Critics and environmental advocates remain skeptical of the government's heavy reliance on waste-to-energy plants, warning that the focus on incineration may create new, long-term problems. A primary concern is that these facilities require a constant stream of waste to remain financially viable, which could inadvertently disincentivize efforts to reduce waste generation or improve recycling rates. If municipalities become locked into long-term contracts to supply a specific volume of trash to these plants, the incentive to promote a true circular economy—where waste is minimized at the source—may be weakened.
Beyond the policy implications, there are persistent anxieties regarding the environmental and health impacts of burning municipal waste. Even with modern technology and real-time monitoring, community groups and environmental organizations point to the potential for toxic emissions, such as dioxins and heavy metals, if the combustion process is not perfectly maintained. There is also the issue of the residual ash and by-products, which still require safe disposal in specialized landfills. Critics argue that the significant capital investment required for these plants—often running into the hundreds of millions of ringgit—could be better spent on comprehensive recycling programs, composting initiatives, and public education campaigns that address the root causes of the waste crisis.
Furthermore, the financial sustainability of these projects is a point of contention. Some observers note that if the waste does not generate sufficient heat, or if operational costs exceed energy revenue, the burden could fall on taxpayers or local governments. As Malaysia moves forward with its plan for 18 plants, there are calls for greater transparency regarding the long-term economic and environmental costs. For many, the 'burn-to-solve' approach is a high-tech fix that ignores the more fundamental need for a society that produces less waste in the first place.