Waste on the COP31 Agenda: A Multibillion-Dollar Industry or Risks Civilization Leaves to Future Generations?

Habib Maalouf

From profits generated by illegal waste trafficking, estimated at between USD 10 billion and USD 12 billion annually, to methane emissions and nuclear waste: are we addressing the waste crisis, or managing an economy that benefits from its persistence?

When the Presidency of the 31st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP31) placed waste on the global climate action agenda under the heading "Zero Waste and Methane Reduction," it opened an important discussion on one of the most complex dimensions of the environmental and economic crisis. The Presidency announced a target to reduce the growth in global waste generation by 50% by 2035, alongside encouraging countries to incorporate opportunities for reducing methane emissions from this sector into their climate plans.

Yet another dimension must not be overlooked in this discussion: waste is not merely a burden that societies bear the cost of disposing of. It has become a vast economic sector in which commercial interests intersect with social inequalities, and where legitimate trade may become intertwined with organized crime. According to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), profits from illegal waste trafficking are estimated at approximately USD 10 billion to USD 12 billion annually.

This figure raises a question that goes beyond the techniques of sorting, recycling, and landfilling: how do materials produced and then discarded by society become a source of enormous profits, while the environment, public health, and communities with limited regulatory capacity bear a significant share of the costs? Who profits from the continued generation of waste, and who pays its real price?

Waste is not simply the material residue of human activity. It is also a product of civilization and economic systems that reveals the nature of our relationship with production, consumption, and natural resources. As an economic model based on extracting more materials, manufacturing more goods, and accelerating their consumption and replacement expands, so does the volume of waste that nature and societies must manage. The waste crisis therefore cannot be reduced to weak municipal services or inadequate treatment technologies. It is also linked to an economic model that makes waste generation a recurring consequence of economic activity and then transforms its disposal into a vast market for commercial interests and investments.

From an Environmental Crisis to a Waste Economy

Estimates by the United Nations Environment Programme indicate that global municipal solid waste reached approximately 2.1 billion tonnes in 2023 and could rise to 3.8 billion tonnes by 2050 if current production and consumption trends continue. These figures reflect more than a technical problem concerning how waste is collected, landfilled, or recycled. They reveal a production and consumption model increasingly dependent on resource extraction, manufacturing, and disposal.

Profits and costs are distributed unequally within this economy. Some actors profit from production, others from collecting, transporting, and treating waste, and still others from trading recovered materials. Meanwhile, communities living near landfills, dumpsites, incinerators, and polluting facilities bear a significant share of the environmental and health damage.

This does not mean that every activity in the waste sector is illegitimate, or that the circular economy is merely a cover for private interests. Recycling, reuse, and waste reduction can generate genuine benefits. The problem begins when waste management becomes an economic interest detached from the objective of reducing waste, and when the continuation of certain activities depends on maintaining high waste flows rather than reducing them at the source. This applies to projects such as building waste-to-energy incinerators or producing so-called alternative fuels to replace fossil fuels in large industries such as cement manufacturing, when increasing waste volumes becomes desirable instead of reducing them, despite the negative consequences and risks this entails for resources and public health.

We are therefore confronted with an economic paradox: waste may become a profitable resource for certain actors, while its disposal remains a public burden borne by municipalities, public finances, and local communities. The interests of those who benefit from the continuous flow of waste may conflict with the public interest in preventing or reducing its generation. The question, then, is not only how to make waste management more efficient, but how to ensure that the need to manage waste does not create an interest in continuing to produce it.

When Waste Becomes a Field for Organized Crime

The problem takes on an even more dangerous dimension when waste becomes the subject of illegal cross-border trafficking. In an article published in October 2026 concerning the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and waste trafficking, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin highlighted the profits generated by this activity, estimated at USD 10 billion to USD 12 billion annually.

The scale of these profits demonstrates that illegal waste trafficking is not simply a collection of isolated violations. It is a transnational economic activity that can exploit weak oversight, differences between national laws, difficulties in tracking shipments, corruption, and falsification.

Hazardous waste may be transported under the guise of recyclable materials, shipments may be misleadingly classified, or waste may be directed to countries that lack the capacity to process it safely. In some cases, organized criminal networks may intersect with companies, intermediaries, and commercial operations that appear legitimate. Here the paradox becomes clear: what is recorded as profit in the accounts of traffickers may become a public loss that does not appear on their balance sheets, including soil and water contamination, health damage, and treatment costs that may persist for many years. The costs of waste do not disappear; they are transferred from those who generate profits to communities and nature. This is what happened in the Lebanese experience.

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal provides an essential international framework for addressing this problem. However, the existence of international agreements is insufficient without effective oversight, information sharing, the capacity to track waste movements, and accountability for those who profit from transferring risks to others. In this context, examining the role of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime becomes particularly important, as it raises the possibility of treating waste trafficking not merely as an environmental violation but as a form of transnational organized crime. Combating such trafficking is not only a matter for the police, customs authorities, or efforts to address corruption in environmental administration. It is also an integral part of environmental and climate justice, and of holding economic systems accountable for the damage they produce and then seek to impose on others.

Methane: The Climate Dimension That Must Not Be Overlooked

One of the principal reasons for including waste on the COP31 agenda is its contribution to methane emissions, particularly when organic materials decompose in dumpsites and landfills under oxygen-deprived conditions. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas in the near term, making reductions in its emissions capable of delivering significant climate benefits. Several initiatives have been launched at climate conferences to reduce methane emissions.

Solutions include reducing food waste, separating organic waste, composting, improving landfill management, reducing livestock farming, controlling emissions from fossil fuel extraction, and capturing the resulting gas wherever appropriate and safe. Reuse and recycling can also reduce the need to extract new raw materials, along with the associated energy consumption and emissions.

However, addressing methane emissions must not become a justification for preserving existing patterns of production and consumption. Capturing gas after it has been generated may reduce harm, but it does not prevent resource depletion, eliminate chemical pollutants, or address the problem of materials that are difficult to recycle or dispose of safely.

The objective of "zero waste" should therefore be understood as a call to transform production and consumption patterns, rather than merely a slogan for developing the waste treatment sector. Priority must be given to preventing waste generation, followed by reducing and reusing waste, then recycling and treating it, while restricting landfilling and final disposal to cases where safer alternatives are unavailable.

Moreover, the focus on methane emissions from waste must not divert attention from other major sources, particularly fossil fuels and agriculture. A serious response to the climate crisis requires action across all significant sources, rather than selecting only those sectors that appear easier to address technically or politically.

Nuclear Energy: Low Carbon Does Not Mean Zero Waste

The waste issue is also connected to the growing debate at climate conferences over nuclear energy, which its supporters present as a possible option for generating low-carbon electricity. An important scientific distinction must be made here: nuclear energy does not produce significant direct carbon dioxide emissions during electricity generation, and its life-cycle emissions are low compared with coal and gas. It is therefore inaccurate to equate nuclear energy with fossil fuels in terms of its carbon footprint.

However, low emissions do not end the discussion. Rather, they open another debate that often receives less attention: what should be done with radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel? How can we ensure their containment and isolation from people and the environment over long periods? And who bears responsibility for monitoring and financing their management when these obligations extend to generations that had no role in deciding to produce them?

A distinction must be made between temporary storage, which requires ongoing monitoring, maintenance, and institutional arrangements, and final disposal in geological repositories designed to isolate radioactive materials over the long term. Establishing operational final repositories for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste continues to face significant technical, institutional, and political challenges, despite advanced programmes and projects in some countries. This does not mean that safe final solutions are impossible, but it does mean that such solutions must not be assumed in advance or treated as though the nuclear waste problem has already been resolved.

A comprehensive assessment of nuclear energy must also take into account the costs of power plants, financing, construction and decommissioning, security and safety, radioactive waste management, and the time required to complete projects. A climate comparison cannot be considered fair if it accounts for emissions from electricity generation while overlooking the other burdens associated with the technology throughout its life cycle.

This raises a question of intergenerational justice: is it enough for one generation to reduce its emissions today if it leaves future generations responsible for managing radioactive materials that require long-term isolation and monitoring at extremely high costs? How can we ensure that present benefits do not become financial and environmental obligations that those who inherit them had no opportunity to challenge when the original decisions were made?

These questions do not necessarily imply rejecting nuclear energy. Rather, they challenge the presentation of nuclear energy as a solution without costs or risks. Every technology should be subject to a transparent assessment of its entire life cycle, the distribution of its benefits and burdens, and the capacity of institutions to guarantee long-term safety.

Who Pays the Price, and Who Makes the Decisions?

Municipal, industrial, hazardous, and radioactive waste all share a common paradox: economic benefits may be short-lived, while damage and costs persist for much longer. A company, institution, or group may benefit from a decision made today, while local communities and future generations bear its consequences. This is the question that climate and environmental justice must place at the heart of the debate: not only how many tonnes of waste we have produced or how many tonnes of methane we have reduced, but also who made the decisions, who benefited, who paid, and who will remain responsible for the consequences?

Waste exposes the limitations of the belief that the market economy alone can solve the problems it creates. Private investment may be necessary to develop treatment and recycling technologies, but it cannot replace the role of the state in protecting resources and the rights of present and future generations, establishing standards, exercising oversight, ensuring transparency, holding violators accountable, and preventing risks from being transferred to communities least able to defend themselves.

Responsibility does not rest with consumers alone. Individual choices matter, but the volume and nature of waste are also shaped by product design, packaging, supply chains, production policies, marketing practices, and the extent to which producers are required to take responsibility for the products they place on the market after their useful life has ended, a principle known as "extended producer responsibility."

Any serious waste policy must therefore go beyond encouraging people to sort their waste. It must include reducing unnecessary materials, extending product lifespans, promoting repair and reuse, developing extended producer responsibility systems, and ensuring that those who benefit from production bear a fair share of the costs of managing its waste.

What Should We Expect from COP31?

The "Zero Waste and Methane Reduction" initiative could provide an important practical starting point if its objectives are translated into measurable measures, policies to prevent waste generation, plans to reduce methane emissions, and accessible financing for countries that lack the necessary infrastructure and technical capacities. However, its success also requires that the problem not be reduced to waste collection or conversion into an energy source, and that the circular economy not become merely another market without social and environmental safeguards.

This requires establishing clear indicators to measure reductions in waste generation at the source, decreases in food waste, increases in reuse and recycling, and actual methane emissions. It also requires combating illegal waste trafficking, strengthening international cooperation to track shipments, and holding those responsible for violations accountable. The discussion should also include assessments of the full life cycle of energy sources, including the waste they produce, the risks involved, the costs of managing that waste, and the capacity of institutions to ensure its safety. Reducing carbon emissions is an essential objective, but it is not the only criterion for measuring sustainability.

The real challenge is not to learn how to dispose of ever-increasing quantities of waste more efficiently, but to reconsider an economy that generates waste at growing rates and then searches for new markets to manage it. Nor should we have to choose between protecting the climate and protecting people and nature. Rather, we must prevent the former from being pursued at the expense of the latter. Ultimately, waste is not merely what remains of civilization after its activities have ended. It is also a material record of its choices, a testimony to the resources it consumes, the costs it conceals, and what it leaves behind for those who come after us. The question that deserves to accompany COP31 is this: do we measure progress by what we manage to dispose of, or by what we stop producing and refuse to pass on to future generations?