Imagine There’s No Garbage. I Wonder If I Can.

In John Lennon’s iconic song “Imagine,” he paints a world without war, greed or hunger. I’d like to add garbage to his list.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


In John Lennon's iconic song "Imagine," he paints a world without war, greed or hunger. I'd like to add garbage to his list. Yup, plain ol' trash. It's everywhere. It's persistent, and as the name implies, it's dirty.

When scanning the globe to check out ways different countries address this problem, I pause at Sweden. In 2011, this northern European land of water and forests prevented more than 99% of its garbage (municipal solid waste) from ending up in a landfill, emailed Hans Wrådhe, Head of the Waste and Chemicals Section, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. That's a dizzying stat compared to the U.S. where over half of ours made its way into the ground that very year.

It's not lost on me that America's population is about 30 times larger than Sweden's. And yes, Sweden is only the size of California (roughly), just one of our 50 states. But, we do produce a lot more garbage per person (about 70% more). Moreover, most of Sweden's is incinerated (51%) and turned into power, when ours is swept under the rug so to say.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"[Sweden's] waste to energy program is probably the best, or at least one of the best in the world if you look at the energy output when incinerating waste," wrote Wrådhe in an email. "That is mainly due to the many district heating systems in Sweden, which make it possible to produce and use both electricity and heat from all waste incinerators."

Sweden lit upon trash incineration in the 1940s. Much of this energy was distributed through the countries district-heating network, which expanded along with the post Second World War construction. Following suit, waste incineration plants boomed in the 70s, allowing garbage and fire to fuel the country's heating and electrical needs.

At first, the process was pretty dirty. Harmful dioxins poured into the air. Since the 80s though, Sweden cracked down on these emissions with stricter standards and, according to a recent report, the bulk of these emissions have dropped 90-99%, making the technology much much cleaner today.

Currently, just over 2.5 million tons of municipal waste produced in Sweden is incinerated each year. An additional 1 million tons of waste is imported for incineration, mainly from Norway, but also from England, Holland and Italy. To be clear, importing trash is due to an "over capacity for incineration" rather than a "shortage of waste," wrote Wrådhe, emphasizing that the Swedish EPA does not consider importing or incinerating waste as a long term solution. Rather, increased recycling and reuse is the final goal.

Today, burning waste produces 20% of Sweden's heat supply for about 810,000 homes. It also provides electricity for 250,000 homes.

Waste to energy exists in the U.S. too, although on a smaller scale (in terms of percentage of waste, not tonnage). The EPA's website states that 86 facilities in 25 states burn municipal solid waste. In 2011, we incinerated about 29 million tons of waste, about 12% of our garbage, which has the ability to generate over 2,700 megawatts of electricity.

It would be remiss to think that waste to energy here in the States could ever match the pervasiveness of Sweden's example. This is mostly because of the way our infrastructure has developed. Even so, there are regions with unrealized potential, according to an analysis by Matt Williams, American Council On Renewable Energy. These include urban areas that have district heating, such as New York City, states with higher electricity prices (Hawaii to name one), and/or states that include a levy on carbon.

These factors could help spur waste to energy production, thereby reducing the amount of trash in the landfill. So too would a renewed focus on recycling and reuse. Can you imagine it? Fewer heaps of garbage smattered around the country. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Robynne Boyd began writing about people and the planet when living barefoot and by campfire on the North Shore of Kauai, Hawaii. Over a decade later and now fully dependent on electricity, she continues this work as an editor for IISD Reporting Services. When not in search of misplaced commas and terser prose, Robynne writes about environment and energy. She lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

More by Robynne Boyd

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe