The United States, the largest producer of household waste

The United States is the country producing the most household waste per capita in the world among the developed countries, without having the sorting capacities necessary to absorb them, which represents a threat for the environment.

The world produces an average of 2.1 billion tonnes of waste per year, taking into account the solid waste managed by municipalities, that is to say thrown food, plastics and various detritus, enough to fill more 820,000 Olympic swimming pools. Only 16% of the total is recycled, according to this report.

American residents and traders are by far the most likely to produce trash per person among the wealthiest countries: on average 773 kilos per year, more than three times the world average and seven times more than the Ethiopians, Ethiopia being the country that produces the least waste.

In contrast, recycling capacity in the United States is one of the poorest among developed countries, with only 35%, far behind Germany, which recycles 68% of its litter.

The report’s authors warn that China’s sudden decision in 2018 to stop accepting plastic waste from around the world, followed by other countries in Southeast Asia, may further complicate the plight of large waste-producing countries.

Some countries have decided to ban plastic products, either bags or disposable items. However, global production of plastics increased further in 2018 on a global scale, led by Asia and the United States, according to the PlasticsEurope federation.

Two subjects animate the debates of the American Congress: the question of interstate flows of municipal waste and that of the recycling of electronic waste.

Interstate municipal waste flows are today a real problem across the Atlantic. States like Pennsylvania, Virginia and Michigan are now classified as “trash states”, because of the millions of tonnes of waste they receive each year from neighboring states, which do not have sufficient treatment capacity .

For several years, professional associations and service providers in the waste sector, including the very powerful National Solid Waste Management Association (SWANA) and Carlsbad dumpster rentals, have successfully opposed any regulation aimed at limiting interstate flows.

Suddenly, some have put in place dissuasive measures, such as Pennsylvania which used the regional Trashnet program, initially intended to guarantee the technical conformity of waste trucks, to limit imports of waste.

In response to this problem, the Republican representative of Virginia, Jo Ann Davis, tabled a bill that would leave local authorities the right to prohibit the importation of waste in their constituency.

In addition, the text proposes to limit the flow of waste for all municipalities which would decide, despite everything, to authorize the import of waste into their landfills.

In a second bill, Jo Ann Davis proposes to reserve the power to regulate waste flows to states. This provision clearly goes against the ideas of industrialists in the sector who advocate the free market in waste management.

Indeed, the project aims to establish a billing system for landfill costs differentiated according to the origin of the waste (internal or external to the State), as well as a limit to the volumes imported, calculated in relation to the total landfill capacity of each State.

Another subject on the Congress agenda is the management of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).

In the wake of the country’s first e-waste recycling legislation, Californian Democrat representatives Mike Thompson and Louise Slaughter have proposed nationwide legislation.

The latter, which was already rejected in 2002 and 2003, proposes that the EPA be the official authority, responsible for designating all electronic devices (computers, televisions, monitors, etc.) to which would be imposed a surcharge of 10 dollars to the purchase, which would finance the recycling of WEEE.

If this text is likely to be again rejected by the Republicans, on the other hand, the project presented by the senators Ron Wyden, democrat of Oregon, and Jim Talent, republican of Missouri is likely to be adopted.

This regulation proposes the creation of a national infrastructure for recycling electronic waste, responsible for ensuring that no device equipped with a screen of more than 10 centimeters can be landfilled or incinerated.

In addition, recycling units processing more than 5,000 screens or computers per year could benefit from a tax credit of $ 8 per recycled unit.

Finally, consumers who send used computers or televisions for recycling to approved service providers would benefit from a $ 15 tax deduction per unit.

However, according to the economic mission of Houston, this particularly ambitious bill seems difficult to apply in the state, because of the significant cost of the tax benefits it provides. The EPA, which is currently assessing the feasibility of such a project through a cost-benefit study, should provide further clarification.

Plastic waste in the oceans

Every second, 100 tonnes of waste from billions produced each year ends up at sea, a large part of which is made of plastic.

Some people call this the seventh continent, what a shame! Floating debris and or microparticles, this plastic waste is deposited on the beaches, dispersed at sea, found on the seabed. What effects do they have on humans and their environment?

Dispersal of this wasted plastic at sea has become a global problem for everyone. While polyvinyl chloride has a higher density than seawater and sinks immediately, the low density polyethylene microdebris remains on the surface.

It is estimated that 30 to 40,000 tonnes of microplastics float on the oceans and can travel long distances, sometimes thousands of kilometers from one continent to another, depending on currents, winds and tides.

A study carried out in 2014 estimated that, in total the entire pollution of the surface of the oceans is estimated at 5.250 billion particles, or 269,000 tonnes of plastics. It revealed that plastics and microplastics were present throughout the global ocean, anywhere and at any depth or any latitude.


In the early 2000s, alerts were launched by Greenpeace and other environmental organizations after the discovery of areas of accumulation of floating plastic waste, what some call the seventh continent.

For some experts, it is an abuse of language. The North Atlantic area, best known to scientists, reports only 1,100 tonnes of microplastics. In the North Pacific, the presence of microplastics is estimated at a few cm2 per hectare.

Plastic accumulation areas in the Mediterranean

There are however areas of accumulation, as in the Mediterranean, an area more exposed to marine litter due to its weak currents and tides, and significant urbanization and tourism.

Plastics there represent 70 to 80% of the waste observed on the coast, on the surface and on the seabed, with notable differences according to the zones: in certain gulfs of North Africa for example, fishermen manage to fish 50% waste and 50% fish! A clean sea, is it mission impossible? Maybe! People need to understand about litter at sea, and they may pollute less, while in the Gulf of Lion, they note a drop of 20 %.

In reality no study is currently complete enough to give answers on the global quantities of microplastics floating at sea in the world or of macro-waste on beaches or the seabed.

The densities on the bottom vary from 0 to 150,000 objects per km2 and the densities of microplastics vary on the surface from 0 to 900,000 objects per km2. The in situ degradation rates, estimated in the laboratory, are also poorly known.

And there is still a lot to discover on the accumulation of waste in abyssal pits where their degradation time is all the longer as there is a lack of light and oxygen.

it is sad to see how human development has led to such degradation of our seas, which after all are the cradle of life. We must stop this growth of plastic pollution before it is too late and the damage created by all this waste becomes irreversible.

What to do with your green waste?

Whether for individuals, businesses or communities, the maintenance of green spaces (gardens, parks, roadsides, etc.) produces a certain amount of plant waste called green waste.

100% biodegradable, this waste can still be cumbersome, so we have to find a way to eliminate it, if possible by exploiting the organic matter it contains.

Part of the waste can be left on site if it is not too large and the aesthetic aspect is not essential. They will then decompose gradually by providing shelter for the animals, feeding the fauna of the decomposers and then enriching the soil with organic matter.

If the volumes are larger, it is possible to compost the waste by gathering it in a heap in a corner or, if the region is suitable (weather conditions, absence of fire risk …), to burn it . The ash obtained, rich in mineral elements, forms a very good supplement for crops.

If it is not possible to compost or burn the waste on site (lack of space, authorization, too large volume), there are the recycling centers. There, green waste is recovered by composting, transformation into biogas or combustion.

Biodegradable, compostable, recyclable: the differences

In our daily life, what waste goes to the trash, to compost or to recycling?

What is biodegradable, compostable and recyclable waste?

The terms biodegradable, compostable and recyclable are sometimes used incorrectly. Sometimes also, by marketing experts, in order to sell us one product rather than another. What does biodegradable mean?

The term biodegradable applies to a product – organic matter – likely to decompose, in a favorable environment (conditions of temperature, humidity, light, oxygen, etc.) and under the action microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, algae). A biodegradable product decomposes without harmful effect on the environment. In doing so, it emits in particular water, carbon dioxide (C02) and or methane (CH4). So a banana simply left in the open degrades quickly. In an inert atmosphere, however, it keeps very well.

Another important criterion is time. Because for a product to deserve the qualifier of biodegradable, it is considered that its degradation must occur in a short time, with regard to human time. A dead leaf is thus biodegradable because it decomposes in a few weeks. A plastic bottle is considered non-biodegradable because it takes more than 400 years to decompose.

In the building, bio-based materials (wood, hemp, straw, etc.) are used, but these may have been processed and contain additives which make them non-biodegradable products.

In addition, note that a bio-based product – plastics in particular – is not necessarily biodegradable. Even if it is composed of generally vegetable substances, it can indeed contain non-biodegradable components. When we talk about biodegradation, we are looking at the end of life of a product. And when we talk about bio-sourcing, we are interested in the origin of materials.

Finally, be aware that ecosystems have a limited capacity to absorb biodegradable products. So even biodegradable materials can cause them damage if they are in too large quantities (eutrophication of the oceans).

Compostable and recyclable for new use

A compostable product is also biodegradable. But it is generally a product which is helped to decompose in an industrial unit. This is generally done at temperatures between 70 and 80 ° C, with a humidity level around 70% and an oxygen level of around 20%. After several weeks of (bio) degradation, we obtain a product, compost, allowing the improvement of soil fertility.

Note that in homemade composers, degradation is generally slower, because conditions, temperature and humidity in particular, vary with weather conditions.

Finally, a product is qualified as recyclable when it can, at the end of its life, be reintroduced into the production cycle in place of part or all of the new raw material, in principle useful for making a product. Glass is therefore typically not considered to be biodegradable. It is not compostable. However, glass is recyclable. As for whether it is recycled well in all circumstances, this is another question!