World Bank Warns of Massive Increase in Global Waste

December 18, 2018

December 18, 2018


As with most upper-middle- and high-income countries, the United States enjoys nearly universal waste collection. And while those of us in the recycling industries rightly fret about lagging recycling rates, at least one-third of waste in the US and other high-income countries is recovered through recycling or composting.


Now compare that to the situation faced by citizens of low-income countries. There, over 90% of waste is openly dumped or burned. “Landslides of waste dumps have buried homes and people under piles of waste,” the World Bank states. “And it is the poorest who often live near waste dumps and power their city’s recycling system through waste picking, leaving them susceptible to serious health repercussions.”


The World Bank’s latest report on global waste, entitled What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050, is available as a free download on the international financial institution’s website. It’s the third such report from the bank, dating back to 1999; thus, the reporters’ expertise can be discerned throughout the report’s 400 pages. It is an important read for all who seek to raise the success levels of sustainable materials management.


Considering the gravity of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) most recent report on limiting global temperature increases, it is important to note the World Bank’s conclusion on the effect of waste on climate change. “An estimated 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide–equivalent (CO2-equivalent) greenhouse gas emissions were generated from solid waste management in 2016,” the report states. “This is about five percent of global emissions. Without improvements in the sector, solid waste–related emissions are anticipated to increase to 2.6 billion tons of CO2-equivalent by 2050.”


Fortunately, sustainable materials management—of which recycling is a critically important part—has the effect of “conserving resources, reducing waste, slowing climate change and minimizing the environmental impacts of the materials we use,” according to a 2016 EPA assessment. The World Bank report suggests that sustainable management practices—which, in addition to recycling and composting, include waste-to-energy incineration and sanitary landfills—are being codified and regulated in an increasing number of regions of the world.


“In more advanced cases of waste governance,” the report finds, “national governments may develop a five- to ten-year national strategy that details the current waste situation in the country and sets targets for the sector about recycling, financial sustainability, citizen awareness, promotion of a green economy, reduction of greenhouse gases, and rehabilitation of contaminated sites.”


While low-income countries continue to struggle to find resources to support more sustainable approaches (a struggle that the World Bank itself often addresses through its financial assistance programs), even basic improvements in waste management systems can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent or more. And, the report declares, “there is a growing trend toward improving recycling and disposing of waste in controlled or sanitary landfills” in low-income countries.


Seventeen case studies in the report detail successful materials management products throughout the globe, from zero-waste efforts in San Francisco to organics management in Burkina Faso. While never retreating from a legitimate sense of urgency, the report includes enough successes to inspire most stakeholders.


The World Bank includes the following recommendations to readers of its report:

  • Providing financing to countries most in need, especially the fastest growing countries, to develop state-of-the-art waste management systems.
  • Supporting major waste producing countries to reduce consumption of plastics and marine litter through comprehensive waste reduction and recycling programs.
  • Reducing food waste through consumer education, organics management, and coordinated food waste management programs.


“It is often the poorest in society who are adversely impacted by inadequate waste management,” World Bank Vice President Laura Tuck said. “Our resources need to be used and then reused continuously so that they don’t end up in landfills.”



By Robert Kropp

Share Post

By Sophie Leone • November 4, 2026
What We Learned in Princeton
By Keith Loria | Resource Recycling • October 30, 2026
Recycled commodity values at Northeast MRFs increased for the second consecutive quarter as Q2 2026 figures show gains across most materials outweighed a 61% drop in PET, according to the Northeast Recycling Council. In the latest report, average blended values reached $93.03/ton without residuals, up 11.1% from Q1. Including residuals, the value climbed 15.24% to $76.37/ton, NERC said. The gains extended a recovery from Q4 2025, when average values fell to five-year lows of $68.41/ton without residuals and $52.49/ton with them. Values rebounded 22.37% and 26.26%, respectively, in Q1 2026 , though the latest increases came at a slower pace. That late-2025 trough followed declines in OCC, mixed paper, aluminum cans and several plastics grades. Natural and color HDPE were among the exceptions, posting gains during Q4. The new results therefore show a broader recovery in commodity pricing, though PET has continued moving lower through the first half of 2026. PET averaged $40.48/ton in Q2, with reported prices ranging from $8.47 to $70. The resin also declined in Q1, when most other commodities began recovering. Other plastics posted substantial increases. Color HDPE rose 122% to $293.63/ton, while natural HDPE increased 10% to $1,471.31/ton. Polypropylene climbed 72% to $345.37/ton, and mixed plastics Nos. 3-7 advanced 39% to $186.52/ton. OCC increased 17% to $99.21/ton, while mixed paper fell 5% to $45.57/ton. Aluminum cans gained 5% to $2,171.29/ton, and steel cans rose 4% to $221.29/ton. Glass remained mixed. Clear and green container prices declined, brown glass held steady, and three-mix glass carried a negative average value of $37.71/ton, meaning MRFs paid to move the material. The quarterly survey collected commodity pricing from 19 MRFs across 12 states. Two facilities were excluded from the blended average because they marketed insufficient material during Q2 to provide a representative comparison. That calculation included 13 single-stream and four dual-stream or source-separated facilities. Single-stream values rose 12.3% to $91.28/ton without residuals and 11.37% to $74.74/ton with residuals. Dual-stream and source-separated values increased 8.04% to $98.65/ton without residuals and 28.33% to $81.62/ton with residuals, remaining above single-stream values on both measures. Residuals are incoming materials that cannot be marketed and require disposal. The measure without residuals reflects a ton of marketed recyclables; the measure including residuals accounts for managing unmarketable material in each ton processed. Disposal costs increased during Q2, although facilities may calculate those costs differently, NERC noted. The report covers Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. Collection systems and state policies affect which materials reach participating facilities. Beverage container deposit programs, for example, divert some glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans away from MRFs, reducing potential revenue from those materials. Single-stream collection remains the most common approach represented in the survey. NERC cautioned that differences in collection programs, market access and operating conditions limit how the regional averages can be applied locally. “This data is not intended to serve as a price guide for MRF contracts,” the organization said. Read on Resource Recycling.
By Megan Fontes • October 29, 2026
NERC’s Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) Commodity Values Survey Report for April – June 2026 reflects the continuing rise of commodity values across the Northeast after several quarters of decline. Dual stream/source-separated MRFs continued to report higher average commodity values than single stream MRFs. The average blended commodity value increased by 11.1% to $93.03 per ton without residuals and by 15.24% to $76.37 per ton with residuals in Q2 2026 compared to Q1 2026. Single stream values increased by 12.3% to $91.28 per ton without residuals and by 11.37% to $74.74 per ton with residuals. Dual stream values increased by 8.04% to $98.65 per ton without residuals and by 28.33% to $81.62 per ton with residuals.