This Article critically examines the Court's garbage cases in conjunction with traditional principles of Commerce Clause jurisprudence for the purpose of constructing a doctrine that is at once constitutionally and ecologically sound. The Article is divided into five parts. Part I briefly describes the current state of the garbage wars, both in terms of environmental effects and in terms of constitutional developments. Parts II and III critically examine the Court's garbage cases from the perspectives of two traditional justifications for the negative Commerce Clause: encouraging fair representation of residents across state lines and discouraging economic protectionism. Here I conclude that the waste transportation cases go beyond the needs of either justification and, instead, move toward a less defensible goal of preserving an unfettered market in waste. Part IV analyzes the garbage cases through the lens of environmental justice and warns that elevating market values above the constitutional values of representation and fairness threatens to exacerbate already disproportionate patterns of waste distribution. As a possible solution, Part V suggests the elimination of Philadelphia's strict standard and the return to a fact-based analysis more sensitive to the values of political representation and antiprotectionism. This back-to-basics response is inspired by this Article's epigraph, "Reduce. Re-use. Recycle."