Centre for Financial Accountability exposes the “plastic paradox” and calls for an end to climate finance for incineration, urging a shift to genuine zero-waste systems
***
A damning new report by the Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) and the National Alliance for Climate and Ecological Justice (NACEJ) has exposed the severe climate cost of waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration in India. Titled “The Climate Cost of Burning Waste,” the study reveals that Delhi’s WTE plants produce electricity that is significantly more carbon-intensive than coal, challenging the government’s classification of these facilities as "renewable" energy sources.
According to the report, the combustion of the fossil-derived fraction of waste in Delhi’s four operational WTE incinerators (located in Okhla, Ghazipur, Bawana, and Tehkhand) produces approximately 3.4 kg of fossil-origin CO₂ for every kWh of net electricity exported.
“This is approximately 4.7 times the Central Electricity Authority's weighted-average emission factor for Indian grid electricity... and approximately 3.5 times the emission factor for coal,” the report states.
Despite these staggering emissions, the plants recover a dismal amount of energy, exporting only about 197 kWh of net electricity per tonne of raw municipal solid waste—less than one-third of the yields reported in Western WTE systems.
The "Renewable" Myth and the Plastic Paradox
The report highlights a critical flaw in current policy: the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) classifies WTE incinerators burning municipal solid waste as a renewable energy source. However, the study found that in 2023, Delhi’s four WTE plants burned approximately 735,840 tonnes of plastic, constituting roughly 42% of the estimated refuse-derived fuel (RDF) feed.
“About 99% of all plastics are of fossil origin, and labelling the electricity generated from 42% fossil fuels as ‘renewable’ is therefore fundamentally flawed,” the authors note.
Furthermore, the report identifies a “plastic paradox” within India’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework. Designed to make producers accountable for plastic waste, the system inadvertently rewards incineration. The report cites that JITF Infralogistics, a major WTE operator in Delhi, generated ₹3.85 crore in revenue simply by burning plastics and selling the resulting EPR certificates.
“A regulatory architecture that was introduced to shift responsibility upstream has attached economic value to the act of burning plastics,” the report observes, allowing producers to meet legal obligations without reducing virgin plastic production or investing in reuse and recycling.
Health and Environmental Toll
Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, the report underscores severe public health risks. It points to a 2020 Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) inspection that found dioxin and furan emissions at the Okhla WTE plant at nearly nine times the permitted level. A recent *New York Times* investigation also raised alarms about toxic heavy-metal exposure affecting over one million residents living near the facility, even as the plant continues to earn international carbon credits.
To align waste management with genuine climate action, the CFA and NACEJ have issued a series of urgent recommendations:
1. Exclude municipal waste incineration from climate finance: Multilateral and national institutions must stop funding new or expanded WTE projects through loans, grants, or green bonds.
2. End carbon crediting: Mechanisms should be developed to cancel or withdraw carbon credits previously issued to waste incinerators under the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
3. Remove the "renewable" tag: Mixed municipal solid waste incineration must be excluded from renewable-energy classifications and associated financial incentives.
4. Reform EPR systems: The framework must prioritize reduction, reuse, and recycling, and stop providing EPR credits for the combustion of plastic waste.
5. Support zero-waste pathways: Public finance should be redirected toward the safe decommissioning of existing incinerators and the expansion of decentralized, zero-waste systems that integrate and protect informal waste workers.
Conclusion
The report serves as a stark warning against the export of failed waste-management models. While countries in the Global North are increasingly phasing down WTE incineration due to its climate, financial, and environmental costs, the technology is being aggressively promoted in the Global South as a "clean" solution.
“No technological intervention can resolve the waste crisis without addressing the production of waste itself and recognising the existing ecosystem of waste pickers, workers, aggregators, sorters and recyclers,” the report concludes, urging policymakers to leapfrog toward genuine zero-waste systems rather than locking the country into decades of carbon-intensive combustion.
Comments