California is ‘nowhere near’ emissions goals. It’s still sending organic waste to landfills

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

It’s frustrating and, frankly, it’s hurting our credibility as a climate leader.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent pledge at a United Nations climate conference to cut methane emissions and accelerate “circular economy” systems was inspiring. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: We’re nowhere near meeting our targets, particularly when it comes to organic waste management.

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

We’ve made some progress, with 2022 emissions sitting 14% below 1990 levels, but we still face a staggering 112 million metric ton gap. That’s an enormous reduction to achieve in just six years.

What’s even more troubling is our track record on organic waste diversion.

Backtracking on organic waste

Senate Bill 1383, which passed in 2016, required us to reduce landfilled organic waste by 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025, compared to 2014 levels. 

But we’ve gone backward: Organic waste going to landfills increased by a million tons from 2014 to 2020. The 2025 goal? It’s not happening.

This isn’t a technology problem. California has the circular processing capacity we need. The real problem is our policies are preventing this infrastructure from being used effectively.

The root cause is California’s exclusive franchise hauling system, which is rigidly enforced through state law and municipal contracts. This system forces waste generators to use specific haulers, but their logistics often conflict with circular processing goals.

The result: pre-consumer food waste that could be diverted to recycling facilities gets routed to landfills instead. 

Cities and counties are complying with collection service requirements yet continue falling far short of state organic-waste reduction targets. Proven circular solutions like RE:CIRCLE exist, yet hundreds of thousands of tons of high-value, pre-consumer food waste remain systematically excluded from these pathways and are landfilled each year.

Think about the climate impact we’re missing. 

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

If we had achieved that 75% organic waste reduction goal, we could have cut carbon emissions by 5 million to 15 million metric tons.

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

Local enforcement agencies make this worse through permitting practices that don’t align with statewide climate priorities. I’ve seen high-performing circular processors face 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 states toward more aggressive climate action.

The solution starts with recognizing that sustainable transformation requires ecosystem collaboration, not exclusionary licensing. We need policy reforms that put environmental outcomes first. 

That means establishing a pre-consumer food waste carve-out that allows generators of organic waste to send it directly to high-diversion processors, bypassing franchise restrictions when environmental benefits can be proven.

No sabotaging climate commitments

Also, communities should align local permitting practices with statewide climate priorities through better coordination between CalRecycle and local authorities. And California should recognize high-performing 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 circular economy leader. What we’re missing is policy alignment that allows our existing capabilities to work. 

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