This WA-led study revealed the scale of plastic burning for fuel. What are we going to do about it?
Bishal Bharadwaj
Last year we uncovered a growing crisis: Poor people in slums in the Global South are burning plastic waste to cook their meals and heat their homes.
Now, for the first time, we have real-world data showing just how common this dangerous practice has become.
In a comprehensive investigation spanning 26 countries and involving more than 1,000 public informants, we documented the shocking scope of this hidden health emergency.
Our findings suggest that burning plastic as household fuel is much more common than previously thought.
Among our survey respondents—teachers, local government officials, community leaders, and researchers familiar with the conditions of low-income urban communities—one in three reported awareness of plastic waste being burned as household fuel in their cities.
Perhaps most alarming: 16 percent admitted to burning plastic themselves for a variety of purposes, from cooking to heating to starting fires.
The answers were very clear, especially when we asked about the prevalence of burning plastic. A total of 69 percent of those interviewed said the practice was moderately to extremely common in their city. Only 8 percent said it was not common at all.
This isn’t just lighting a fire. Almost half of those aware of the practice had witnessed others using plastic as cooking fuel, while 14 percent had done it themselves. 37 percent had seen it for warming up purposes and 12 percent had personally engaged in it.
The data confirms what we suspected: This practice emerges from the collision of two crises: energy poverty and failing waste management systems.
The survey found significant correlations between supply factors, such as the large amounts of waste produced by burning plastic and expensive clean fuels, and demand factors, including the need for households to self-manage waste.
Respondents in low-income countries reported higher rates of plastic burning, with particularly serious problems in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Regional differences are striking: In some regions, fuel substitution with plastic appears to be more common than in others.
The survey revealed disturbing details about what materials households burn.
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the plastic in water and juice bottles, is the most commonly burned plastic, followed by low-density polyethylene (LDPE), used in plastic bags. Both are ubiquitous in household waste.
Nearly two-thirds of survey respondents reported burning food packaging, while half said chemical packaging materials, such as compost containers and cleaning product bottles, were also common fuel sources.
More worryingly, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is notorious for producing toxic dioxin emissions when burned, is among the top five types of plastic used as fuel.
Combustion usually occurs in traditional cooking stoves: three-stone stoves, mud stoves and coal stoves are the main devices used.
When plastic is burned, a cocktail of toxins is released, including dioxins, furans and heavy metals.
These chemicals are known to cause cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Women and children, who typically spend more time indoors, face the highest exposure risks.
Our survey found that there is great awareness of these dangers, yet the practice continues; because people have no choice.
When we ask respondents why households burn plastic, the answers paint a picture of desperation and systemic failure.
The strongest agreement focused on three factors: lack of awareness of health impacts, the need to manage waste in areas without collection services, and expensive clean fuel.
Participants were clear about which communities face the highest risks. Households in areas excluded from waste management services were identified as the most likely to burn plastic, followed by those facing poverty and living in informal settlements.
Households whose members worked as waste collectors were also perceived to be more likely to burn plastic as fuel.
For the first time, our data provides a foundation for evidence-based solutions.
Survey respondents listed improving solid waste management services for informal settlements as the most important intervention, followed by increasing access to clean energy technologies and raising awareness about the harms of burning plastic.
More importantly, regional differences show that a one-size-fits-all solution will not work.
Participants in South Asia and Southern Africa prioritized banning plastic use, while participants in Latin America emphasized waste management. In East and Central Africa, access to clean energy was seen as the most critical need.
Correlation analysis from our survey confirms that affordability is very important.
The perception that waste management services and clean fuels are expensive were strongly associated with plastic burning practices.
You can’t solve plastic burning by addressing waste management alone or energy poverty alone. Both issues need to be addressed simultaneously.
Restrictions on outdoor-only burning could force the practice indoors and worsen health effects.
This research represents the first systematic documentation of the burning of plastic as household fuel on this scale in the Global South.
Although our participants were consciously selected based on their knowledge of local conditions rather than being representative of the population, their insights reveal that this practice is both widespread and deeply embedded in the daily survival strategies of millions of people.
More research is urgently needed to understand the full range of health and environmental impacts.
We need to measure emissions from different plastics burned in various types of stoves. We need to measure food contamination risks. We need to design and test integrated interventions that address both waste management and energy access.
But we also need urgent action. Data shows that expanding basic waste collection services to marginalized communities and providing support to make clean cooking fuels affordable could significantly reduce this health-damaging practice.
No one wants to burn plastic waste for cooking.
This practice exists because people have been abandoned by the systems that were supposed to serve them.
Our survey data shows that the problem is real, widespread, and requires urgent intervention from policymakers, development agencies, and the international community.
The issue is no longer whether plastic burning occurs in homes. Now the situation is: What do we do about it?
Dr Bishal Bharadwaj of the Curtin Energy Conversion Institute is the lead author of: Prevalence of plastic waste as household fuel in low-income communities of the Global Southwith co-authors Professor Hari Vuthaluru from Curtin’s WA School of Mines, Dr Pramesh Dhungana from Curtin’s School of Molecular and Life Sciences and CIET director Professor Peta Ashworth.
