BetterReports on environmental problems have a standard shape: here is the damage, here is what it will cost if nothing changes. The reader is left holding a bill.
The UN Environment Programme modelled three futures for the world's waste. The third one has a different sign.
Business as usual: global annual cost “could almost double to a staggering USD 640.3 billion” by 2050.
Waste under control: prevention and management “could limit net annual costs by 2050 to USD 270.2 billion”.
Circular economy: “could in fact lead to a full net gain of USD 108.5 billion per year”.
Two costs and a gain. It is unusual for a UN body to price the good scenario rather than only the bad one.
That last figure exists in two versions. The press release of 28 February 2024 says US$108.5 billion. A UNEP page of 28 March 2024, in both its English and French editions, says US$108.1 billion, and words the scenario as “ending uncontrolled disposal, reducing waste generation, and increasing recycling”.
Same organisation, one month apart. We quote the press release because that is where the three scenarios sit together, and we tell you the other number exists.
Two totalsThe cost that is not on the invoice
Before the three futures, the report does something more basic and more useful: it counts the present twice.
The difference between the first two figures is 109 billion dollars a year that waste already costs without appearing on anyone's bill, pollution, poor health, and climate change from poor disposal. Someone pays it. It is simply not the person holding the invoice.
That subtraction is ours. 361 minus 252 is arithmetic, not a figure UNEP publishes as such. Both numbers are its own, for the same year, in the same currency, but the gap between them is our reading of them.
Cost, or gainWhat changes between the second and the third
The gap between scenario two and scenario three is not a matter of degree. It is a change of direction, and the report is explicit about what produces it.
- Scenario two manages the waste. Prevention and management measures, better collection, better treatment. The cost falls by more than half, and it stays a cost.
- Scenario three changes what produces them. The report's words: waste generation and economic growth are decoupled, through waste avoidance, sustainable business practices, and full waste management. The last of the three is what scenario two already does; the first two are what scenario three adds.
So the difference between paying 270 billion a year and earning 108 is not better recycling. It is not producing the waste, which is the same conclusion the plastic and food-waste articles reached from their own directions.
Not evenlyWhere the growth is projected
The global figure, 2.3 billion tonnes in 2023 to 3.8 billion by 2050, hides where that increase is expected to land.
The report's first stated finding: “Projections show greatest waste growth in regions that rely heavily on open dumping and burning, meaning rapid increase in pollution.”
The places where waste will grow fastest are the places least equipped to handle it, which makes the growth and the harm the same problem rather than two.
A note on accessA reference report with no French
This section is not about waste. It is about who gets to read the source, and it belongs in an article that asks people to trust numbers.
The UNEP press release presenting this report is published in English, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian. There is no French version, we checked twice, through the page's language links and its hreflang tags.
So the figures above are reported in the French edition of this article, not quoted: the translation is ours. A francophone reader who wants to check us against the source will have to read it in another language.
It is worth saying out loud rather than hiding behind a quotation mark. A figure attributed to an institution in a language that institution never used is a small fabrication, even when the meaning survives intact.
QuestionsFrequently asked questions
What does waste management cost today?
UNEP estimates the global direct cost at USD 252 billion in 2020. But factoring in the hidden costs, pollution, poor health and climate change from poor waste disposal practices, the total rises to USD 361 billion.
What would inaction cost by 2050?
Without urgent action, the global annual cost could almost double to USD 640.3 billion a year by 2050, according to UNEP.
And if waste were brought under control?
The report's modelling shows that waste prevention and management measures could limit net annual costs by 2050 to USD 270.2 billion. That is less than half the inaction scenario, but it is still a cost.
Why is the third scenario different?
Because its sign changes. A circular economy model, where waste generation is decoupled from economic growth, could according to the projections lead to a full net gain of USD 108.5 billion per year. Not a smaller cost: a gain.
How much will waste grow?
Municipal solid waste generation is predicted to grow from 2.3 billion tonnes in 2023 to 3.8 billion tonnes by 2050. And the greatest growth is projected “in regions that rely heavily on open dumping and burning”.
Does this report exist in French?
No. The UNEP press release presenting it is published in English, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian. We checked twice. The figures in the French version of this article are therefore reported rather than quoted: the translation is ours.
Read nextRelated
Sources
- World must move beyond waste era and turn rubbish into resource, UNEP, 28 February 2024
- Eight ways to overcome the waste pollution crisis, UNEP, 28 March 2024
About this article. General and educational information. The figures come from the UN Environment Programme press release of 28 February 2024 presenting the Global Waste Management Outlook 2024, published with ISWA. The 2050 amounts are modelled projections, not measurements. The 109 billion gap between direct and total cost is our own subtraction, and the article says so.
Spotted an error or an out-of-date figure? Write to us: we will correct it and re-date the article. Our texts are written with the help of artificial intelligence and checked against official sources before publication, but a figure or a definition can change without us catching it. If anything here does not match what an official body tells you, they are right.