California falls short of emissions and recycling targets

By Clemens Stockreiter, especially for CalMatters

This comment was originally posted by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Guest Comment written by

As someone who has spent years working in the waste management sector, I have watched California make bold climate commitments while maintaining policies that undermine our state’s ability to deliver on them.

This is disappointing and, frankly, damages our credibility as a climate leader.

Late Governor Gavin Newsom pledge at a UN climate conference to reduce methane emissions and accelerate circular economy systems was inspiring. But here’s the inconvenient truth: we’re far short of our goals, especially when it comes to organic waste management.

California needs to cut back greenhouse gas emissions to 259 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030—that’s 40% below 1990 levels.

We have made some progress, with 2022 emissions 14% below 1990 levels, but we still face a staggering gap of 112 million metric tons. That’s a huge reduction to achieve in just six years.

What is even more alarming is our track record in organic waste diversion.

Back tracking of organic waste

Senate Bill 1383which was adopted in 2016 required us to reduce organic waste to landfill by 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 compared to 2014 levels.

But we’ve gone back: Organic waste going to landfills has increased by a million tonnes from 2014 to 2020. The target for 2025? It’s not happening.

This is not a technological problem. California has the round-robin processing capacity we need. The real problem is that our policies prevent this infrastructure from being used effectively.

The main reason is California’s exclusive transportation franchise system, which is strictly enforced through state law and municipal contracts. This system forces waste generators to use specific means of transport, but their logistics often conflict with circular processing goals.

The result: pre-consumer food waste that could be diverted to recycling facilities instead ends up in landfills.

Cities and counties comply with collection service requirements, but continue to fall short of state organic waste reduction goals. Proven circular solutions such as RE:CIRCLE exist, but hundreds of thousands of tonnes of high-value, pre-consumer food waste remain systematically excluded from these pathways and landfilled each year.

Think about the climate impact we’re missing out on.

If we divert just one million tons of organic food waste from landfills, we can prevent 330,000 to 540,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions in California.

If we had met the organic waste reduction target of 75%, we could have reduced carbon emissions by 5 to 15 million metric tons.

We are creating a fundamental contradiction in our environmental policy. We set aggressive climate targets and talk about promoting circular economy principles, then support regulatory structures that prioritize existing business models over environmental outcomes.

Local law enforcement agencies make this worse by allowing practices that are inconsistent with state climate priorities. I’ve seen high-performance circular processors run into regulatory barriers that prevent them from expanding capacity.

This isn’t just about missing numbers; it’s about credibility.

California’s international climate leadership depends on our ability to deliver on what we promise at home. When we fail to implement our own legislation, it weakens our position when we try to push other countries to take more aggressive climate action.

The solution begins with the recognition that sustainable transformation requires ecosystem collaboration, not licensing by exception. We need policy reforms that put environmental outcomes first.

This means establishing pre-consumer food waste separation, allowing producers of organic waste to send it directly to high-diversion processors, bypassing franchising restrictions when environmental benefits can be proven.

No sabotaging climate commitments

Additionally, communities should align local permitting practices with statewide climate priorities through better coordination between CalRecycle and local governments. And California should recognize high-efficiency circular processors as climate-critical infrastructure, making it easier to expand when they meet strict performance standards.

California has the technology, infrastructure and expertise to become a leader in the circular economy. What we lack is policy alignment that allows our existing capabilities to work.

As we approach the critical 2030 deadline, we cannot allow regulatory inertia to sabotage our climate commitments. The infrastructure for success is already here. We just need the political courage to unleash it.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.