The Economics of Recycling: Why Does the United States Fall Behind?

In a world of rapid industrialization and climate change, waste reduction is one of the most widespread and accessible forms of environmental conservation. Ever since the introduction of modern recycling practices, many developed nations have emerged as leaders in waste reduction. South Korea, for example, has achieved a 60% recycling and composting rate with a strict mandate for households and businesses that requires all waste to be separated into color-coded bags for appropriate disposal, with heavy fees for noncompliance (Belcher, 2022). Other countries, such as Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, have similarly strict nationwide recycling programs. Through these initiatives, nations have begun the stride towards zero-waste living and a sustainable future for generations. Despite this global race, recycling in the United States is broken. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the country generates nearly 300 million tons of waste per year, the highest amount of any country, yet its recycling and composting rate is only 32.1% (EPA, 2024). Although the United States maintains the world’s highest Gross Domestic Product, its inability to match the recycling standards of other developed nations has drawn criticism among policymakers and climate activists, highlighting the stark contrast between its economic capacity for sustainable innovation and the underdevelopment of its waste systems.

Unlike many developed nations, the United States lacks a national recycling mandate, with state and local laws varying widely. Maine is one of the few states with mandated recycling of certain items and a beverage container redemption program (“What can I recycle,” n.d.). Alaska, on the other hand, does not have a broad statewide recycling mandate, and most residents do not have access to curbside recycling, resulting in one of the worst recycling performances in the country (Cronin, 2019). A Pew Research Center survey found that only 40% of rural residents had access to curbside recycling, compared to 70% in urban and suburban residents, underscoring the nation’s location-based disparities (Desilver, 2016). Additionally, many public spaces across the country do not provide separate recycling bins, and some cities even charge an additional fee for household recycling. Given this variation, a standardized federal policy would address regional gaps in recycling performance and boost U.S. sustainability efforts to a level comparable to that of the world’s leading green nations. Although there have been efforts to implement concrete legislation in Congress, none have yet passed, raising the question of why such legislation is failing to progress.

Bipartisan inaction is undoubtedly a significant factor impeding progress on recycling initiatives. Throughout the years, even during the climate-forward administrations of former U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the United States never saw uniform recycling bills become legislation. This suggests that there are deeper structural and economic factors that explain the United States’ limited progress on recycling beyond mere political divides. For example, Political Action Committees formed by industries that oppose climate change initiatives notoriously channel funds to political institutions to discourage legislation centered around environmental conservation. Industry groups, such as the American Chemistry Council, and fossil fuel corporations, such as Chevron, have actively lobbied against climate change and stricter waste reduction initiatives. However, over the past year, U.S. President Donald Trump has made a string of policy decisions that have reversed decades of U.S. climate change initiatives. In the first month of his presidency, Trump officially withdrew from the Paris Agreement on the basis that it could damage the nation’s economy (White House, 2025). The Paris Agreement heavily encourages member nations to shift to a circular economy, which involves avoiding excessive consumption and waste through recycling and other conservation techniques (UNFCCC, 2021). This past February, Trump reversed a ruling that had established several greenhouse gases as a threat to public health, pointing to potential cost burdens on automobile makers (McGrath, 2026). Given Trump’s deregulatory actions, it is no surprise that he is unwilling to invest in recycling initiatives. Trump’s 2026 budget notably cut funding for recycling activity, among other EPA divisions (Wallace, 2025). Thus, federal recycling standards are unlikely to be established under the current administration.

In addition to the national disputes, international policy plays a significant role in preventing recycling initiatives. Most notably, in 2018, China implemented a ban on several types of plastics and other recyclable waste. This left the United States with severely limited options for exporting its waste, as it had previously relied on China’s low-cost and loosely regulated disposal policies. Although China’s decision disrupted markets globally, the U.S. recycling economy faces disproportionate consequences due to its position as the world’s leading producer of waste. In 2016, the United States exported 2.9 million metric tons of recyclable waste to China (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2025). Following the ban, the United States attempted to divert its waste exports to countries such as Vietnam and Thailand. However, many of those countries later introduced their own bans after becoming overwhelmed by the influx of exports. Recycling facilities began to increase costs to consumers, and some closed down altogether, severely undermining recycling initiatives (Katz, 2019). Although there have been improvements to recycling systems since the ban, negative impacts remain. A study found that the ban increased the amount of waste disposed of in landfills and is associated with a decline in post-consumer recycling activity (Sigman & Strow, 2024). These prolonged challenges imply that an immediate implementation of strict recycling enforcement may overwhelm recycling facilities’ capacity to efficiently store and manage recyclables. Recycling is also expensive, as the processing of some materials, such as plastic, results in a net financial loss, as the cost of recycling outweighs that of its initial production (Ettehadieh, 2011). These challenges, paired with the great amount of waste produced each year, present significant difficulties in developing a strict protocol to improve recycling throughout all states.

Coupled with the state of U.S. politics and international challenges, a federal approach to improving recycling may interfere with each state’s existing authority to manage its own recycling laws and facilities. Most other leaders of recycling are smaller nations, such as Austria and Denmark, that produce lower amounts of waste overall and have a greater ability to nationalize policy (Tomra, 2024). On the other hand, U.S. states vary significantly in size, location, economy, and politics. Conservation policies that are politically feasible in Massachusetts may face greater resistance in states such as Utah due to differences in political priorities. Ultimately, the United States faces a far greater challenge in coordinating a unified national approach to sustainability. However, this variation creates an opportunity for more effective state-led action. States are well-positioned within the structure of the current government system to implement their own mandates with stricter penalties, introduce incentive programs for recycling, and improve facilities. As a result, recycling initiatives can be more readily implemented and address the unique needs of each state without the delays that often accompany federal legislation and nationwide disputes. While the United States’ nuanced political structure and international challenges provide significant economic barriers to achieving a recycling system that rivals other developed nations, state and local governments must work from the ground up to invest in a nationwide sustainable economy for our country’s future.

Edited by Rachel Katzke

References

Austria, Wales, Taiwan Lead in Recycling Rates: TOMRA. (2024). Tomra.com. https://www.tomra.com/news-and-media/news/2024/austria-wales-and-taiwan-leading-the-world-when-it-comes-to-rates-of-recycling

Belcher, D. (2022). In South Korea, an Emphasis on Recycling Yields Results. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/21/business/south-korea-recycling.html

Cronin, M. (2019). Recycling in the Frontier: Alaska’s Plastic Problem. The Environment at 5280. https://environmentat5280.org/du-env-blog/recycling-in-the-frontier-alaskas-plastic-problem

DeSilver, D. (2016). Perceptions and realities of recycling vary widely from place to place. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/07/perceptions-and-realities-of-recycling-vary-widely-from-place-to-place/

Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling | US EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency; United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials

Ettehadieh, D. (2011). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Recycling in the United States: Is Recycling Worth It? | Department of English. English.umd.edu. https://english.umd.edu/research-innovation/journals/interpolations/interpolations-spring-2011/cost-benefit-analysis

Katz, C. (2019). Piling Up: How China’s Ban on Importing Waste Has Stalled Global Recycling. Yale E360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/piling-up-how-chinas-ban-on-importing-waste-has-stalled-global-recycling

McGrath, M. (2026). Trump revokes landmark ruling that greenhouse gases endanger public health. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0zdd7yl4vo

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2025). Municipal solid waste recycling in the United States: Analysis of current and alternative approaches. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27978

Sigman, H., & Strow, R. (2024). China’s Waste Import Ban and US Solid Waste Management: Effects of the Loss of a Waste Haven. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.1086/729899

Shifting to a Circular Economy Essential to Achieving Paris Agreement Goals. (2021). UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/news/shifting-to-a-circular-economy-essential-to-achieving-paris-agreement-goals

US EPA, O. (2013). Recycling Basics and Benefits. Www.epa.gov. https://www.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basics-and-benefits#Benefits

Wallace, J. (2025). Trump’s EPA budget would cut funds appropriated for waste offices. Waste Dive. https://www.wastedive.com/news/trumps-epa-budget-would-cut-funds-appropriated-for-waste-offices/749943/

What can I recyclefrom my home?. (n.d.). Www.maine.gov. https://www.maine.gov/dep/waste/recycle/whatcanirecycle.html

White House. (2025). Putting America First In International Environmental Agreements. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-america-first-in-international-environmental-agreements/

Ternes, D. (2020). An illustration of the U.S. Capitol with recycling containers [Illustration]. Waste Dive. https://www.wastedive.com/news/tracking-the-future-of-us-recycling-policy-in-congress/570778/