According to WHO statistics, the number of premature deaths due to air pollution is much higher in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries than the Western ones.i Unfortunately, the real-life situation is much worse than shown by these statistics. Namely, these statistics are based on the mass concentration of the pollutants but not their toxicity which is much higher in CEE countries than in economically more developed regions.

By far, the main cause of bad air quality in the CEE region is household heating. In the EU, households are responsible, on average, for about 40% of the PM2.5 emissions.ii However, in CEE countries, this share is much higher, usually around 80%.iii Many households burn solid fuel. In the best case, they burn dry wood, but in many cases, wood from freshly cut trees is burned which, due to their high water content, causes up to three times higher PM2.5 pollution than the burning of dry wood.iv However, even a wood-burning stove fulfilling the strictest Ecodesign requirements from 2022 (which is extremely rare in CEE countries) and heating with dry wood emits around 650 times more particles per GJ energy produced than a 10-year-old truck.v

The worst of all is waste burning by residents, which is very widespread in several CEE countries. For example, according to a representative survey, in Hungary, one-third of the households burn plastic, baled cloths, wood treated with chemicals, and other waste in their homes or gardens.vi In Poland’s heating season, burning household waste is a significant issue, despite few admitting to it; a study found only 6% of respondents openly confess to burning waste, while 46% suspect their neighbours do so.vii Although the household burning of waste is illegal and punishable by a high fine, the authorities practically do not control it, and sanctioning hardly ever takes place.

Since residential waste burning is strictly banned in the European Union, until recently, no targeted research has ever been conducted on the emission of harmful substances released into the air upon burning different types of solid wastes in home stoves. Recently, such a study has been carried out for the first time in the world in a European project headed by Hungarian scientists.viii They burned in a cast iron stove separately firewood (WOOD in figure 1) and solid wastes that were often thrown into the fire by the citizens: PET, polystyrene (PS), polypropylene (PP), PE, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) polyurethane (PU), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), tyre material (TR), OSB, laminated melamine low-density fibreboard (LDF), rag (RAG), and paper (PAP). During their combustion, the researchers measured how much and how toxic air pollutants enter the air compared to the emissions of burning dry firewood under the same conditions.

It has been found that the burning of plastic wastes (such as PET bottles, polyfoam, or clothing) releases up to 1300 times more toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) into the air compared to the otherwise also significant emissions from wood burning. (The toxicity has been calculated per unit of mass burned, however, the order of magnitude of toxicity is the same for the emission per unit of energy produced. The heating value of dry wood is about 15 MJ/kg, while the heating value of plastic is 19-47 MJ/kg, depending on the type of material.)ix PAHs are ubiquitous combustion products and pose significant hazards to human health as they are carcinogenic and may also damage the DNS. Burning of wood-based solid waste (like glossy paper, chipboard, fiberboard, window frames, and furniture), which many people do consider as fuel and not as waste, should also be strictly avoided, as the released air pollutants are still about 30 times more carcinogenic (per unit of mass burned) than in the case of burning dry firewood.

Moreover, waste burning results not only in more toxic emissions but also in a much higher number of particles emitted per unit of mass. For example, the burning of ABS, a common thermoplastic polymer known for its impact resistance, durability, and machinability, emits up to 55 times more PM10 than wood burning (Figure 2).

In a follow-up study, Hungarian and Romanian researchers analysed the contribution of residential waste burning to airborne particulate pollution (PM10) in selected settlements in Hungary and Romania.x In all sampling locations, the researchers identified specific tracer compounds that are emitted solely from the burning of different types of solid wastes. They estimated that the contribution of illegal waste burning to the reported concentrations of PM10 may be as high as up to five percent. This is true even for Budapest and Bucharest, where heating is provided mostly by district heating and gas. However, official air quality measuring stations measure only the concentration of PM10 particles (their mass in a cubic meter of air) and do not provide any information on their toxicity. Thus, the official data does not represent the true danger of air pollution in countries where residential waste burning is prevalent.

Although the Hungarian environmental NGO “Clean Air Action Group” has made many proposals for the Hungarian government to reduce illegal household burning, the government completely failed to act – although experts of the ministry responsible for the environment agreed with these proposals. These proposals can be summarised as follows.

Although several governments tacitly support waste burning as a means to protect poor people from winter cold, eliminating household waste burning is primarily in the interest of the same poor people. Nearly forty percent of Hungarian households heat predominantly with wood,xi to which, in many cases, they add waste, too. Waste burned in obsolete stoves and illegal fuel cause huge air pollution first of all in the vicinity of the home of the waste-burners since the concentration of air pollutants decreases exponentially by distance from the source except for some specific meteorological situations. Moreover, waste burning also pollutes inside the homes,xii in some cases putting residents at immediate risk of death.

According to a study by Habitat for Humanity Hungary, it is almost impossible to get out of the vicious circle of energy poverty without help.xiii Therefore, this issue needs to be communicated to all institutions that can take part in remedying the problem. According to a common definition, energy poverty means that a household spends a large share of its total income (up to 35 percent) on housing expenditure. These people, constituting one-fifth of the Hungarian population, live in the most ill-conditioned flats, hence it is even more expensive to heat their living space, so they have even less money to upgrade their heating systems and carry out energy efficiency investments. The poorest residents spend most of their days collecting fuel legally or illegally or earning enough money to barely get by.

However, poverty cannot be a reason to break the law either. The whole society may be damaged if the observance and enforcement of the law do not work. To use a simple example: poverty does not entitle anyone to steal with impunity. In the same way, poverty is not an acceptable reason for someone to commit pollution that will make it impossible for their neighbours to live the full value of life. Naturally, the first thing to do is to warn the person who illegally burns waste about the harmful and unlawful nature of the activity and to offer help if necessary. However, if these actions do not provide the necessary results, then stricter official action is inevitable.

Nevertheless, waste burning is not restricted to poor households and poor municipalities. It can be observed also at the homes of richer people who aim to “save” money by not buying legal fuel while avoiding the cost of transporting waste.

Waste burning thus is due to a large extent to the lack of awareness. Therefore, the national regional, and local governments should carry out awareness-raising campaigns to educate the public about the dangers of improper burning practices while informing about the correct heating methods, energy efficiency measures, and efficient energy-saving procedures at low cost.xiv They can disseminate information on their website, on local social media, television, radio, and billboards. Politicians such as the local mayor can personally motivate the public by organizing events on this topic or using behavioural change marketing.

Photo by Judit Szegő

Awareness-raising can be greatly facilitated if citizens or municipal institutions (such as kindergartens) are equipped with an affordable air quality measuring device. These devices measure the concentration of particulate matter in the PM2.5 and PM10 range and can be used to monitor the changes in air quality in the area, even from street to street. Clean Air Action Group has distributed already more than 200 such devices to schools and other institutions.

The municipalities can organize training for their employees or members of other bodies (such as the police) and organizations. The Clean Air Action Group has created an educational video and other information materials for this purpose.

The municipalities should also provide financial support (in cash or donations, such as dry firewood) to the residents who suffer from poverty. If the local government does not have the resources for this, it can initiate and encourage community funding. According to the experience of the Clean Air Action Group, residents are willing to provide such support, even so, because it is about their health and the health of their family. Furthermore, the value of their own real estate can increase due to sustainable solutions.

Although one of the most important measures would be improving the energy efficiency of buildings, this is the costliest intervention. However, even a local government in a difficult financial situation can also draw the residents’ attention to the available opportunities to receive grants or low-interest loans.

It is advisable to start a free green number, where residents can report occurrences of high air pollution. So, if someone reports, the staff of the public area inspectorate and/or the police will immediately go to the scene, document the case, and forward it to the official authority. (In Hungary, the authority responsible for investigating and sanctioning illegal household burnings does not have the capacity to fulfill these tasks.)

The local governments with the help of public space inspectors, local civil society organisations, and the inhabitants can constantly monitor which houses are accumulating combustible waste and must take measures to remove these waste piles.

The municipalities may instruct one of their employees or even ask a local NGO to search for one or two hours a week the Internet for advertisements offering waste for burning. In case of finding such an advertisement in the vicinity, the advertiser should be called to terminate the unlawful practice immediately, and if this is unsuccessful, the police should be notified.

It is also important to take measures against the burning of garden waste. This is even more appropriate to do because experience has shown that during outdoor burning other waste is often burned in addition to green waste. Also, green plant residues are useful because if left on the soil surface or composted in a composting vessel and then spread out, they improve soil fertility.

András Lukács is the president of the Clean Air Action Group, a Hungarian environmental NGO founded in 1988. He is the author or co-author of more than 70 studies on environmental fiscal reform and sustainable transport and energy policies.

Judit Szegő is master’s in environmental sciences and a project manager in Clean Air Action Group since 2012. She has personal experience of the problems faced by the Hungarian population, having run a residents' environmental advocacy office for several years.

This article originally appeared in Dutch in the magazine Tijdschrift Luchtxv in September 2025.

By András Lukács and Judit Szegő

Photo by Judit Szegő