As negotiations on the Circular Economy Act approach, Brussels faces a familiar temptation: adjust recycling targets, fine-tune landfill restrictions, recalibrate reporting rules, and declare progress, writes Janek Vähk.
But Europe’s waste problem is not primarily about landfill versus incineration.
It is about tonnage.
The EU still generates tens of millions of tonnes of residual municipal waste every year, waste that remains after prevention, reuse and recycling. Whether that waste is burned or buried, it represents lost materials, avoidable emissions and a structural failure of circularity.
If the Circular Economy Act is to be more than incremental reform, it must address this directly. That means introducing an EU-wide cap-and-trade scheme for residual municipal waste
Europe regulates disposal routes, not volumes
For two decades, EU waste policy has focused on managing destinations. Landfill has been restricted. Incineration has expanded in some regions. Recycling targets have risen.
The result? Landfill has fallen sharply in parts of Europe. Incineration capacity has grown, particularly in north-western Member States. Yet residual waste volumes remain stubbornly high.
In effect, Europe has often shifted waste rather than reduced it.
A cap-and-trade system would change the incentive structure entirely. Instead of regulating how waste is treated, the EU would regulate how much residual municipal waste can exist.
An EU-wide cap would set a binding ceiling on tonnages. That cap would decline over time, aligned with climate neutrality and circular economy objectives. Member States would receive per-capita allocations, with justified adjustments such as tourism pressures. Landfill and incineration operators would be required to surrender allowances for every tonne of residual municipal waste they manage
Trading would ensure flexibility and cost-effectiveness, but the environmental outcome would be guaranteed.
This is the core logic of the EU Emissions Trading System. It works for carbon. It can work for waste.
Why residual municipal waste?
Including every waste stream would dilute the objective.
Major mineral and combustion wastes dominate landfill statistics in some countries, but their inclusion could produce impressive-looking reductions with limited climate or resource benefit. Residual municipal waste, by contrast, is directly linked to consumption patterns, product design and collection systems. It is more evenly distributed across the Union and more consistently monitored
Most importantly, it is where the greatest environmental gains per tonne can be achieved.
If policymakers are serious about prevention and reuse, this is the stream that must shrink.
Avoiding a new wave of incineration lock-in
The EU requires Member States to recycle 65 percent of municipal waste and reduce landfill to 10 percent. For landfill-dependent countries, the politically easiest path is often expanded incineration.
Without a cap on residual waste volumes, that is the predictable outcome.
New incinerators mean long-term contracts, guaranteed feedstock and infrastructure that must run for decades to remain financially viable. That creates structural pressure against prevention and high-quality recycling.
A declining cap on residual waste would alter those investment signals. As allowances become scarcer, reducing waste becomes economically rational. Prevention, reuse and material recovery become the strategic choice. Overcapacity risks fall.
In short, a cap would prevent the Circular Economy Act from inadvertently fuelling the very lock-in it seeks to overcome.
Climate credibility per tonne
The climate case is straightforward. Moving waste from landfill to incineration can deliver limited, and sometimes negative, net environmental benefits when lifecycle impacts are considered
Reducing residual waste altogether produces significantly greater gains per tonne.
If the EU wants policy coherence between its climate agenda and its circular economy strategy, it must prioritise tonnage reduction, not disposal optimisation.
A political choice
The upcoming Circular Economy Act is a rare opportunity. It can either refine existing tools, or introduce a structural reform that aligns incentives across 27 Member States.
A residual waste cap would:
- Guarantee declining tonnages across the Union
- Strengthen climate and resource outcomes
- Reduce infrastructure lock-in
- Improve cost-effectiveness through trading
- Reinforce implementation through monitoring at disposal facilities
The EU Emissions Trading System was once politically controversial. Today it is a cornerstone of European climate policy.
The question facing negotiators now is whether the Union is prepared to apply the same discipline to materials as it has to carbon.
If Europe is serious about zero waste and climate neutrality, the Circular Economy Act cannot remain a framework for managing disposal routes.
It must make residual waste progressively scarce.
The debate in Brussels should not be whether landfill is better than incineration.
It should be whether Europe is ready to cap the waste it can no longer afford.
