A man riding his motorbike next to a canal full of waste. — AFP
TWICE a day, sirens sound at Cambodia’s Chip Mong Insee cement kiln, warning that limestone will soon be blasted from the karst mountain towering over the sprawling industrial site.
At night, white smoke billows from its silver chimney, while dust coats much of the surrounding area.
Residents complain of persistent respiratory illnesses that have arrived along with the kiln.
The plant might seem an unlikely player in the fight against plastic pollution, yet cement kilns are central to the burgeoning plastic credits market.
Buyers pay for the collection and disposal of plastic waste, ostensibly to combat pollution and increase recycling. However, there is no requirement for them to reduce their own production or use of unrecyclable plastic.
An investigation by AFP and SourceMaterial reveals that the industry relies heavily on cement kilns to incinerate plastic waste as an alternative fuel, despite concerns over health risks and carbon emissions.
This technique, known as co-processing, can release toxic chemicals into nearby communities, particularly in countries with limited monitoring and regulatory enforcement.
“The burden... is borne by the community, and the benefit is borne by those companies,” said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, a public health scientist. “You have a complete divorce of who benefits and who is harmed.”
Around the kiln, local residents describe similar health issues.
Smoke rising from a quarry at the Chip Mong Insee cement factory in Kampot province. — AFP
“We’re often coughing,” said Pheara, a resident who, like others, asked to be identified only by a first name. “Before, when we got sick, we’d take a bit of medicine, but now we have to take multiple rounds and even change doctors to get better.”
The kiln has brought jobs to the area, but the trade-off has been steep.
“I don’t want to live here because it’s so dusty,” Pheara added. “But I don’t know who would buy my house.”
A ‘lazy’ solution?
The plastic pollution crisis is undeniable – at least 22 million tonnes of plastic waste entered the environment in 2019, according to the OECD.
Developing countries like Cambodia, where waste management is inadequate, are among the worst affected.
Plastic credits are supposed to help by funding waste collection and processing, with one tonne of waste generating one credit.
Buyers, including subsidiaries of large corporations, use these credits to “offset” their plastic footprint or demonstrate environmental action.
However, the sector lacks universal regulations.
Credits are certified by self-appointed auditors with little government oversight. The market is still small, but BloombergNEF predicts it could generate US$4.2bil (RM18.5bil) by 2050.
Critics argue that plastic credits provide a convenient loophole for corporations to continue business as usual.
A general view of the Chip Mong Insee cement factory in Kampot province. — AFP
“It’s a lazy, lazy solution,” said Piotr Barczak, circular economy programme manager for ACEN Foundation. “It enables plastic-producing companies to further continue their business model.”
Companies that offer and certify credits acknowledge that buyers are not required to change their practices.
However, they argue that at US$140-670 (RM618-2,900) per credit, plastic credits make business-as-usual more expensive.
“You start to hit a break-even point, where the economic incentive (is) to take more action,” said Sebastian DiGrande, CEO of credit registry PCX Markets.
The risks of co-processing
Plastic credits heavily depend on co-processing, in which plastic waste replaces coal in cement kilns, with leftover ash used in cement production.
An analysis by AFP and SourceMaterial of four major credit marketplaces found that only about a quarter of credits were for recycling projects, while more than two-thirds were for co-processing or other forms of incineration.
This is partly because so much plastic waste is non-recyclable.
However, co-processing also benefits the cement industry, which accounts for around 8% of global emissions, by allowing it to claim “circular economy” credentials.
While co-processing is regulated in developed countries, oversight is often weak in other regions.
“Often you might even have laws on the books, but they can be completely meaningless since they are not enforced,” said Jorge Emmanuel, an environmental health specialist at Silliman University in the Philippines.
“Nobody is really monitoring emissions.”
People travelling on a motorbike past burning plastic waste on the outskirts of Phnom Penh. — AFP
Invisible pollutants
Cement kilns operate at high temperatures that should prevent the release of persistent organic pollutants like dioxins and PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals”.
However, Emmanuel warned that dioxins can still form when temperatures fluctuate or as mixed fuel is fed into the kiln.
“When you introduce waste... you’re bringing in a whole new cocktail of contaminants,” said Lee Bell, policy advisor for the International Pollutants Elimination Network. “These are ending up in the cement kilns that are not designed to filter (them) out.”
Even without co-processing, cement production is linked to pollution and health risks, including cancer, heart and lung diseases and adverse birth outcomes, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Just outside the kiln, Kongthy, 56, runs a roadside cafe.
She says the smell of burning plastic frequently wafts in, and like her neighbours, she no longer collects rainwater due to dust contamination.
“We don’t dare to collect it. We have to drink bottled water instead.”
A flawed system
Several kiln workers claimed they were not worried about safety, citing annual health checks and protective gear provided by the company.
“They have filters,” said Vork, a kiln machinery operator. “It’s not like they’re burning it in a field.”
Chip Mong Insee did not respond to requests for comment.
The company receives plastic from Tontoton, a credit-generating firm. Neither firm replied to inquiries, while Tontoton declined to answer questions about its operations.
Co-processing is often defended as the best available option.
“We’re trying to do something better,” said Vincent Decap, co-founder of Zero Plastic Oceans, which sells Tontoton’s credits. “We’re not trying to do something perfect. If you try to do something perfect, you do nothing.”
However, some experts believe co-processing simply replaces one form of pollution with another.
A worker carrying a bag containing plastic bottles at a recycling depot on the outskirts of Phnom Penh. — AFP
“Combusting plastic waste will displace further coal extraction,” said Ed Cook, a research fellow at the University of Leeds.
“But we should avoid, and look for alternatives to, combusting fossil fuels whatever their source.”
Plastic waste is expected to triple by 2060, yet less than a fifth is currently recycled.
Last year’s negotiations for the world’s first global plastic pollution agreement ended without a deal.
Critics argue that co-processing is a distraction from the real issue: reducing plastic production.
“It’s a false binary,” said Neil Tangri, a senior fellow at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School.
“Co-processing is mismanagement of waste that poses as a waste management system.”
As long as companies can buy credits without changing their plastic consumption, the fundamental problem remains: more plastic waste keeps piling up, and communities near cement kilns bear the hidden costs. — AFP
