The United States, the world’s largest economy, has made progress in reducing several environmental pressures while maintaining one of the highest Gross Domestic Products per capita in the world. It has decoupled emissions of greenhouse gases, air pollutants, water abstractions and domestic material consumption from economic and population growth. However, high consumption levels, intensive agricultural practices, climate change and urban sprawl continue to put pressure on the natural environment. Despite the recent acceleration of action to address climate change, further efforts are needed to achieve the goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The United States is also among the major contributors to marine litter with serious consequences for communities and the environment. The review provides 30 recommendations to help the United States improve its environmental performance, with a special focus on marine litter and a cross-cutting focus on environmental justice. This is the third Environmental Performance Review of the United States. It provides an independent, evidence-based evaluation of the country’s environmental performance over the past decade.

2. The US has decoupled some environmental pressures
from economic growth
Note: Domestic material consumption (DMC) is equal to the sum of domestic (raw material) extraction used by an economy and its physical
trade balance; GDP = gross domestic product. LULUCF = land use, land-use change and forestry.
Source: OECD (2022), OECD Environment Statistics (database).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Decoupling trends
GDP (constant prices)
DMC
Total energy supply
GHG excl. LULUCF
Freshwater abstraction
NOₓ
SOₓ

3. The US is making progress towards climate goals, but
additional actions are needed
Note: Net GHG emissions include emissions from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector. CO2 emissions: data refer to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion,
industrial processes (IPPU) and flaring (IEA projections). Dashed lines represent trajectories toward the nationally determined contribution (NDC) economy-wide reduction targets of
reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent below 2005 levels in 2030. Dotted lines refer to trajectories consistent with the IEA projections of the State Policy Scenario
(STEP) that takes into account climate/energy-related policies and measures which have already been adopted by the US government.
Source: IEA (2022), IEA World Energy Outlook 2022 (database); UNFCCC (2022), National Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
Past performance against climate objectives and indicative path to net zero
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mt CO2 eq
Total gross GHG emissions Total net GHG emissions CO₂ emissions (fuel combustion/IPPU)
26% -28%
below 2005 level
50% - 52%
below 2005
level
Net-
zero
2050
Carbon-free
power sector
2035
Interim target 2020
-17% below 2005
level
IEA STEP
projections

4. Climate-related disasters in the US and related
economic costs are rapidly increasing
Note: Number of weather/climate disaster events with losses that impacted the US and exceeding USD 1 billion (inflation-adjusted data).
Methodological definitions of cost assessment and data caveats are available at http://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions.
Source: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (2023), U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (database).
[10.25921/stkw-7w73].
Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
5
10
15
20
25
USD billion
N. of events
Drought Flooding Freeze
Severe storm Tropical cyclone Wildfire
Winter storm All disasters cost (right axis) 5-year avg costs (right axis)

5. The IIJA funds USD 550 billion for new infrastructure
projects, with substantial funding for EPA
Note: IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Law N.117-58 also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law). Left panel: Excluding
amounts related to the reauthorization of existing programs (about USD billion 650). Right panel: PFAS = Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Source: Government Finance Officers Association (2022), Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Implementation Resources, website; EPA
(2022), Explore EPA's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding Allocations, website.
Roads and
bridges, 20%
Freight/
passenger
rail, 12%
Energy/
electric grid,
14%
Broadband,
12%
Water/waste
water, 10%
Resiliency,
natural
disasters,
cybersecurity,
9%
Public transit/
highways, 9%
Airports, 5%
Legacy
pollution,
brownfields,
4%
Ports/waterw
ays, 3%
Low emission
transport, 3%
Spending over 2021-26
About
USD 550
billion
15
12
12
0 1 2 3 4 5
Lead service lines drinking water State…
Clean water State Revolving Fund…
Drinking water State Revolving Fund…
Cleaner school buses
PFAS small & disadvantaged
PFAS drinking water State Revolving Fund
Superfund remedial cleanups
Brownfields
Great Lakes restoration
PFAS clean water State Revolving Fund
Others water infrastructure
Solid waste and recycling grants
Chesapeake Bay
National estuary program
Long Island sound
Pollution prevention
Battery recycling labeling and best…
USD billion
IIJA funding allocated to EPA
Water infrastructure (50.4B, 82.8%)
Cleaner school buses (5.0B, 8.2%)
Cleanup, revitalisation, recycling (5.4B, 8.8%)
Pollution prevention (0.1B, 0.2%)
Planned investment under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)

6. US renewables have expanded in both capacity and
energy production over 2010-20
Source: IEA (2022), "OECD and selected countries, Net Capacity" Renewables Information (database).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
TWe Electricity installed capacity by renewable
source
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Mtoe
Energy production by renewable source
Hydro Geothermal Wind Solar photovoltaics Solar thermal Waste Biofuels

7. Uneven distribution of environmental burdens in
the US calls for accelerated action on EJ
Note: Darker areas indicate higher potential exposure to one or both environmental indicators. Counties with missing data appear in white. NATA Respiratory Hazard Index (2017) refers
to the ratio of exposure concentration to Reference Concentration from EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (RFC). The latter estimates continuous inhalation exposure unlikely to
cause adverse health effects during a person's lifetime. It includes sensitive groups (e.g. children, asthmatics, elderly). Exposure to Ozone (2018) refers to the summer seasonal
average of daily maximum eight-hour concentration, parts per billion (ppb) of ozone in air.
Source: OECD analysis based on data from US EPA (2022[136]), EJScreen, Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. County and State layers from the US Census Bureau.
California is the state with higher potential exposure to ozone and respiratory
hazards

8. US plastic recycling rates are low compared to
other countries
Note: Data refer to OECD estimates for plastic waste total waste. Recycling rates are based on the amounts of plastics that are effectively recycled and
include primary and secondary plastics.
Source: OECD (2022), OECD Global Plastic Outlook (database).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
United States
OECD EU
OECD Asia
Other OECD America
OECD Non-EU
OECD Oceania
Recycling rates of plastic waste
2019 2010-19 growth rates

9. US plastic waste exports have sharply declined,
while plastic waste continues to rise
Note: Exports of waste, parings and scrap, of plastic (commodity code 3915).
Source: OECD (2022), OECD Global Plastic Outlook (database); UN (2022), UN Comtrade (database), https://comtrade.un.org/data/
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Mt Mt
Plastic waste
Exports
net weight (right axis)
Waste generated

10. US policies to address marine litter rely largely on
enabling instruments
Note: Seven bars are located under each source of plastic pollution, representing target setting; five (1-5) successively more advanced approaches to addressing
plastic pollution by source according to the OECD Policy Roadmap; and a total count by plastic pollution source.
Source: Authors.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
National goals/targets for each source of leakage
1.Problem definition
2.Close leakage pathways
3.Incentives for recycling and sorting at source
4.More circular plastic value chain
5. Fate of plastic waste exports
Total
National goals/targets for each source of leakage
1.Problem definition
2.Close leakage pathways
3.Incentives for recycling and sorting at source
4.More circular plastic value chain
5. Fate of plastic waste exports
Total
National goals/targets for each source of leakage
1.Problem definition
2.Close leakage pathways
3.Incentives for recycling and sorting at source
4.More circular plastic value chain
5. Fate of plastic waste exports
Total
National goals/targets for each source of leakage
1.Problem definition
2.Close leakage pathways
3.Incentives for recycling and sorting at source
4.More circular plastic value chain
5. Fate of plastic waste exports
Total
Number of policy instruments by category
Enabling
Steering
Macroplastics
from
mismanaged
waste
Macroplastics
from litter
Marine
sources
Microplastics

11. • Develop a national strategy and targets
• Develop an integrated plastic pollution monitoring system
• Close leakage pathways by pursuing stronger instruments, such as
bans on certain single use plastics, utilise taxes and charges; increase
funding for subnational infrastructure; strengthen controls on US
plastic waste exports
• Create incentives for recycling and enhance sorting of waste at the
source, for example with a federal law to harmonise Extended
Producer Responsibility for packaging
• Restrain demand and optimis design with economic instruments
(fees, taxes); national standards for recycled content
Key recommendations on marine litter

12. Contacts
Head of Division: Nathalie Girouard Nathalie.Girouard@oecd.org
Report Co-ordinator: Kathleen Dominique Kathleen.Dominique@oecd.org
Communications: Natasha Cline-Thomas Natasha.Cline-Thomas@oecd.org