The global plastic waste trade is fueling a surge in toxic air pollution in lower- and middle-income countries, where a significant portion of imported waste is openly burned. According to United Nations data, 9.34 million metric tons of plastic waste were traded globally in 2024, with researchers linking the practice to increased mortality risks from respiratory illness and cancer in regions like Indonesia.
Why plastic waste burning poses health risks
Open burning of plastic releases hazardous pollutants that can have severe, long-term health consequences for nearby populations. When plastic is incinerated, it emits fine particulate matter capable of penetrating deep into the human body, alongside toxic gases including carbon monoxide, styrene gas, and hydrogen cyanide, according to researchers. These emissions also include persistent organic pollutants like dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Beyond respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, these substances are linked to reproductive, neurological, and cancer-related health disorders. Additionally, toxic ash from these fires can contaminate local soil and groundwater, increasing community exposure through food and water sources.
Between 40% and 65% of municipal solid waste in low- and middle-income countries is openly burned, a situation driven by the fact that 2 billion people worldwide lack access to formal municipal waste collection systems.
How trade shifts have impacted air quality
The geography of plastic waste disposal changed significantly after China, which historically accounted for 45% of global imports between 1992 and 2016, banned plastic waste imports in 2018. Following this policy shift, waste flows were redirected largely toward Southeast Asia and Turkey. In Indonesia, researchers found that particulate matter pollution at large open dump sites increased by an average of 3.3% in the period following the 2018-19 ban compared to business-as-usual projections. This localized increase in air pollution corresponds to an estimated 1.5% to 3.5% rise in mortality risk for conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer.
The shift in global waste patterns highlights a critical trade-off: as wealthy nations tighten their domestic environmental standards, the burden of waste management is often displaced rather than resolved. This creates a cycle where the lack of domestic recycling capacity in exporting nations directly translates into increased health risks for vulnerable populations in importing countries.
What may happen next for waste policy
International and national regulations are shifting to curb the transboundary movement of plastic, though the effectiveness of these measures remains to be seen. Indonesia implemented a full ban on plastic waste imports in 2025, while Malaysia now limits imports to countries that have ratified the Basel Convention, a treaty the United States has not joined. Meanwhile, the European Union has adopted regulations to prohibit exporting plastic waste to non-OECD countries starting in November 2026. Experts suggest that for these bans to succeed, nations will need to address the persistent challenges of illegal shipments and contaminated paper imports. Domestically, while some U.S. states have enacted extended producer responsibility laws, recycling capacity remains limited, with the Association of Plastic Recyclers estimating that current facilities can only increase recycling rates to a maximum of 9%.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is so much plastic waste burned instead of recycled?
A lack of municipal waste collection infrastructure for 2 billion people and insufficient recycling capacity in both exporting and importing nations forces much of the world’s plastic into landfills or open burn sites.
What is the status of the international plastic treaty?
Negotiations for a legally binding international treaty on plastic waste, which began in 2022, have stalled.
How do producer responsibility laws work?
These laws require producers to pay fees on non-recyclable products, which are then used to fund recycling programs and reduce overall waste generation. States such as Maine, California, and Colorado have enacted such legislation, though implementation timelines vary.
How can individual consumer choices be balanced against the need for large-scale systemic changes in plastic production and international waste trade?
