizer, reducing demand for synthetic fertilizers. 

Why are we concerned?

The most serious problem with methane digesters is that they are a significant source of methane leaks. Few data are available on leakage rates; however, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that methane leakage from biogas production can range from 0% to 12%, which is significantly higher than the average global methane leakage rate for oil and gas production of 1.2% in 2024. Over a 20-year time frame, methane is more than 80 times more potent than CO₂ at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Therefore, using methane digesters to process waste material that would otherwise degrade aerobically in order to produce methane-rich biogas could, due to high methane leakage rates, have an even greater warming impact than if the waste were left alone. The collection, transportation, and processing of feedstocks and the operation of the methane digesters also produce GHG emissions from fuel use. 

Methane digesters have a high capital cost and are more expensive than other forms of manure methane abatement, such as covers, physical treatments, or chemical treatments. Financial support from governments can help with the upfront installation costs, while low-cost feedstocks and expensive conventional fuel prices could help create an environment where biogas production is economically viable. However, these economic incentives may encourage poor farming practices or increased waste production. For example, dairy farmers may consider increasing their herd size to capitalize on revenues from the outputs of methane digesters, an outcome that would increase total methane emissions from agriculture. There are also health and safety concerns, as there have been instances of digester explosions and leaks that have injured people or harmed the environment.

Brown, D. (2025). Anaerobic digesters must be tightly regulated. Huron River Watershed Council. Link to source: https://www.hrwc.org/anaerobic-digesters-must-be-tightly-regulated/ 

CCAC secretariat. (2022). Biogas, a climate and clean air solution with many benefits. Climate & Clean Air Coalition. Link to source: https://www.ccacoalition.org/news/biogas-climate-and-clean-air-solution-many-benefits 

International Energy Agency. (2021). Global methane tracker 2021: Methane abatement and regulation. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2021/methane-abatement-and-regulation 

International Energy Agency. (2022). The role of biogas and biomethane in pathway to net zero. Link to source: https://task37.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2023/05/2022_12_12-IEA_Bioenergy_position-paper_Final2.pdf 

International Energy Agency. (2025). Global methane tracker 2025. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/events/global-methane-tracker-2025 

Krause, M. Kenny, S., Stephensons, J. & Singleton, A (2023). Food waste management: Quantifying methane emissions from landfilled food waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/food-waste-landfill-methane-10-8-23-final_508-compliant.pdf

Liebetrau, J., Rensberg, N., Maguire, D., Archer, D., Wall, D., & Murphy, J. D. (2021). Renewable gas – discussion on the state of the industry and its future in a decarbonised world. International Energy Agency. Link to source: https://task37.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/02/Renewable_Gas_Report_END.pdf 

Murphy, J. D., Rusmanis, D., Gray, N., & O’Shea, R. (2024). Circular economy approaches to integration of anaerobic digestion with power to X technologies. IEA Bioenergy Task 37. Link to source: https://task37.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2024/03/IEA_power_to_Xreport_END.pdf 

Smith P., Reay D., & Smith J. (2021). Agricultural methane emissions and the potential for mitigation. Philosophical Transactions A. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0451 

Toussaint, K. (2023). Renewable natural gas has become a climate darling - but there’s a catch. Fast Company. Link to source: https://www.fastcompany.com/90970432/renewable-natural-gas-has-become-a-climate-darling-but-theres-a-catch 

Williams, M. (2024). Dairy Digesters Promise to Cut Methane — Unfortunately, They Might Be an Inefficient Band-Aid. Sentient Climate. Link to source: https://sentientmedia.org/dairy-digesters-methane/ 

Zeniewski, P., Gould, T., McGlade, C., Hays, J., Hwang, G. Báscones, A. A., Minier, Q., StClair, N. & Takashiro, J. (2025). Outlook for biogas and biomethane: A global geospatial assessment. International Energy Agency. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Jason Lam

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Methane Digesters
Classification
Keep Watching
Updated Date
Subscribe to Use Waste as a Resource

Support Climate Action

Drawdown Delivered

Join the 85,000+ subscribers discovering how to drive meaningful climate action around the world! Every other week, you'll get expert insights, cutting-edge research, and inspiring stories.

Receive biweekly email newsletter updates from Project Drawdown. Unsubscribe at any time.
back to top