The Burning Question: Plastic's Toxic Trail

Plastic waste is a pressing global issue, with an alarming amount of plastic burned worldwide. While some countries, like the US, have a low rate of burning plastic due to their waste disposal systems, others, particularly in the Global South, are among the largest contributors to this problem. The open burning of plastic creates toxic air pollution, causing serious health issues and even deaths. With plastic production expected to double in the next 20 years, finding effective solutions, such as improving recycling programs and exploring alternative technologies, is crucial to address this growing concern.

Plastic burning is common in the Global South

Plastic burning is a common practice in the Global South, with around 1.5 billion people lacking access to city services for waste collection. Without a government-issued trash system, many individuals resort to burning their plastic waste, dumping it in rivers, or burying it. This is particularly prevalent in developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where plastic waste is abundant and easily burned.

In countries such as India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Zambia, open burning of plastic waste is widespread despite laws prohibiting the practice. This is often due to infrequent or non-existent trash collection services, as well as the economic burden of waste management on households. Additionally, low-value post-consumer plastic wastes from high-income countries are often shipped to low and middle-income countries (LMICs) under the guise of recycling, further contributing to the plastic waste problem in these regions.

The burning of plastic waste has severe consequences for both human health and the environment. It releases toxic chemicals, such as dioxins, heavy metals, and other pollutants, which can cause skin lesions, cancer, respiratory issues, neurological disorders, and birth defects. The ash produced by burning plastic can contaminate soil and groundwater, impacting the surrounding organisms and their food chains. A study estimated a global mortality rate of 400,000–1,000,000 people per year associated with waste mismanagement, with plastic waste burning likely contributing significantly to these deaths.

Furthermore, burning plastic as a fuel source for cooking and warmth is common among low-income individuals in countries like Nepal. This practice further exacerbates health risks, especially for women and children who spend more time indoors near cooking fires. Despite the dangers, plastic burning is often a necessity for those without access to alternative fuel sources or waste management services.

While plastic burning is more common in the Global South, it also occurs in the Global North, including in the United States. However, the rate of burning plastic waste is lower in the US due to its more robust waste disposal system. Nevertheless, plastic burning remains a critical global health and environmental issue that requires urgent attention and intervention.

The US burns more plastic than it recycles

The United States burns more plastic than it recycles. In 2018, the US recycled only about 2% of municipal plastic waste in domestic facilities and burned more than six times that amount. The burning of plastic has been linked to severe health and environmental issues. It releases toxic chemicals, such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, dioxins, furans, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (BCPs), which contribute to air pollution and cause health problems like heart disease, respiratory disorders, neurological issues, and cancer.

Despite the negative impacts, incineration facilities continue to operate in the US, with plastic waste being burned to generate energy. However, this process is not without consequences. The incineration of plastic waste results in the release of toxic ash containing heavy metals, requiring specialized disposal methods. Additionally, the energy generated through incineration comes at a cost, as the production of plastic resin already requires a significant amount of energy and carbon emissions.

The low recycling rate in the US can be attributed to various factors. Manufacturers prefer new plastic due to its higher material quality, supply certainty, and lower costs. Recycled plastic, on the other hand, poses contamination and delivery risks, resulting in weak demand. The recycling process itself is also costly, involving expenses for collection, sorting, labor, and processing.

The issue of plastic waste extends beyond the US, with global concerns about improper waste management and the burning of plastic. Approximately 1.5 billion people worldwide lack access to city waste collection services, resulting in open burning of plastic, which contributes to air pollution and poses health risks.

To address the problem of plastic waste and burning, it is essential to reduce the use of single-use plastics, improve waste management systems, and promote recycling initiatives. Environmentalists and lawmakers are pushing for legislation to ban single-use plastics and incentivize recycling through "bottle bills." While recycling plastic may be challenging, it is crucial to recognize the negative impact of burning plastic on human health and the environment.

Burning plastic releases harmful toxins

Burning plastic is a major source of air pollution and poses a threat to human, animal, and environmental health. It releases toxic chemicals and gases, including heavy metals, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), polycyclic organic matter (POMs), dioxins, furans, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls. These toxins are known to cause cancer, disrupt thyroid and respiratory systems, and cause neurological damage. The open burning of plastic has been linked to heart disease, respiratory disorders, and neurological problems. It also releases black carbon (soot) and fine particulate pollution, contributing to climate change and causing approximately 7 million deaths per year.

In 2018, the United States recycled only about 2% of its municipal plastic waste domestically, while burning more than six times that amount. However, the country has a low rate of burning plastic overall, thanks to its waste disposal system. In contrast, several countries in the Global South, such as India, Indonesia, and Russia, are among the largest contributors to the burning of plastic waste. India alone burned approximately 5.8 million metric tons of plastic in 2020.

The incineration of plastic waste is often done in open fields or through household waste burning, which has severe consequences for human health. Household air pollution from solid fuel combustion is a significant contributor to poor air quality and health issues. Burning plastic can release toxins like microplastics, bisphenols, and phthalates, which can disrupt neurodevelopment, endocrine, and reproductive functions. In Guatemala, for example, 71% of households burn waste as their primary means of disposal, which has negative repercussions on the population's health.

To address the issue of plastic burning and its toxic effects, some countries have implemented plastic bag bans and restrictions on single-use plastics. Tanzania, Zambia, Kenya, and Rwanda have all announced bans on plastic bags, while the European Union has approved a law to ban many single-use plastic items starting in 2021. These efforts aim to reduce the amount of plastic waste that ends up in landfills, oceans, and the environment, as well as decrease the toxic fumes released into the atmosphere from burning plastic.

Plastic burning is used for energy generation

Plastic burning is increasingly being used for energy generation, especially in places where landfill space is limited, such as Europe and Japan. This method, known as waste-to-energy, is a mainstay of garbage disposal in Europe, with about 400 plants contributing to approximately 30% of the continent's diverted plastic waste. The Netherlands, for instance, burns 35% of its trash for energy, while the United States has a much lower percentage, with only 87 waste-to-energy facilities.

Proponents of waste-to-energy technology argue that it offers a feasible solution to the environmental concerns surrounding plastic waste. By burning plastic, energy can be extracted, providing a source of heat or electricity. This approach is particularly relevant for hard-to-recycle plastics, such as lightweight films used in packaging. Additionally, burning plastic can help address the issue of plastic ending up in landfills, oceans, and the environment, which has detrimental effects on wildlife and human health.

However, the incineration of plastics is controversial due to the associated environmental and health risks. While modern waste-to-energy plants are said to be cleaner and safer than traditional incinerators, capturing various dangerous chemicals and producing less dioxin, the process still generates significant amounts of residual ash. The incineration of plastic waste also releases toxins like microplastics, bisphenols, and phthalates, which can have adverse effects on neurodevelopment, endocrine, and reproductive functions.

Furthermore, critics argue that waste-to-energy facilities are expensive to construct and can undermine traditional recycling programs. The costs of building and operating these facilities can be high, potentially impacting the development and implementation of recycling initiatives. Additionally, the burning of plastic waste can contribute to air pollution, creating fine particulate pollution and releasing harmful chemicals such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide.

Despite the controversy, some companies, like Dow Chemical, are exploring the potential of burning plastic for energy. In a successful test project, Dow Chemical burned 578 pounds of plastic scrap and extracted almost all the energy embedded in the material. This demonstrates the viability of using plastic as a source of energy while also addressing the challenge of managing hard-to-recycle plastics.

Plastic burning is a waste management method

Burning plastic waste can have serious consequences for both human health and the environment. It releases toxic chemicals, such as dioxins, furans, styrene gas, microplastics, bisphenols, and phthalates, which can build up in water, soil, crops, and even human bodies. These toxins have been linked to various health issues, including cancer, birth defects, lung problems, neurodevelopmental and endocrine disruption, and reproductive issues. The open uncontrolled burning of plastic has also been associated with heart disease, respiratory disorders, and neurological problems.

Despite these concerns, plastic burning is still practised in many regions. In 2020, India burned approximately 5.8 million metric tons of plastic, while Indonesia burned about 1.9 million tons, and Russia burned over 1.4 million metric tons. The United States has a relatively low rate of burning plastic due to its waste disposal system, but even so, in 2018, the U.S. burned more than six times the amount of plastic waste that was domestically recycled. This is partly due to the higher costs and complexities associated with recycling plastic, such as the need for additional trucks, drivers, labour, and equipment.

Proponents of plastic burning, often referred to as "waste-to-energy" or "fire planeteers," argue that it is a better alternative to landfills. They claim that it reduces the vast amounts of garbage generated, prevents the emission of globe-warming methane, and is more efficient than trucking trash to distant landfills. Additionally, burning plastic can generate energy, with some claiming that it produces more energy than other refuse when burned. However, studies have shown that recycling plastic waste saves more energy than burning it, as it reduces the need for extracting and processing fossil fuels into new plastic.

In conclusion, while plastic burning is a widely practised waste management method, it is not without its drawbacks. The environmental and health risks associated with plastic burning are significant, and alternative methods, such as improving recycling programs and promoting the use of alternative materials, should be explored and implemented to reduce the reliance on plastic burning for waste management.

Frequently asked questions