Toronto doesn’t just lag behind progressive cities in Europe — we’re used to that. It also trails nearby communities in applying the hot new science of incineration. And this has to change if Canada’s largest city is serious about finding better ways to process its trash.

Germany, Sweden, Denmark and a host of other environmentally responsible nations are using ultra-modern, ultraclean incineration technology to transform their garbage into energy. But there’s no need to look that far afield for smart thinking on this issue.

A new energy-from-waste plant is currently under construction in Clarington to process garbage from York and Durham regions. Once in full production, it’s expected to generate enough electricity to power about 10,000 homes.

Peel Region, on the opposite side of Toronto, has long sent waste to a Brampton incinerator. That operation switched last year to burning commercial and industrial trash, generating steam for a nearby paper mill and electricity for sale. Now Peel is looking to build a more modern energy-from-waste facility costing as much as $400 million. And, as the Star’s Alyshah Hasham reports, the city of Ottawa is also getting fired up about obtaining power from rubbish, recently finalizing a 20-year deal with Plasco Energy Group to produce a clean-burning gas from municipal garbage.

Where’s Toronto in all this? Pretty much nowhere. Incineration regrettably remains a dirty word in Canada’s largest city. Environmental lobby groups and former mayor David Miller, in particular, have virulently opposed the concept.

But now there’s a chance to at least put incineration on the city’s long-term agenda. The public works and infrastructure committee is to consider a proposal on Tuesday that would have staff develop a 30- to 50-year waste management strategy. According to a report before the committee, this would be “an open and transparent” review of options. The analysis would pay special attention to “innovation and flexibility to adapt to emerging technologies.”

In order to have any relevance at all, that must include consideration of incineration and related new energy-from-waste developments. There’s no good reason to look away.

Incineration’s opponents tend to envision stinking plants with giant smokestacks, spewing clouds of contaminants into the air and into people’s lungs. But that’s not at all an accurate picture of modern processes.

Sophisticated filters and super-efficient scrubbers catch pollutants that once fouled the atmosphere. Indeed, a modern incinerator is “greener” than any landfill site. As buried garbage rots it releases methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases on the planet. And technology trapping methane at municipal dumps and using it for energy is less effective than modern incineration.

Another strike against burning is that it consumes material that could be reused or recycled. But European examples show this needn’t be a problem if incineration is properly implemented. Many cities with energy-from-waste facilities do a much better job of recycling than does Toronto, which managed to divert just 49 per cent of residential waste from landfill in 2011 — well short of the city’s 70-per-cent diversion goal.

Realistically, there will always be material that isn’t reused or recycled. It makes way more sense to turn that stuff into energy than to shovel it underground. In fact, some ceramics and metals recovered as residue after incineration wouldn’t be recycled any other way.

For all these reasons, it makes sense to add incineration to Toronto’s current mix of methods for dealing with trash. Landfill, recycling, reuse and waste reduction are just part of the picture. There’s a place for burning, too.