In a groundbreaking study spanning 26 countries across the Global South, researchers have uncovered the widespread and concerning practice of households burning plastic waste as a fuel for cooking, heating, and other domestic needs. The research, published in Nature Communications, reveals that this hazardous method of managing both waste and energy poverty is driven by systemic failures in municipal services and the unaffordability of clean alternatives, posing severe risks to human health and the environment.
The survey of over 1,000 key informants—including researchers, government officials, and community workers—found that 91% of respondents reported plastic burning was at least slightly prevalent in their cities, with 34% describing it as very or extremely prevalent. Notably, 16% of respondents reported burning plastic as a fuel in their own households. Lead author Bishal Bharadwaj of Curtin University explained the dual drivers behind the practice: "Analyses of the data reveal significant correlations of plastic waste burning with both supply factors, such as the massive amount of waste generated, expensive clean fuels, and demand factors, including self-management of waste."
The phenomenon is most prevalent in low-income countries and informal settlements, where gaps in waste collection and soaring costs for cleaner fuels leave residents with few options. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from beverage bottles and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) from bags were the most commonly burned plastics, often ignited in traditional stoves. Food wrappers, cited by nearly two-thirds of respondents, were the most frequently burned plastic product.
The burning of these materials releases toxic emissions. Respondents strongly acknowledged these dangers, with 62% stating it was "extremely likely" that burning plastic contributes to toxic emissions and air pollution, and roughly 6 in 10 believing it extremely likely to contaminate food and water. The study notes that secondary impacts, such as ingestion of contaminated food, underscore additional risks, with the report citing the example of chicken eggs from an e-waste site in Ghana found to contain toxins from burnt plastics and cables.
The study identifies a dual crisis fueling the trend: inadequate waste management systems and enduring energy poverty. As cities in the Global South urbanize rapidly, infrastructure lags behind. Regression analysis showed that perceptions of clean fuels as expensive and solid waste management fees as unaffordable were positively correlated with the practice. Furthermore, a high percentage of a city's population lacking waste collection services was strongly linked to direct awareness of plastic burning for energy.
Regional variations highlight the complex drivers. In Latin America and the Caribbean, a lack of waste management and public awareness were cited as primary reasons, whereas in parts of Africa and Asia, scarcity of traditional fuels played a stronger role. Informants consistently pointed to improved waste collection and expanded access to affordable clean energy as the most critical solutions. As Bharadwaj and colleagues concluded, "Expanding essential public waste management services and implementing programs that enhance the affordability of clean energy technologies, especially among marginalized and low-income communities, could reduce this health- and environment-damaging practice."
The research underscores the deep interconnection between sustainable development goals—specifically SDG 11 (sustainable cities) and SDG 7 (affordable clean energy). The authors argue that progress in these areas is synergistic: better waste management reduces the supply of plastic, while accessible clean energy weakens the demand to burn it. Without such integrated efforts, the study warns, the harmful practice will likely increase, exacerbating health inequalities and environmental degradation in some of the world’s most vulnerable urban communities.
While the survey provides the first broad-scale insight into this hidden crisis, the authors caution that their findings, based on a purposive sample of key informants, are not nationally representative and call for further household-level research. They emphasize the urgent need for context-specific policies that combine waste service expansion, clean energy subsidies, and public awareness campaigns to break the cycle of plastic pollution and energy deprivation.
Comments