Plastic instead of wood and gas – a new dimension of energy poverty

Household burning of plastic waste is a growing phenomenon among poor urban communities in the Global South. The results of the study, published January 8, 2026 in the journal Nature Communications, illustrate the scale of the problem, and the authors attempt to answer the question of what can be done to reduce it.

How widespread is the burning of plastic waste?

With the world already producing more than 0.5 billion tons of plastic a year, and waste management systems in many cities in Africa, Asia or Latin America being inefficient, residents are forced to deal with the growing volumes of garbage on their own. An additional problem for the poorest remains the lack of financial resources to procure clean fuels such as LPG, electricity or biogas, and traditional biomass (wood, charcoal) is becoming increasingly difficult to access. Into this gap comes plastic: flammable, ubiquitous and free.

To estimate the magnitude of the problem, the study’s authors surveyed 1018 informants from 26 countries in the Global South well versed in the realities of urban poor neighborhoods in July-November 2024.

The results show that burning plastic waste is already a deeply rooted part of the urban energy landscape, with 34 percent of respondents considering it very common, and a further 35 percent considering it moderately common. Significantly, 16 percent of respondents admitted that plastic was burned as fuel in their own households, and 37 percent said they were aware of such practices in their city. This is a level similar to data from Nigeria, where 13 percent of households reported using waste as fuel in a World Bank survey.

Applications of plastic fuel

The survey shows that burning plastic waste is proving to have many different functions. Nearly 48 percent of respondents cited the need for heat for cooking as the main use of the synthetic fuel. According to 37 percent of respondents, plastic is also used for heating, and 38 percent saw it as kindling. Smaller percentages reported insect repellency (6 percent) or cattle feed preparation (4 percent).

So-called fuel stacking, i.e. burning plastic together with other fuels, was reported relatively frequently: 22 percent of respondents had done this personally, and 46 percent had observed such practices.

In response to a question about the type of material burned, bottles and bags (PET and LDPE) were most often indicated. Food packaging, indicated by almost 2/3 of respondents, as well as chemical packaging, PVC bags and pipes are also used as fuel by residents of the Global South. Burning is mainly done in traditional stoves, i.e., triple-stone furnaces or charcoal stoves.

Who burns plastic and why?

According to respondents, plastic burning is most likely to occur in households without waste collection services, people living in poverty and in informal urban settlements, and families with ties to waste disposal sites (e.g., collectors).

The most commonly cited reasons for burning plastic waste are:

• Lack of awareness of the negative health effects of such actions,
• The need to dispose of waste,
• The high cost of acquiring clean fuels.

In summary, respondents did not claim that plastic was a good or socially acceptable fuel, but indicated that it was a necessity-driven solution. Awareness of the dangers of burning plastic appears to be high but insufficient, according to the survey authors. 62 percent of those surveyed felt that burning plastic definitely causes toxic emissions, about 60 percent indicated a high risk of contamination of food and water, and 40 percent. – very high risk of fire.

According to 80 percent of respondents, women, children, the elderly and people with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to the negative health effects of plastic smoking because they spend more time indoors.

How can we reduce the burning of plastic waste?

The survey authors also asked about ways that could lead to a reduction in the dangerous practice of burning plastic. Respondents considered the most effective:

• Expanding waste management services in informal settlements;
• Access to cheap, clean energy;
• Education about the health effects of combustion.

Banning plastic was also considered important, while increasing the supply of traditional fuels or burning plastic safely was assessed as less effective.

The study shows that burning plastic waste as fuel is not a marginal phenomenon, but a widespread result of the nexus of energy poverty and inefficient waste management. The authors stress that the problem cannot be solved point-by-point: bans may even increase plastic burning in homes.

Only tailored to the local realities of poor neighborhoods in the Global South can investments in waste and energy curb a practice that today remains a dramatic trade-off between the need to cook a meal and health risks. Such a long-sighted strategy links the achievement of two UN Sustainable Development Goals: sustainable cities (SDG 11) and clean energy (SDG 7).

---

Source:

Bharadwaj, B., Gates, T., Rose, S. et al. Prevalence of plastic waste as a household fuel in low-income communities of the Global South. Nat Commun 17, 50 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-67512-y