Jacob Rognhaug
As Europe faces mounting pressure to meet its 2030 climate targets, all eyes are on the technologies helping to cut emissions at scale. Across the continent, promises to trap emissions before they reach the atmosphere, and policymakers are rightly asking how quickly this infrastructure can scale. Amid this, one of the most practical and immediate climate tools remains largely overlooked: effective waste management.
Carbon Capture Alone is Simply Not Enough
What we do with our plastic waste has a direct and measurable impact on carbon emissions. Plastic is the most in the average household bin, yet, according to , 65 percent of post-consumer plastic waste is still sent to landfill or incineration rather than being recycled. What’s more, progress on material recycling rates is .
At the same time, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is gaining momentum as a way to cut emissions from energy intensive sectors, including waste incineration. While CCS can reduce COâ‚‚ released during the incineration process, it does nothing to reduce the volume of plastic being produced, discarded and burned, nor does it help meet for waste sorting and material recycling.
Net zero will require both technological decarbonization and systemic waste reform, and the real opportunity lies in integrating the two—prioritizing material recycling to prevent emissions in the first place, while using CCS strategically where emissions cannot be avoided. Overlooking waste management as a core climate lever here is not just an oversight; it is a missed opportunity.
One of the most effective solutions is introducing mixed waste sorting before waste-to-energy processes. Instead of sending unsorted municipal or commercial waste directly to incineration or landfill, mixed waste sorting facilities recover valuable materials—plastics, metals, paper, glass and organics—and channel them back into the recycling system.
Plastics extracted through this process are then sent on to advanced sorting facilities for further refinement into feedstock for material recycling. The result is straightforward, yet transformative: materials that would otherwise be lost to combustion are kept in circulation, reducing the need for virgin production.
The Oslo Case
So, what is the most effective way to cut carbon emissions from urban waste? This question lies at the heart of the commissioned by TOMRA, which examines the city of Oslo’s emissions reduction strategy and the waste management strategies which can deliver the greatest climate benefits.
Using an environmental economic analysis, the report compares alternative approaches to handling plastics in mixed waste, assessing their potential to reduce emissions in a measurable and cost-effective way. Oslo is Norway’s most densely populated municipality, accounting for approximately 12 percent of the national population, and therefore provides a compelling setting for this analysis.
The city has committed to an ambitious target: reducing emissions by 95 percent by 2030 compared to 2009 levels. Central to achieving this goal is the planned carbon capture facility at Klemetsrud. By 2030, the plant is designed to capture CO₂ from Oslo’s waste-to-energy facility, which incinerates approximately 400,000 tons of waste each year. Once operational, the system is expected to remove 350,000 tons of CO₂ annually, cutting nearly 20 percent of the city’s remaining fossil emissions and positioning waste management at the forefront of Oslo’s climate strategy. The report analyses four approaches:
- The current solution: incineration (WtE) without carbon capture (CCS)
- Incineration (tE) with carbon capture (CCS)
- Mixed sorting with incineration (WtE)
- Mixed sorting, incineration (WtE), and carbon capture (CCS)
Pull More Plastic, Cut More Carbon
The analysis shows that simply adding carbon capture to today’s incineration system lowers emissions, but it does not tackle the loss of valuable materials. Introducing mixed waste sorting, by contrast, changes the equation: the more plastic that is extracted before combustion, the lower the overall carbon footprint.
The strongest results come from combining both measures. In the integrated scenario, mixed waste sorting alongside incineration with carbon capture, plastic is diverted back into the economy as recycled raw material, while emissions from the smaller residual waste stream are captured. According to the modelling, this approach could cut COâ‚‚ emissions by around 40 percent, delivering significantly deeper climate reductions at less than half the cost of relying on incineration with carbon capture alone.
What does that mean in practice? It means scale. Mixed sorting could recover around 7,000 tons of plastic from Oslo’s residual waste every year—that’s roughly 10kg of recycled plastic raw material per resident. Today, the city’s source separation scheme delivers just 2.6kg per person. For a capital that represents 12 percent of Norway’s population, that uplift would be a meaningful contribution toward meeting national recycling targets.
The climate economics are just as compelling. Combining mixed sorting with carbon capture would deliver an additional 11,800 tons of COâ‚‚ reductions annually compared with carbon capture alone. And crucially, it would do so far more efficiently. The cost per ton of COâ‚‚ removed under the combined approach is less than half that of relying solely on carbon capture. In other words, smarter sorting does not compete with carbon capture; it makes it work harder, delivering deeper emissions cuts and better value for public money.
The report concludes that Norway cannot meet the requirements for plastic sorting through source separation alone; mixed sorting is necessary. Carbon capture cannot be seen as an alternative to mixed sorting, as it does not contribute to increased material recycling. Sorting is based on proven technology that can be implemented immediately, while carbon capture still involves significant technological development.
Policy, Scale and Speed Matter
If the Mepex report tells us anything, it is that combining mixed waste sorting with carbon capture and storage delivers the greatest environmental benefit at the lowest net cost. Policymakers should treat these two systems as complementary infrastructure. Carbon capture cannot substitute for plastics separation, and EU recycling targets for plastics waste will not be met through source separation alone.
The regulatory environment will determine how quickly this model scales. Norway’s framework already provides a competitive edge: mixed waste sorting can qualify under rules, and since July last year the strengthened EPR regime has reduced the investment risk for new facilities. That matters. Stable cost coverage and guaranteed outlets for sorted plastics are exactly what investors need to accelerate deployment.
To fully implement this integrated approach, carbon pricing, EPR incentives and recycling mandates must all work in harmony. While mixed waste sorting achieves the lowest overall cost, it is the combination of mixed waste sorting, carbon capture and incineration that can be relied upon to deliver the greatest reductions in COâ‚‚ emissions and improved recycling rates at the lowest per-unit cost. Policy should therefore be designed to accelerate the deployment of this combined model at scale.
Climate and Circularity Aligned
All eyes are on how Europe will meet its 2030 emissions targets, but as demonstrated, less attention is given to the role that waste management systems can play in delivering immediate, cost-effective reductions. Carbon capture is clearly an important part of Europe’s decarbonisation pathway. But as the evidence from Oslo shows, its impact is significantly strengthened when paired with smarter material management. Integrating mixed waste sorting alongside carbon capture allows countries to both reduce emissions and recover valuable resources, which, in turn, improves recycling rates.
For policymakers and the industry, the opportunity is clear: create the conditions for these systems to scale in tandem. Done right, this integrated approach offers a practical route to cut emissions, increase recycling rates and make better use of the existing waste infrastructure.
Jacob Rognhaug is VP of Global Affairs at TOMRA. For more information, visit .