We don't mean to trash-talk Texas, but it generates more waste than any other state
When it comes to waste generation and recycling rates, one could say Texas needs to clean up its act.
A recent study by Eagle Dumpster Rental compared how U.S. states disposed of their trash as the country faces a growing waste management crisis. Using 2024 state data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Census Bureau, the company created a waste generation score by combining three factors: total amount of waste produced, waste produced per person, and recycling rates.
States earned a higher score if they produced more waste and recycled less, and a lower score if they produced less waste and recycled more.
"What makes these findings particularly compelling is the stark contrast between states' approaches to waste management," says Brian McDaid, recycling expert and founder of Eagle Dumpster Rental. "While all states face similar challenges with growing consumption and limited landfill space, some have found remarkably effective solutions."
So how well does Texas do in waste management compared to other states? We're sorry to say the Lone Star State kind of stinks.
The Lone Star State generates over one billion tons of waste each year, Eagle Dumpster Rental found. It also only recycles about 8%. The study noted Texas "clearly faces significant environmental challenges," and may be a result of rapid urbanization, extensive industrial operation and strong economic growth.
To put it into perspective, Maine, which has a 65% recycling rate, produces 40 times less waste than Texas.
Although unclear, Texas' high levels of waste production are likely influenced by its large population. California, the only state with more residents than Texas, had the fourth-highest trash production in the country.
Reviewing the study's results, Eagle Dumpster Rental suggests states that generate the most waste may "benefit from public education campaigns about sustainable consumption."
"The environmental impact of these waste levels is severe," McDaid says. "We're seeing landfills reach capacity years ahead of schedule, increased groundwater contamination risks, and higher greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing waste. The long-term sustainability of these practices is questionable at best."
"There are proven solutions available — implementing stronger recycling programs, incentivizing waste reduction in industrial processes, and encouraging circular economy practices could significantly reduce these numbers."
Although the data may seem overwhelming, the company recognizes the potential for progress. Austin got a shout-out for its Zero Waste Initiative, which aims to reduce 90% of waste from landfills and incinerators by 2040.
People are also reading: How an Austin trucking company aims to reduce emissions through hybrid, electric tech
Rank
State
Total waste (tons)
Per capita waste (tons per person)
Recycling rate
Waste generation score
1
Texas
1,022,679,545
33
8%
76
2
Ohio
529,985,958
45
16%
65
3
Michigan
626,523,324
62
40%
61
4
California
1,256,981,181
32
41%
60
5
Louisiana
168,682,308
37
4%
60
6
Pennsylvania
523,285,487
40
20%
60
7
Indiana
354,551,690
51
24%
59
8
Colorado
237,491,775
40
11%
59
9
Florida
490,491,433
21
6%
59
10
Tennessee
216,594,691
30
5%
57
On the other end of the spectrum, the Northeast earned high rankings for generating the least amount of waste among states. Eagle Dumpster Rentals attributes Maine's success to its Extended Producer Responsibility laws, while Massachusetts and Vermont benefit from mandatory recycling programs.
"The economic benefits of effective waste management are substantial," McDaid says. "States like Maine demonstrate that smart recycling policies create jobs, reduce municipal waste costs, and generate revenue from recyclable materials."
Their success shows that environmental responsibility and economic growth can go hand in hand. Other states could achieve similar results by implementing comparable policies and investing in recycling infrastructure. The initial investment in these programs typically pays for itself through reduced landfill costs and the creation of new green jobs."
Rank
State
Total waste (tons)
Per capita waste (tons per person)
Recycling rate
Waste generation score
1
Maine
23,352,625
17
65%
8
2
Massachusetts
16,189,833
2
48%
11
3
Vermont
10,286,300
16
51%
16
4
Connecticut
5,675,840
2
39%
17
5
New Jersey
122,591,761
13
39%
25
6
Minnesota
74,263,217
13
37%
25
7
New York
264,677,094
13
44%
25
8
Maryland
66,023,318
11
33%
26
9
Iowa
102,746,632
32
45%
30
10
Oregon
162,714,810
38
45%
35
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas produces more trash than any other US state, study finds
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
36 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump's EPA Scraps Air Protections in Effort to Revive Coal Power
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Wednesday that it will seek to scrap two rules on power plant pollution as part of the Trump administration's effort to encourage more use of fossil fuels such as coal, a major source of greenhouse gases and toxic emissions that contribute to disease and premature deaths. "Since President Trump was sworn in, we have been working to end this agency's war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply," EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said at a ceremony at EPA headquarters. The EPA is proposing to repeal two Biden-era rules that would make new and existing power plants cut pollution. The 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards would limit greenhouse gases from power plants, and the 2024 changes to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards would have reduced emissions of harmful metals in emissions, primarily from coal. The power plant rules are among more than 30 regulations that Zeldin pledged to undo in March in what he called the biggest deregulation action in U.S. history. President Donald Trump speaks alongside coal and energy workers during an April executive order signing ceremony in the White House. The Trump administration has elected to roll back Biden-era environmental policies with the intention to... President Donald Trump speaks alongside coal and energy workers during an April executive order signing ceremony in the White House. The Trump administration has elected to roll back Biden-era environmental policies with the intention to help revive coal-fired plants. MoreThe changes will not immediately take effect, Zeldin said—the announcement Wednesday will trigger a public comment and rule-making period. Zeldin claimed the final repeal of the rules would save ratepayers more than $1 billion a year. "These rules have saddled our power sector with expensive, unnecessary and burdensome regulations," Zeldin said. In its proposal, the EPA argued that U.S. power plants do not contribute a significant amount to global greenhouse gas emissions. However, the U.S. power sector is responsible for about one-quarter of the country's total emissions, second only to the transportation sector. Zeldin's claims of cost savings are also undermined by the health costs associated with the rollbacks. "No power plant will be allowed to emit more than they do today," Zeldin said. However, repealing the rules means Americans would continue to be exposed to the current levels of harmful pollutants. Data from Zeldin's own agency shows that the 2024 carbon pollution standards would save lives by also reducing the other pollutants such as soot that lead to heart and lung disease. EPA estimates that the standards would prevent about 1,200 premature deaths in 2035. Environmental and public health groups pledged to fight the proposed rollback. "It's an extraordinary and reckless action by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency," Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, told Newsweek. "The fleet of power plant smokestacks in our country are the single largest industrial source of carbon pollution in the nation, it's just a staggering amount of pollution." Republican members of Congress from coal and gas-producing states joined Zeldin at the announcement in support. They said the changes would allow their states to keep in place fossil-fueled plants that might otherwise be shuttered. Ohio Representative Troy Balderson said the Biden-era rules "would have forced our most reliable sources into early retirement," threatening the reliability of the electric grid. West Virginia Representative Carol Miller, a co-chair of the Congressional Coal Caucus, said the country needs the dependable baseload power that coal provides. "We must unleash American coal, not bury it under red tape," Miller said. Miller lamented the decline of the coal industry in her state. Twenty years ago, coal was the nation's top fuel source and provided a little more than half of the country's electricity. By 2023, it had fallen to the fourth-highest energy source, providing only about 16 percent of U.S. electricity generation, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). A chart from the Energy Information Administration showing changes in the makeup of U.S. electricity generation over time. The brown section at the bottom shows the decline of coal as a fuel over the past... A chart from the Energy Information Administration showing changes in the makeup of U.S. electricity generation over time. The brown section at the bottom shows the decline of coal as a fuel over the past 20 years. More Energy Information Administration Coal mining employment has also sharply declined over the decades. Department of Labor statistics show about 45,000 people were employed in coal mining in 2023, roughly 60 percent of the number employed a decade earlier. In West Virginia, the state with the highest number of coal miners, coal employment dropped from about 21,000 in 2010 to 14,000 in 2023. Trump's high-profile effort to bring back coal in his first term in office did little to slow the decline. West Virginia and the nation had fewer miners when he left office in 2021 than when he entered it. The coal industry and its allies in Congress frequently blame the industry's woes on environmental regulations, a so-called "war on coal." But energy market analysis shows that the main reason behind coal's demise is simply that other cheaper and cleaner energy sources have become more available. The boom in natural gas supplies led many power companies to switch fuels, and gas is now the country's top source of electricity generation. Natural gas demand is projected to rise, but analysts also point to cost concerns with gas as both domestic use and exports of liquified natural gas climb. More recently, renewable energy has become the go-to source for new power. Last year, the EIA reported wind, solar and battery storage together accounted for more than 90 percent of new electricity capacity added to the U.S. grid. Electricity demand is projected to surge in the coming years, and many power companies find that renewable energy and battery storage is the fastest, cheapest way to add power supply. Globally, investments in clean and low-carbon energy are expected to be twice those in fossil fuel, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA's recent report on energy investment found about $2.2 trillion dollars flowing to solar, wind, nuclear power, battery storage, energy efficiency measures and low-emissions fuels. Coal, meanwhile, has become pricier. A 2023 analysis by the non-partisan think tank Energy Innovation found that 99 percent of U.S. coal plants were more expensive to run compared to replacement by renewable energy and battery storage. Even before the clean energy incentives offered by the Biden administration, about 77 percent of coal plants were more expensive than solar and wind. The extra cost to operate coal plants often gets passed along to ratepayers, as happened when the Trump administration used its emergency powers to order local utility regulators in Michigan to prolong the use of an old coal-fired power plant slated for closure. Michigan's Public Service Commission estimated that the order could cost ratepayers millions of dollars. The cost of air pollution is also a burden on the public in the form of additional premature deaths, illnesses, hospitalizations and lost work days due to asthma and other lung diseases linked to dirty air. One of Zeldin's predecessors at the EPA, Gina McCarthy, said the health effects of eliminating the rules would fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable people. "By giving a green light to more pollution, his legacy will forever be someone who does the bidding of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our health," McCarthy, who served as the 13th EPA administrator under President Barack Obama, said in a statement. "It's a purely political play that goes against decades of science and policy review."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's EPA wants to repeal regulations on carbon emissions from power plants
The Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday that it will aim to eliminate existing limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, a move that would curb the agency's ability to combat climate change under the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a news conference that Biden-era carbon pollution standards for power plants 'suffocate' the economy in order to protect the environment. Zeldin, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in January, stated that the agency's announcement was a huge step forward in energy dominance for the U.S., while promising that no power plants would emit more than they already do. Currently, the power sector accounts for a quarter of all U.S. emissions, according to the latest EPA emissions data. Zeldin also said the EPA plans to weaken Biden-era regulations on mercury emissions from power plants. Environmental advocates say the EPA's proposal is an escalation in the Trump administration's ongoing push against climate action across federal agencies, including at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Weather Service. In 2024, the Biden administration finalized the most stringent carbon pollution standards for power plants to date in an effort to tackle the climate crisis — but now, those rules face an uncertain future. Gina McCarthy, a former EPA Administrator under President Joe Biden, called Zeldin's announcement a 'political play' that defies 'decades of science and policy review' in a statement on Wednesday. 'By giving a green light to more pollution, his legacy will forever be someone who does the bidding of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our health,' McCarthy said. Jill Tauber, the vice president of litigation for climate and energy at Earthjustice, a nonprofit currently suing the Trump administration over several environmental rollbacks said: 'Eliminating pollution standards from the largest industrial source of greenhouse gas pollution in the United States flies in the face of what the law requires, what the science tells us, and what we're seeing every day.' Power plants in the U.S. are a huge contributor to global carbon emissions. A report published by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law found that if the U.S. power sector were its own country, it would be the sixth-largest emitter in the world. Under the first Trump administration, the EPA rolled back several Obama-era greenhouse gas standards on power plants, but this recent announcement marks the first time the agency has suggested outright repeals. Zeldin's move on power plants follows his promise in March to tackle the 'climate change religion' by reconsidering or repealing 31 regulations surrounding tailpipe emissions, coal ash regulations and oil and gas wastewater management. The proposed rule, which will now move into its comment period, will face scrutiny from legal advocates and environmental nonprofits like Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which say the EPA is obligated to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by law — citing seminal cases like the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA lawsuit, which determined that greenhouse gases must be regulated by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. 'We'll be watching closely to see if the EPA proceeds with repealing these life-saving standards based on a legal theory that doesn't pass the laugh test,' said Meredith Hawkins, the federal climate legal director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'The NRDC stands ready to defend the public's right to breathe in court if needed.' Cutting historic limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants would impact global climate change, but it could also cause ripple effects on human health and the economy. Harvey Reiter, an energy and utilities lawyer and a law professor at George Washington University, says that if the EPA moves forward with its planned repeals, he expects some energy companies and utilities that have retooled operations and made long-term investments in renewable energy to sue the Trump administration. 'The biggest impacts of the proposed rules are uncertainty and instability,' he said. 'Nobody knows what to do next. It makes investment decisions harder. It makes decisions about hiring, staff and employees harder. It creates a lot of uncertainty in the market.' Greenhouse gas emissions from power plants are not just a climate issue. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide as well as other air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury and fine particulate matter, which are linked to increased risk of respiratory issues and cardiovascular disease. Regulating carbon emissions from power plants broadly reduces other air pollution for communities living near power plants, said Laura Kate Bender, the vice president of nationwide advocacy and public policy at the American Lung Association. 'It works both ways. On the one hand, power plants burning fossil fuels contribute to climate change and cause health problems at the same time,' said Bender. 'And then climate change, in many cases, contributes to extreme heat, or more wildfire smoke, or more ozone smogs. Climate change is a health emergency, and cutting carbon in the power sector is a critical tool in the toolbox for fighting climate change.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump EPA proposes rolling back major pollution limits for power plants
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to scrap two major federal regulations that limit air pollution and planet-warming emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants, the agency's head announced Wednesday. Administrator Lee Zeldin said the EPA will propose to repeal a rule regulating planet-warming carbon emissions from existing and new power plants, as well as a separate rule regulating mercury and other air toxins produced by burning coal to generate electricity. The proposed repeals are two of the most consequential moves from Trump's EPA as the administration continues dismantling climate policies. 'Rest assured, President Trump is the biggest supporter of clean, beautiful coal,' Zeldin said Wednesday. 'We will use coal for power generation, to mine for critical minerals and to export to our allies.' The agency didn't announce any intent to rewrite regulations to replace the Biden rules on carbon emissions, which could effectively leave carbon emissions from US power plants unregulated if the proposed repeal is finalized. Zeldin announced the agency will revise the rule on mercury air pollution, proposing to get rid of the Biden-era rule finalized last year. Power plants are the second-biggest emitters of planet-warming pollution in the United States, making up around a quarter of the country's climate pollution. US power plants alone contribute 3% of total global climate pollution. The repeals are proposals and will go through a public comment period before being finalized. This is a developing story and will be updated.
