As a waste educator in California, one question we hear frequently, especially from curious students, is deceptively simple: “Why don’t we just burn our trash?” At face value, it’s a simple, solution-based question, but it’s one that deserves a thoughtful answer with historical context in California.
In the waste industry; however, no topic is as contentious and politically charged due to the harm caused by incinerators in the state. As our world adapts to new waste streams, and technology advances, incineration to energy deserves a historic and geographic review as we continue to navigate California’s waste trends, energy and land challenges for the years to come.
A Burning History
California’s relationship with waste incineration has evolved significantly over time. In the early-to-mid 20th century, small-scale incinerators were common in urban areas, seen as simple means of disposal that limited trash heaps from accumulating. However, as we learned that burning waste was contributing to air pollution, California began shifting away from incineration (CalEPA’s History of Environmental Excellence | CalEPA).
The 1970 Clean Air Act marked a turning point, establishing federal standards for air quality. Through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), established in 1967 as the first agency of its kind in the nation, California implemented even stricter regulations. CARB’s pioneering research and standards gradually led to the closure of most waste incinerators across the state. By the 1990s, only a handful of waste-to-energy facilities remained operational in California. By the end of 2024, the last two remaining solid waste incinerators were shut down.
The Environmental Justice Awakening
One of the initial compelling reasons for California’s shift away from incinerating waste comes from the stark disproportionate negative health impact on low-income communities. Studies documented how waste facilities, including incinerators, were disproportionately located in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, namely the United Church of Christ’s study: Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in the Distribution of Environmental Hazards, which was one of the first studies to address the prevalence of dioxins in low-income neighborhoods.
In California, this pattern was unmistakable. Research by the Environmental Protection Agency consistently found that incinerator emissions —which include particulate matter, dioxins, furans, and heavy metals like mercury and lead— contributed to higher rates of respiratory diseases, cardiovascular problems, and certain cancers in surrounding communities.
Environmental justice advocates have worked toward shifting policy for equitable waste management approaches, which has sparked community-led movements over the years that successfully shut down California incinerators and helped shift state-wide policy toward more equitable waste management approaches.
Why Landfills?
California currently entrusts landfills for waste disposal; however, landfills are not without their own environmental obstacles. Landfills are major sources of methane, a greenhouse gas 28-36 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks | US EPA).
Despite California’s ambitious methane capture systems, these facilities still significantly contribute to the release of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is released as the biproduct of flaring methane to generate electricity. This creates a genuine environmental trade-off: while incineration produces air pollution affecting local communities, landfills are a large contributor to climate change through methane emissions. Both can be used to generate electricity, but neither solution exists without serious environmental concern.
Looking Abroad: Different Approaches
Many countries who are seen as environmental leaders have taken different approaches when it comes to waste management. Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Japan have invested heavily in modern waste-to-energy facilities with advanced pollution controls (European Environment Agency). These countries lack land space for landfilling, creating a necessity to invent a safe incineration process that would not cause adverse health effects from pollution.
In Sweden, waste-to-energy plants provide heating for about 1.2 million households and electricity for another 800,000. Japanese facilities utilize sophisticated filtering technologies that dramatically reduce emissions compared to older incinerators. These countries have integrated waste-to-energy into comprehensive waste management systems that prioritize recycling and waste reduction first.
These international examples raise an important question: Could California adopt similar particulate filtering technologies while addressing environmental justice concerns? As our state faces growing electricity demands— particularly with the expansion of electric cars, devices, artificial intelligence and data centers that require enormous energy inputs, could waste-to-energy play a role in diversifying energy resources?
California’s Current Focus
California’s current focus is on zero-waste initiatives, enhancing recycling and composting programs, and landfill methane capture. California’s approach prioritizes waste reduction and the protection of vulnerable communities over possible energy recovery from waste.
What’s clear is that there are no simple solutions to our waste challenges. As we work toward a more sustainable future, we must balance social equity, environmental protection, and practical needs.
How To Get Involved
Learn about your local waste agency–RethinkWaste, attend public board meetings and share your thoughts with elected representatives. Look to your community for volunteer opportunities to work within environmental justice, and advocate for a sustainable future, with less waste and more reusing and recycling.