Decisions about our ability to reuse, repair, and recycle are made in city halls, state capitals, and Washington, D.C. Addressing issues such as food waste, unrecyclable flexible films, the 81 pounds of textiles discarded per person annually, electronics leaking heavy metals, and diapers lasting longer than the children who wore them begins at the ballot box.
The recycling access gap highlighted by the EPA is not a matter of personal responsibility. While 40% of U.S. households lack curbside recycling services and 6% have no recycling access at all, nearly all have trash pickup. The discrepancy between current infrastructure and its potential signifies $36.5 to $43.4 billion in untapped public investment. The Environmental Protection Agency’s 2024 assessment suggests this investment could boost the national recycling rate from 32% to 61% and repay itself through savings on disposal costs.
Choosing to make this investment is a political decision. Elections, public comment periods, and city council meetings provide opportunities to advocate for a robust U.S. circular economy. Our guide offers voting strategies for specific issues and aims to help you consider necessary community changes, suggestions for representatives, and evidence to present in discussions with them.
At the local level: what elected officials can do
Municipal governments play a crucial role in determining recycling access for households. City councils approve waste contracts, county commissioners decide on funding for composting facilities, and public works departments manage drop-off site operations. These officials are often more responsive to constituent pressure than higher levels of government.
Ask specific questions
Inquire if your city has a plan to expand curbside organics collection or when the current Material Recovery Facility (MRF) contract expires for potential renewal. Asking if the municipality seeks federal infrastructure funding for recycling facility upgrades could initiate grant applications that might not otherwise be filed. Citizens have significant influence over local councils by determining who is elected.
Though federal funds for recycling and composting infrastructure exist, they are underutilized. The EPA’s 2024 assessment found that 48% of states and territories do not collect data on curbside programs. Encouraging local officials to measure service gaps is the first step to addressing them.
Know your tipping fee and what’s driving it
In 2024, the national average landfill tipping fee rose to $62.28 per ton, marking a 10% increase from the previous year, the largest in over a decade. Cities in the Northeast average over $80 per ton. As disposal costs rise, the justification for recycling and composting programs strengthens. Local officials should be encouraged to update their waste management calculations and communicate plans to enhance services while managing costs.
At the state level: learn where your state is on the EPR map
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws, which transfer recycling infrastructure costs to product producers, are a critical policy tool. The Product Stewardship Institute’s EPR map shows where laws are enacted, proposed, or absent. Your location determines what contributions producers must make towards collection and processing, or face penalties.
Packaging EPR programs now cover most of the West Coast and Northeast
Oregon began its program on July 1, 2025, with about $200 million in annual producer funding, and recently shared first-year results. The state added 20 new recycling centers, distributed thousands of bins, and provided over 600,000 citizens access to collection sites within 15 miles of their homes.
Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, and Maryland are in various stages of establishing laws. California plans to start its program in 2027. Washington signed the Recycling Reform Act in 2025, requiring producers to fund 90% of statewide recycling system costs by 2030.
If you live in these states, learn how these programs operate. Holding producers accountable and advocating for strong performance standards, especially for flexible plastics, can alter the environmental impact financed by your taxes. For states without packaging EPR laws, such as New York, where a bill failed again in 2026, contact your House and Senate representatives to request action. Use the Recycling Partnership’s EPR toolkit and the Product Stewardship Institute’s 2026 legislative tracker for active state bills and to connect advocates with testimony opportunities. Citizens who reach out to legislative sponsors of EPR bills and attend committee hearings have helped turn EPR laws into realities where they have passed.
Bottle bills: the most effective way to boost container recovery
States with deposit-return schemes recover container glass and aluminum at approximately twice the rate of those without bottle bills. In 2026, seven states introduced bottle-bill legislation, including Washington’s HB 1607, Maryland’s HB 331, Massachusetts’ H3464, and New York’s bill to double the deposit to 10 cents. If a bill is in session in your state, emailing or appearing before a committee can be the most direct action.
Textile EPR: California leads, every other state needs to follow
Currently, California is the only state with a textile EPR program. The Responsible Textile Recovery Act (SB 707) led to Landbell USA being selected in March 2026 as the producer responsibility organization for the statewide clothing and textiles collection program. States with fast-fashion retail and contributing to the 17-million-ton national textile waste stream are prime targets for advocacy. Follow the program’s development and learn about the necessary legislative issues through the SB 707 implementation tracker.
State-level social cost of carbon accounting
California, Colorado, and New York maintain their own social cost of carbon (SCC) frameworks, separate from the federal rollback under Executive Order 14154. These systems calculate the future costs of carbon in terms of health and environmental damage, allowing states to impose penalties for climate change-related expenses.
States lacking their own frameworks effectively permit unchecked climate damage, leading to flawed cost-benefit analyses on waste. Advocating for SCC adoption at the state level is crucial as it can transform regulations in waste, energy, and transportation with a single bill. The Resources for the Future SCC explainer offers valuable insights for presenting this case to state legislators.
At the federal level: what to watch and what to fight
Federal policies influence state actions, available data, and producer responsibilities. While the EU has been more proactive in regulation, there is growing consumer demand for environmental accountability and impact data in the U.S.
Fight the elimination of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
In September 2025, the EPA proposed to end the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which tracks emissions at the facility level, providing crucial data for researchers to assess landfill methane emissions. The formal rulemaking process received 53,085 public comments by its November 2025 deadline and remains unfinalized. Satellite data indicates actual landfill methane emissions are about six times higher than reported under the current program. Eliminating reporting would not lower emissions but reduce accountability. Share your views with senators and Congressional representatives regarding the finalization of this rule.
Federal infrastructure funding for recycling exists and can be expanded
The EPA’s $36.5–$43.4 billion infrastructure investment estimate outlines the cost of closing the recycling access gap. A national approach could create efficiencies that lower compliance costs for producers.
There are opportunities for recycling investment through congressional appropriations and infrastructure funding. The recycling sector generates $184 billion in annual economic activity and supports 603,000 jobs. Encourage federal representatives to view recycling infrastructure as a domestic industrial policy, even considering it a national security investment to lessen reliance on foreign sources. Demonstrating demand through curbside recycling can reinforce this message.
Ask candidates what they actually know
Candidates may not fully understand recycling issues if they assume the system works simply because blue bins are available. Consider asking these four questions:
- What is the recycling access gap in your district, and what is your plan to close it?
- Does the state have packaging EPR legislation, and if not, why not? (Check the PSI legislative tracker for your state’s status.)
- What is your position on the social cost of carbon as a tool for making regulatory decisions?
- How would you vote on federal infrastructure funding for materials recovery (recycling) and organics processing (composting)?
The responses to these questions indicate whether waste management is a priority for the candidate or an area they need to explore further.
The recycling system’s problems stem from the lack of built infrastructure, unaccountable producers, and inaccurate accounting. These are solvable issues, and the individuals with the power to address them are accountable to you.
