To Take a Stand: If the USA has its way, will CO₂ and methane suddenly and quietly cease to be harmful greenhouse gases?

Despite the historic significance of this measure, the international response has been remarkably subdued. Although scientific and civil society actors have voiced criticism, there has been little opposition from states themselves.  The world has – apart from a single exception, China – largely remained silent. And this silence is loud.

What does the repeal mean in concrete terms – and why does it directly affect waste management in the United States?

The “endangerment finding” was not only a legal basis, but also a symbol: it stood for the commitment of the world’s largest economy to regulate greenhouse gas emissions based on science. Its repeal means that:

• the EPA is no longer required to regulate greenhouse gases as a threat;
• all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act lose their legal stability and can be reversed; and
• the USA can in the future avoid any form of greenhouse gas regulation without being held scientifically accountable.

For the waste management sector – both nationally and globally – the consequences are particularly severe. Landfills are among the largest sources of methane worldwide. Without regulatory requirements, there is a lack of:

• pressure to reduce landfill methane,
• incentives for climate-friendly treatment processes such as anaerobic digestion, methane capture, and gas utilization,
• transparency on emission data, which has so far been generated through EPA reporting.

The USA has been – despite political fluctuations – a central actor in the Global Methane Pledge, which aims to reduce global methane emissions by 30% by 2030. If the largest economy now removes the scientific foundation of its climate policy, this endangers not only the credibility but also the effectiveness of this agreement.

Why has the international community remained so silent?

The restrained reaction of international politics is surprising, but not inexplicable. The EU, for example, continues to pursue ambitious climate targets, but has itself introduced numerous downward revisions in 2025 and 2026 – including the opening for international offsetting, the reduction of reporting obligations, and delays in implementing key Green Deal instruments.

An analysis of the European Green Deal rollback also shows that, in view of geopolitical and economic upheavals, many member states have long been prepared to restrict environmental and climate protection in favour of competitiveness.

Could it be that many governments seem more relieved than alarmed that the USA is – once again – slowing down global climate policy? After all, this creates geopolitical and economic arguments to scale back their own ambitions.

China, on the other hand, reacted clearly with rejection: during previous U.S. withdrawals from the Paris Agreement, the Chinese government unequivocally reaffirmed that climate change is “a common challenge for all of humanity” that no country can ignore.
Even now, there are indications that China could strategically position itself as a stabilizing force in the global climate system – a role that Europe could also assume.

What does this global shift mean for the waste sector worldwide?

WasteCulture calls for action to close emerging gaps now

1. A relapse into arbitrary climate policy endangers key progress in waste management

European targets on recycling and the reduction of landfilling and dumps depend on a clear international commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement. That the USA has exited this system is a fact. It remains to be seen to what extent other countries will maintain their stance and, all the more, align their measures and legislation with scientific evidence and research.

2. Methane becomes the greatest collateral damage

Methane is a greenhouse gas that, over a 20-year period, has a warming potential 84 times higher than CO₂. The Global Methane Pledge (GMP) is considered one of the most important global climate initiatives, aiming to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030 compared to 2020 levels. With the repeal of the U.S. “endangerment finding,” it likely makes little sense to continue the GMP in its current form. It would be desirable for this voluntary alliance (“voluntary actions”) to reconstitute itself. The institutional basis should be robust enough to continue operating with 158 participating countries without the USA – and to see this as an opportunity to reach faster decisions.

3. The cultural factor becomes more dominant than the scientific one

The EPA’s decision shows that political narratives can override scientific evidence overnight. Since cultural barriers and misperceptions can quickly take hold, it is essential to emphasize societal values, which often shape the waste management sector more strongly than technology or regulation.

4. WasteCulture urges people to look more closely, rather than away

When scientific principles are called into question, it is important to emphasise and reinforce the importance of independent findings. The founders of WasteCulture are urging the entire waste management sector to stand up and speak out. The waste management sector, with its in-depth and complex expertise, can help ensure that the key parameters for measuring climate-damaging greenhouse gases are not overlooked. On the contrary: They must be seen! Problems cannot be solved if they are not acknowledged. We can provide waste management solutions that will help to reduce greenhouse gases, and we can do so quickly. We can tackle the climate crisis. To deny the very basis for tackling the climate crisis, the significance of greenhouse gases, indeed the climate crisis itself, is a grave injustice to ourselves and to future generations – especially from the USA, the country with by far the highest per capita municipal waste generation, which ranks among the world’s top three waste polluters and also among the three biggest landfill nations, as shown by the OECD’s Global Waste Index 2025.

Silence is not an option

The repeal of the “endangerment finding” undermines the scientific foundation of global climate policy and – if not decisively countered – damages its credibility at its core. If broad and clear reactions fail to materialize, this regression will become normalized in the short to medium term.

WasteCulture calls for a clear response from Europe

We call on actors in waste management, science, civil society, and politics to:

• openly defend the value of science-based policymaking,
• highlight the importance of methane reduction in the waste sector,
• actively support the restructuring of international agreements such as the Global Methane Pledge,
• and consistently call out cultural barriers that hinder progress.

Climate policy depends not only on legislation, but also on attitude.