This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment Top‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Sanitation Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 13 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Connordanielle, CaptainLitty.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mari2132. Peer reviewers: Dalastrascastrejon, Ktjylee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came to this page looking for info on how trash was disposed of before the invention of plastic. There seems to be little info around on the subject. Please add to the section if you know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.113.209.34 (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The definition of the word "waste" belongs in a dictionary.

This article is really about municipal waste management (one particular kind of waste).

It fails to discuss all of the connotations of the word waste.

You can waste electricity. You can waste material (for instance by not cutting out patterns from cloth or sheet metal, etc, in a way that minimizes left-over material). You can waste disk space or computer memory. You can waste your time, waste your life, waste our your enemies. You can waste money (such as by clicking through the begging banner above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.122.42 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the following passage from the introduction. These statements are not wholely correct and are relative:

"Although these words are often used as synonyms in colloquial American English, they are not:

• waste is unusable material produced by a manufacturing process;
• litter is useless or rejected material;
• trash is material that is worth nothing;
• garbage is food waste;
• dogs poo is discarded material which may be used again."

--Alex 14:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

question for all of you (i dont know how to post a different one on discussion sorry) - is there a difference between "trash" and "garbage"? I was just wondering. i think of Garbage as food and trash as ie: old papers, napkins, etc . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.93.153 (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waste is itself a human concept that has changed over time. In nature everything is reused or benign. Over time many problematic forms of waste such as Coal_tar and used Cooking_oil have become valued materials, and there is increasing adoption of closed loop production systems. -- M0llusk 18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A similiar expansion of the definition of waste to consider: waste is a failure to use a given resource to its full potential. Waste is therefore a lost opportunity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.14 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry English is not my mother language; therefore I will not edit the articles in English. I just would like to bring to your attention that the green gases produced by biodegradation are irrelevant in the problem of greenhouse effect and the planet warming. Further not every biodegrading process will produce the same chemical output. It would be better to delete this reference. I believe that the most important reason to control the waste from natural organisms come from a hygienical point of view: not only the control of pathogens but also others like odours and/or the development of other unwanted living organisms like insects, rats (the bubonic plague in the middle age), etc...Further biodegradable waste includes also some industrial products, more specifically, detergents. --Traüller (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't necessarily matter what your opinion of something is when it concerns wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not opinions. A hygienical reasoning for contolling waste is in fact important, but saying that it is most important is your opinion. Maybe if you can provide a reliable source that says that it is the most important reason, then you can add it in, but something cannot be deleted just because it is different than your opinion. Alice1869 (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Alice1869Reply[reply]

No organism on the Earth is 100% efficient. As it consumes resources, there is a certain amount of waste. Without the waste of our ancestors, we would not know so much about how they lived and what they ate. Any archaeologist will be happy to find an antiquity waste dump. [1]

Perhaps somebody can decide what to do with it? - Mike Rosoft 11:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is of use to the article cultural dynamics section but needs to be reworded. --Alex 12:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultural dynamics

Archaeologists often use ancient spoil heaps and waste dumps as a source of information about the past. Elements that are discarded by a society are indicative of a number of different cultural dynamics such as what food was being consumed at the time and how prosperous a community was. Waste, www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2, Retrieved 13.12.06

Biological production of waste

Organisms must take in energy and nutrients in order to survive. Through their metabolism by-products are created which are excreted from the body as waste.

Waste and municipal waste are distinct terms and I do not believe they should be merged. Other types of waste including C&I waste, hazarous waste are all distinct in their own right in the field of waste management.--Alex 07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, fair enough, and I will remove my tag. But then the current Waste article needs to be heavily edited, as the article as it stands seems to be talking almost exclusively about municipal solid waste. Are you up for rewriting it to cover waste in general? (And I don't think a discussion of "wasting time" belongs here...) --Macrakis 12:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see where you are coming from. It probably does need to mention different types of waste. I arranged these under the Category:Waste. As you can see there are potentially a lot to cover. The cultural dynamics bit was part of some bloke's thesis who was adament that it needed some mention of the metaphorical term. Happy to alter as per a logical approach would require.--Alex 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that we could put fly-tipping in alongside Litter, incorporating it while still maintaining the separate page which we could expand from a stub. --Popezilla (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is great defining waste and showing examples but there is little information governing waste pollution from acts such as littering and illegal dumping (note the image I have added with the subdivision garbage pile).

When I have time I will expand the article in a few days, if before then however someone has time to begin creating a new section within the article that would be great.

Consider these topics:

Littering Illegal Dumping Transport Loss/Blow Off (things fly out of waste and other trucks on the road)

There environmental impacts are as follows:

• Soil contamination
• Ecological/Biological contamination and others (some birds and fish choke on trash)
• Social effects (waste is ugly, lowers property values etc... consider littering)
• Political effects such externalities and cleanup costs (illegal dumping especially)

I also don't see any pollution articles anywhere which properly deal with solid waste contamination, lots of stuff about "pollution" but very little dealing with solid waste pollution. Heck, the noise pollution article is bigger lol.

Theonlysilentbob (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone else feel that that image caption is way to long? can someone merge that info into the article or delete it? --Simpson s fan 66 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can Somone cite the referance that states the actual lifetime of Glass and plastic, seeing as i keep hearing one person say millions of years and another say thousands.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorias (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that someone added incorrect information to this section. It says:

"Although most of this waste is recyclable, very few of it makes it to a recycling facility. Plastics, Metals and Glass can sit in landfills for millions of years before they break down. And when incinerated, they release toxic fumes. In developed area, there are services that will remove these materials, and properly recycle them. But for most people, no service exists. Recycling takes much energy, a lot of labor, and does not leave much of a final product. For most of the world it is a lot easier to just throw it in the garbage than take the hassle of recycling it."

It doesn't seem as though there is any truth to these statements; it seems awfully biased. Or is this true and recycling really doesn't matter? I doubt it...I honestly doubt that people shouldn't even bother to recycle. Alice1869 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Alice1869Reply[reply]

I think recycling is important. Even though i dont actually do it, i think more people should. i mean, on our wii, my family and i were looking at the weather channel. the hole in the ozone is almost as big as the ozone itself! all i have t say is "stupid pollution" well, i guess i have more than that to say. we should really start actually caring! people dont realize its coming FASTER than you would think. im not saying you have to g oall tofu, and planting trees, and recycle everything you see, but just PLEASE PLEASE do it! *end* 97.92.34.101 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Mintymonkey1Reply[reply]

What about adding Waste minimisation to the 'See also ' section?
83.228.224.153 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

How about adding links that lead to either garbage or trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.151.202.81 (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Delete the redundant "it" in the definition (2nd sentence) so that it will read: Waste (or wastes) are unwanted or unusable materials. Waste is any substance which is discarded after primary use, or is worthless, defective and of no use. Andersonsabel (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rubbish. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Home Lander (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 --OjuzKiopo (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waste is not only in the physical term I think another page should be made or that this page may be extended. The definition has to be rewritten to reinclude other waste. (More accurately "Wasting" which is rather an action, or a process)

The edits were really in-depth. I liked the way that you added pictures and links to other pages as well as your edits. It was difficult for me to check spelling and grammar within Wikipedia, but you should review your copy. I noticed a few run-on sentences and mistakes like not capitalizing NASA. Also, I would recommend that you describe issues without referencing specific pictures. Instead, I would talk about general problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erg223 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mixed waste is just a dicdef of different kinds of "waste" (as defined in this article) that are "mixed"; those few lines should be merged here. BD2412 T 18:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Without objection, I have carried out the merge. BD2412 T 01:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change all instances of co2 to CO₂. Baum64 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done for the one case I could find. RudolfRed (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rhaigle2 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rhaigle2 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But many of them are not doing recycling 2405:201:D027:15:5508:39CA:A7EB:2349 (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((edit semi-protected))

I want to avoid adding irrelevant info to this article, so I'm wondering if it would be worth to add this to Municipal waste, or if this would be too detailed with EU data?

"In the European Union alone, people and companies generate more than 2 billion tonnes of garbage year, or 4.8 tonnes per person, mostly from the building, mining, and manufacturing sectors.^[1][2][3] Each individual in Europe generates half a tonne of municipal garbage annually, less than half of which gets recycled. ^[4]" Noura2021 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]