Is the Semakau Landfill then a tragic solution? My previous arguments point to this possibility. The Semakau Landfill fulfills present needs but it came at great financial and ecological costs. The landfill will also pose environmental liability far into the future. Many of these costs were duly unintended, but foreseeable: it was implausible to consider an offshore landfill with neither sand nor barging. The landfill alleviated the pressing problem of waste disposal but at the expense of impacting existing ecosystems in unknowable ways and irreversibly changing the landscape—and uncertainly for the better. The certainties of these sacrifices and irreversible changes are ironically counterpoised by the uncertainty on whether the Semakau Landfill could actually serve its purpose until Singapore attains the state of ‘zero waste’. Waste is not expected to peak until 2075 for Asia-Pacific countries (Hoornweg, Bhada-Tata, & Kennedy, 2013). If this is an accurate estimation, then waste stream in the city-state will likely keep growing, ceteris paribus, for the next 30 years even after the Semakau Landfill is expected to have reached its full capacity. Because peak waste is predicted to arrive much later after the landfill is closed, it is worth pondering if the dras-tic decision for an offshore landfill was even warranted in the first place.