In environmental science, which of the following is NOT considered a benefit of burning garbage (solid waste) as a fuel source?

Introduction / Context:
Waste-to-energy plants and incinerators can burn garbage to reduce solid waste volume and generate energy. However, exam questions often test whether you understand which environmental effects actually come from incineration and which are confused with other waste management methods, such as landfilling and landfill gas recovery.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- The question focuses on burning garbage for fuel, not burying it in landfills.
- Several options describe possible benefits: more space, methane production, waste reduction, and energy generation.
- We assume standard descriptions of incineration and landfill gas recovery from school-level environmental science.

Concept / Approach:
When garbage is burned in a controlled facility, the volume of solid waste is greatly reduced, and the heat can be used to generate electricity or steam. This helps address the solid waste disposal problem and provides energy, often from the biomass portion of the waste. In contrast, methane is primarily produced when organic waste decomposes anaerobically in landfills, not when it is burned. Capturing methane for fuel is therefore associated with landfills, not incineration.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Identify that incineration reduces the volume of solid waste, helping with solid waste disposal. Step 2: Recognize that the heat from burning waste can be converted into usable energy, such as electricity or steam. Step 3: Recall that methane is a gas produced by anaerobic decomposition of organic matter, especially in landfills. Step 4: Note that burning garbage actually converts organic matter mainly into carbon dioxide, water vapor, and ash, not methane. Step 5: Conclude that the option claiming methane production as a benefit of burning garbage is incorrect for incineration.

Verification / Alternative check:
Environmental science materials usually distinguish between “landfill gas” projects that collect methane from buried waste and “waste-to-energy” plants that incinerate garbage. Landfill gas projects pipe methane from decomposing waste, whereas incineration directly combusts waste. This confirms that methane capture relates to landfills, not to burning garbage as fuel.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A: By reducing the volume of solid waste, incineration can decrease the amount of space needed for landfills and indirectly free land for other uses, which is a real benefit in many cities.
Option C: Burning solid waste does partially address the disposal problem, because less volume needs to be landfilled afterward.
Option D: Waste-to-energy plants explicitly use the heat from combustion to generate power or steam, so providing usable energy from waste is a recognized benefit.

Common Pitfalls:
A common confusion is mixing up landfill management and incineration. Students may think that any waste process involving energy production must involve methane. Remember that methane comes from anaerobic decay, while incineration is direct combustion. Another pitfall is overlooking pollution concerns, but this question is strictly about benefits, not about drawbacks like air emissions and ash disposal.

Final Answer:
The correct answer is it produces methane that can be captured and used like natural gas because methane is mainly produced in landfills by anaerobic decomposition, not by burning garbage in incinerators.