Critics aren\u2019t convinced. They say that incinerating RDFs, with their high plastic content, is akin to swapping out one dirty fuel source for another, resulting in the release of significant greenhouse gases, along with harmful particulate and chemical pollutants, including dioxins, a potential byproduct of burning plastics.<\/p>\n
\u201cOur concerns about [RDF] relate to the fact that plastic consists of polymers that are mixed with many, many different chemicals,\u201d says Lee Bell, technical and policy adviser at the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN)<\/a>, an NGO.<\/p>\n More than 4,000 chemicals<\/a> found in plastics are of concern due to their persistent, bioaccumulative, and\/or toxic properties, and it\u2019s becoming clear that plastic pollution is a human health concern<\/a>. \u201cIf you burn RDF, you generate a whole range of toxic emissions,\u201d Bell says. \u201cThe creation of Refuse-Derived Fuel, which is a plastic-based fuel, is also a way of avoiding more sound management options.\u201d<\/p>\n RDF is part of the larger waste-to-energy (WTE) renewable energy sector. RDF technology was developed in the U.S. in the 1970s<\/a>, and grew slowly for decades, remaining relatively small scale.<\/p>\n That has changed of late, with the global RDF market<\/a> expected to more than double in value \u2014 expanding from $5.4 billion in 2025 to $11.7 billion by 2035. Europe dominates the RDF market today, with the Asia-Pacific region now seeing rapid growth, and the Middle East following behind.<\/p>\n According to the Europe-based RDF Industry Group<\/a>, Europe imports and exports around 6.5 million metric tons of RDF annually (though this figure doesn\u2019t account for domestic production and incineration). Proponents are calling RDF \u201cthe industrial answer to a global waste crisis<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n But research by IPEN<\/a> suggests RDF is a growing environmental and public health concern, with production and incineration on the rise in the Global South, particularly Asia. Major worries: A lack of standardized environmental regulation, inconsistent fuel quality control, and inadequate pollution controls, particularly in developing nations.<\/p>\n \u201cTaking waste that otherwise would be landfilled and incinerating it for energy is a good thing, but only after all of the material [such as metals and glass] that can sensibly be recycled has been taken out of it,\u201d says Mike Brown, co-founder and director of Rooted Environmental, a consultancy and part of the RDF Industry Group secretariat.<\/p>\n RDF proponents like the RDF Industry Group say it reduces greenhouse gas emissions, though it appears to do so using a carbon accounting loophole<\/a> also used by the forest biomass industry<\/a>: While RDF\u2019s biomass components (wood, paper and cardboard) do add significant carbon to the atmosphere, contributing to climate change when burned, those emissions often aren\u2019t counted by countries because the burning of biomass is classified by United Nations rules as carbon neutral, since trees can eventually be regrown. But nature does count those emissions, which do add to near-term climate change.<\/p>\n Industry advocates also argue that RDF avoids emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas<\/a>, because burning it reduces the amount of waste going into landfills, which emit large amounts of methane to the atmosphere.<\/p>\n Both these carbon arguments have led to RDF being touted as a low-carbon solution, and even \u201czero-carbon<\/a>,\u201d for industry. The RDF Industry Group, for example, said the volumes of imported and exported waste-derived fuels in the EU prevented the release of an estimated 83.7 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent<\/a> from 2015-2024.<\/p>\n Brown argues that while reducing, recycling and reusing waste is ultimately the ideal environmental solution, incinerating it is still beneficial. \u201cThe primary reason for [burning RDF] isn\u2019t because it\u2019s a low carbon fuel generating low carbon energy,\u201d he says. \u201cThe primary reason is because it\u2019s better than the alternative of landfill.\u201d<\/p>\n The cement industry is a major user of RDF \u2014 replacing fossil fuels, or burning it alongside them and other alternative fuels, such as used tires, which poses a thorny toxic disposal problem<\/a>. Industry bodies such as the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) promote RDF as part of the industry\u2019s global decarbonization efforts. Producing cement and concrete currently accounts for around 8% of global carbon emissions<\/a>.<\/p>\n According to the GCCA, its members \u2014 comprising around 25% of global operators \u2014 convert about 35 million metric tons of waste to fuel each year; roughly half of which is RDF. It\u2019s estimated that around 5 million to 6 million metric tons of RDF are currently used in Europe\u2019s cement industry, with an eventual potential rise to 15 million metric tons<\/a> annually.<\/p>\n \u201cEvery ton of waste we use in our kilns is a ton of fossil fuels we don\u2019t have to use,\u201d says GCCA executive director Thomas Guillot. \u201cIt is embedded in our roadmap, in our vision for the decarbonization of the cement industry \u2026 We want to develop and to multiply these solutions at the regional level. Achieving the [cement industry] decarbonisation agenda implies, certainly doubling the amount of waste used in the next five years.\u201d<\/p>\n This drive to produce and incinerate RDF is leading to expansion of facilities across the globe, sometimes in nations lacking strong environmental regulation. Its use is now well established in India and China, and projected to grow elsewhere in the developing world.<\/p>\n RDF was introduced in India to tackle a growing landfill and dumpsite problem, says Anubha Aggarwal, an analyst with the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). \u201cIn my view, this is a resource \u2026 [that] can replace coal in cement plants.\u201d<\/p>\n Indonesia is pushing forward with an RDF production facility in North Jakarta capable of processing up to 2,500 metric tons of waste per day<\/a> into around 875 metric tons of RDF. But a recent trial run of that plant was halted<\/a> due to air pollution concerns.<\/p>\n RDF exports from the Global North to the Global South have especially raised concerns over \u201cwaste colonialism<\/a>.\u201d In Nigeria<\/a>, the NGO Sustainable Research and Action for Environmental Development has flagged the government\u2019s decision to accept \u201cnon-hazardous\u201d waste from the European Union, including RDF, as \u201cdeeply troubling.\u201d<\/p>\n IPEN says wealthy nations are using RDF\u2019s green claims as a means of circumventing the Basel Convention<\/a> on the transnational shipment of hazardous materials, and particularly as a way to quietly move toxic plastic waste to the Global South. \u201cCurrently we can\u2019t actually see where it\u2019s moving and how much of it is moving,\u201d says IPEN\u2019s Bell.<\/p>\n Claims that RDF can reduce emissions are strongly questioned by critics and dubbed \u201ccreative accounting\u201d by Janek V\u00e4hk, the zero pollution policy manager at Zero Waste Europe<\/a>. \u201cThe problem \u2026 is that there are very few studies looking at the actual emissions,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n A 2024 paper<\/a> found that substituting RDF as an alternative fuel in Europe\u2019s cement industry results in \u201crelatively small climate benefits\u201d due to its fossil fuel content (including petrochemical-based plastics). Currently, the continent\u2019s cement industry<\/a> substitutes around 52% of the thermal energy required with alternative fuels, including RDF.<\/p>\n A recent report by Global Efficiency Intelligence<\/a>, an NGO, found that using municipal waste as an alternative fuel in cement manufacturing results in only \u201cmarginal\u201d greenhouse gas emissions savings at best. But carbon releases are just the \u201ctip of the iceberg\u201d when compared to potential emissions of toxic chemicals, says Veena Singla, who is part of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s not much evidence \u2026 that burning alternative fuels is better for pollution. Maybe that\u2019s the case if you\u2019re just talking about greenhouse gasses and only at the burning phase,\u201d Singla says. \u201cBut we\u2019re concerned about far more than greenhouse gasses when you\u2019re considering the health of people near the site, the communities, and the long-term impacts of the chemicals generated.\u201d<\/p>\n Studies<\/a> by IPEN, and other organizations<\/a> sampling chicken eggs around waste incinerators and industrial facilities burning mixed plastic waste found widespread, high levels of hazardous dioxin contamination. Dioxins, among the most toxic of synthetic contaminants known, are formed when plastics and certain flame-retardant chemicals are burned.<\/p>\n Similar research by Zero Waste Europe<\/a> found contamination by persistent organic pollutants near waste incinerators and cement kilns in European countries. These pollutants include dioxins, heavy metals and PFAS, and are linked to health impacts ranging from heart disease to cancer and hormone disruption.<\/p>\n Some of the chemicals being emitted from burn sites, such as PFAS<\/a>, \u201care reproductive and developmental toxicants, so they can increase the risks of developmental issues when foetuses are exposed in utero, and can cause reproductive problems like trouble getting pregnant, trouble maintaining pregnancies, and low birth weight babies,\u201d Singla adds.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s \u2026 going to grow as a problem in the Global South, because they just don\u2019t have the resources to conduct regular [RDF emissions] enforcement and monitoring, particularly for the really nasty chemicals like dioxins and furans that are produced when you burn plastic waste,\u201d Bell says. \u201cIt really sets back the cause of both limiting toxic pollution and carbon pollution by going down this route.\u201d<\/p>\n Aggarwal from CREA, though positive on RDF\u2019s outlook, agrees that burning mixed waste cleanly is a \u201cmajor challenge.\u201d She notes that, \u201cMixed waste can lead to composition of emissions we may not even be equipped to control at a cement plant.\u201d<\/p>\n The pollution issue is particularly acute with co-incineration<\/a>, when alternative fuels like RDF are mixed with fossil fuels, which can increase emissions of both greenhouse gases and pollutants, say critics.<\/p>\n \u201cCement kilns typically have minimal air pollution controls and are not designed to handle the heterogeneous nature of waste,\u201d says Neil Tangri, science and policy director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives<\/a>, an NGO. \u201cSo, we would expect a much larger range of toxic emissions, such as dioxins and furans, brominated and fluorinated PAHs.\u201d<\/p>\n Guillot from the GCCA, however, says claims that the cement industry\u2019s use of RDF and other waste results in the release of harmful chemicals and pollutants is \u201ccompletely wrong.\u201d Rather, he argues, pollution is due to the form of incineration used, particularly burning at high temperatures exceeding 1,000\u00b0 Celsius (1,832\u00b0 Fahrenheit). \u201cThere is absolutely no direct link between adverse emission and the usage of waste,\u201d he says. \u201cOn the contrary. I mean, we are rather sanitizing the place.\u201d<\/p>\n In Australia, thousands of tons of RDF, known there as process engineered fuels, is being exported to Asian nations to burn as fuel, stirring controversy<\/a>. This led in 2022 to Australia requiring these shipments to receive hazardous waste permits and be tracked due to plastic content. Since then, two shipments have been recorded to Japan, each totaling 12,000 metric tons. Prior to the legislation, the volume of RDF shipped or its destination wasn\u2019t known, Bell says.<\/p>\n Australia\u2019s legislated move to track and trace RDF is a good example of what Bell\u2019s organization wants to see globally. The NGO is calling for specific export codes for RDF under the Basel Convention, including designation as hazardous waste due to plastic content. He says he hopes the issue will be raised at the next Basel Convention meeting<\/a> in June 2026.<\/p>\n \u201cWe would like to see Refuse-Derived Fuel prohibited altogether, because we think it\u2019s an environmentally unsound management of plastic waste,\u201d Bell says. \u201cBut at the minimum, what the Basel Convention could do is apply those codes so at least it can be tracked, and at least countries know what they\u2019re getting. And it can\u2019t be shipped to developing countries that don\u2019t have the capacity to manage it properly.\u201d<\/p>\n RDF production and its incineration are likely to remain a small fraction of the total amount of waste burned for fuel or energy by industry, say experts. Nonetheless, its global growth is problematic due to its limited greenhouse gas emission reductions and potentially harmful localized pollution impacting nearby communities.<\/p>\n Singla notes that when nations and companies pursue industrial waste incineration and RDF, they do little to limit plastic production or incentivize other circular solutions, such as recycling and reuse. Others say the cement sector and other industries should be pursuing alternative energy sources, such as clean hydrogen.<\/p>\n \u201cWe can have truly circular and healthy systems that are not transferring pollution and impacts onto other communities,\u201d Singla says. \u201cWe just need to make sure we\u2019re putting our attention and investment in the right solutions that are the least polluting, the least toxic, and don\u2019t increase demand for fossil fuels, ultimately, by burning plastics and burning waste.\u201d<\/p>\n Banner image: Smoke rises from a coal-burning power plant. Refuse-derived fuel (RDF), which includes large amounts of plastics, is replacing fossil fuels in some energy and industrial furnaces. But critics say this practice is merely replacing one dirty fuel for another. Image by Greenpeace Switzerland via Flickr<\/a> (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0<\/a>).<\/p>\n Citations: Jones, N. (2024). More than 4,000 plastic chemicals are hazardous, report finds. Nature. doi:10.1038\/d41586-024-00805-2<\/a><\/p>\n Cavalett, O., Watanabe, M. D., Voldsund, M., Roussanaly, S., & Cherubini, F. (2024). Paving the way for sustainable decarbonization of the European cement industry. Nature Sustainability, 7(5), 568-580. doi:10.1038\/s41893-024-01320-y<\/a><\/p>\n Rickard, B. P., Rizvi, I., & Fenton, S. E. (2022). Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and female reproductive outcomes: PFAS elimination, endocrine-mediated effects, and disease. Toxicology, 465, 153031. doi:10.1016\/j.tox.2021.153031<\/a><\/p>\n Morfopoulos, N., & Samolada, M. C. (2025). Effect of waste-derived fuels (SRF\/RDF) composition on the cement industry\u2019s environmental footprint. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 16(8), 4027-4040. doi:10.1007\/s12649-025-03077-7<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Bales](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/8-Image_8.jpg\")
Bales of plastic waste prepared for recycling. \u201cIt\u2019s a pretty obvious and basic thing that burning plastic waste is not an environmentally sound solution,\u201d says IPEN\u2019s Lee Bell. \u201cYou can package it as something else, Process Engineered Fuel, RDF, or whatever they like to call it, but the outcome is the same.\u201d Image by Walter Parenteau via Flickr<\/a> (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0<\/a>).
\nClimate change solution or not?<\/p>\n![\"An](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/5-Image_5.jpg\")
An open landfill in Myanmar. RDF proponents say that burning waste (including large amounts of plastic) to make fuel could be a solution to growing landfill and pollution problems<\/a>. Image by Eco-Business via Flickr<\/a> (CC BY 2.0<\/a>).<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/1765734256_140_6.jpg\")
A landfill in Indonesia. Landfills emit large amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. But methane is not emitted by RDF burning, say proponents. Image by USAID Urban via Flickr<\/a> (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0<\/a>).
\nRDF\u2019s global growth raises questions<\/p>\n![\"RDF](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/3-image_3.jpg\")
RDF \u201cfluff\u201d in the Netherlands, usually composed of a mix of plastics, textiles, wood, paper and organic material. According to the RDF Industry Group, around 6 million metric tons are moved across Europe each year. Image by Fun4life.nl<\/a> via Wikimedia Commons<\/a> (Public domain).<\/p>\n![\"Earlier](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/7-Image_7.jpg\")
Earlier this year, Indonesia opened an RDF facility in North Jakarta. It is said to be the largest facility of its kind in the world, processing up to 2,500 metric tons of waste per day<\/a> into around 875 metric tons of RDF. But a trial run has since been halted due to concerns<\/a> over air pollution and foul odors emitted from the plant<\/a>. Image courtesy of Wijaya Karya<\/a>.
\nRDF raises serious pollution questions<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/2-Image_2.jpg\")
The cement industry is a major greenhouse gas emitter. Burning municipal waste, including plastics, in the form of RDF to make energy is included in current pathways to decarbonize the sector, an approach environmental and health experts say is deeply flawed. Image by Adam Cohn via Flickr<\/a> (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0<\/a>).
\nThe need for RDF regulation<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/4-Image_4-LAPTOP-7JODAAGR.jpg\")
A cement plant in Norway. RDF undergoes further processing and treatment into what\u2019s known as solid recovered fuel (SRF) for use in the cement industry. A paper published this year indicates enduring low chlorine content<\/a> is vital to ensuring reductions in hazardous emissions. Image by Astrid Westvang via Flickr<\/a> (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0<\/a>).<\/p>\n
Mateus, M. M., Cec\u00edlio, D., Fernandes, M. C., & Neiva Correia, M. J. (2023). Refuse-derived fuels as an immediate strategy for the energy transition, circular economy, and sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 3915-3926. doi:10.1002\/bse.3345<\/a><\/p>\n