The Hidden Truth Behind Sweden's Waste Disposal Infrastructure 

Australia complains about Sweden, *secretly* Australia sends all their recycling to offshore land fills.......

Landfills have been banned in Germany as well for a while now and now all trash is either recycled or burned (much of the plastic was sent to China for a while, an utter nonsense). Waste to Energy definitely makes sense esp. If done right. And yes, turning waste is a form of recycling since the potential energy is turned into work in the form of heat and electricity. Creating landfills is short sighted and not sustainable. Of course, reducing waste production at the front end should always be encouraged.

swede's: use technogoy and science to transform rubbish into energy aussie's: let's do what dogs do

Wow, I thought this is how it's done in every developed country... I'm not from Sweden btw

16:38 if someone doesn't consent to being filmed you STOP FILMING THEM. you absolutely don't try to lie to the person about whether you're recording

I never thought I'd say this, but the Swedes are actually doing something sensible for a change. Human beings have always reused, repaired, and recycled. The modern innovation, driven by the current 'eco-religion', is to do it even when it doesn't make sense. It's fine recycling waste that is made from scarce elements; uses less energy than virgin material production; or has a high enough resale value to cover the recycling costs, but the recycling of lower and lower grades of waste violates all of these potential benefits. Plastic covers a wide range of different materials, with a wide range of properties. To separate them completely would be difficult bordering on impossible, and very expensive. Doing it less rigorously produces 'Franken-plastics' with sub-optimal properties. There are only so many park benches and bins we need! Since they are all hydrocarbons, made from some of the most abundant elements in the universe, it makes more sense to extract their chemical energy through burning. Even better in Sweden's case since they not only use the electricity, but also the 'waste' heat of combustion. People should remember that plastic production only comprises a small proportion of hydrocarbon use. Most hydrocarbons are used for fuel anyway, and this recycling of plastics may displace the burning of other fuels. People are concerned about the production of toxic wastes, such as dioxins, from these plants. As long as the waste is burned at a high enough temperature, and the waste gases are scrubbed, this isn't a problem.

Until the late 1960's in Philadelphia, trash was INCINERATED (with NO POLLUTION CONTROLS), the "ash" was taken out to the ocean and dumped. I remember seeing pictures in the 1960's New York City used to load garbage on to barges and hauled out to the ocean and dumped. Modern incineration is the BEST ALTERNATIVE TODAY WITH THE TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE AVAILABLE NOW.

As an Australian, our people are very skilled at criticising ideas for solving problems, and very incompetent at actually solving them.

Another option would be to send them to Asia, since only a minimum amount of waste can be recycled, where they are dumped into rivers, almost all of the plastic waste of the ocean comes from just nine big Asian and African rivers. Incineration is a very good option and due to filters is not even producing pollution.

This video seems biased from the beginning.

The reason Sweden started to import waste to incinerate is because we got so good at recycling we were running out of waste to burn. And if you need the electricity or heat, running on waste is better than running on coal or oil. But best is renewable.

As a family in the UK we have always sorting out our household rubbish. Once a week the council pick up our rubbish as well as the plastic bottles, the paper and the glass. We take all the metal separately to the scrap metal yard where for ordinary magnetic metals we get about £10 for about 120 kilo's of the scrap but more for copper and tin etc. The Swedish idea where the manufacturers must pay for the disposal of their plastic wrapping and containers etc. We pay so much tax for products especially cars, why shouldn't they pay you for disposing all their packaging. I noticed that our neighbour did not re-cycle anything, he has a similar sized house and garden yet we recycle and he doesn't, why don't we get rewarded for doing it, also he pays the same council tax but his home is worth double what mine is. When ordinary garbage is being picked up it should be weighed and the heavier it is the more tax you pay. I also use lime putty mortars and plasters in my work which is better for the environment because it absorbs carbon dioxide yet buying lime is more expensive than cement. We have a totally fekked up system that is geared up to support unsustainable stuff with electricity production having better subsidies that the sustainable power production. We should also be using Maglev trains and trams throughout our country yet they want to build the very expensive and slower HS2. If we must have nuclear power stations we should be using THORIUM in a molten salt nuclear reactor this is because it uses lower energy, can be recycled AND IS WALK AWAY SAFE unlike the present high pressure water systems that use uranium and are more expensive to run.

When are the goverments going to wake up and tell producers that they MUST reduce packaging and ALL plastics MUST be recyclable, that's the only way we should be going. Finding ways to dump infinite resourses is dangerous and a true waste.

Seems like the Swedes wrap a lot more in plastic wrapping than we do in Canada and they burn most of that, so is the extra plastic wrapping to provide more to burn, so that the heat and power generation is made to look more efficient and effective. For a country that is so advanced in many ways it doesn't make sense to have so much plastic to have to eventually recycle/burn.

I have two things, one is why is it so hard to recycle plastic? Because it is. What can we do to improve this? Second is that the problem with landfill is that sooner or later its sludge will enter the earth and risk polluting the water. It might take a long time but in some places it certainly will

We do the burning in Hawaii a lot as well since we don’t have the space for land fills

I like how he avoided talking about the the metal cans & glass containers. there's a small moment where they are shown but he doesn't even acknowledge that all of that is actually.. recycled into new containers. All thanks to people who sort the trash, and doesnt just toss it in the general (burnable) trash.

When you are asked to turn off the camera and you let it roll though giving the impression that you turned it off, I give you a thumbs down. Journalism doesn't have to be disrespectful.

It is good that the people of Sweden get paid to separate their trash. What I observe for many other countries - step by step: 1. People don't recycle. 2. Politicians raise trash taxes, say it would be reduced if you recycle. 3. People start separating the trash and wasting their space and time. 4. Politicians say the tax will be reduced a little. 5. Companies/relatives of politicians start making millions from free labor and recycling. I tried to convince people to start separating their trash in the building where I live, but there is no incentive for it - you will save a few bucks, but the amount of inconvenience is too much. I'm all for recycling, but it's currently just one big scam all over the world.

In my province of British Columbia, they are implementing a new programme to recycle plastic packaging. The catch is that you have to go to London Drugs or select bottle recyclers to recycle flexible plastic packaging such as potato chip bags and vegetable nets. Still, I always see a full bin when I go to London drugs, although my city is over 150,000 in population and there are not many London Drugs, so not everyone is going to go there. I think that much of the flexible plastic packaging is going to end up as fuel for now, but they mentioned that they are working to find ways to recycle more of it.

Plastic bags are banned in many groceries etc.why not ban wrapping vegetables as some stores in the UK have done?..indeed, why isn't the plastic problem being regarded as seriously as climate change?..

A lot of plastic waste is unrecyclable, does not bio-degrade. Burning for heat and energy is the best way for it, as long as exhaust srubbers are used.

In cold countries burning trash is a good idea as most of the energy from burning produces heat which can warm pipes filled with water. Those warmed steam pipes can be brought to radiators in each home. In warm countries it would not work at all. The heat would simply contribute to a heat island effect in the vicinity. Better to bury the trash so it can be mined later when our technology improves.

Burning is not recycling. It's not as bad as throwing it in a pit, but it is not recycling. I want to know what their true recycling percentage is if you stop calling burning recycling? That needs to include what they import.

They can afford to build plants that cost 500 million dollars and spend 35 million dollars a year to operate because its a revenue generating plant. It sells electricity, hot water, and takes in money from tipping fees. Those revenue streams will pay for the cost to build and operate over the life of the plant. Whereas for landfills as stand alone sites, the only revenue for those sites are tipping fees.

And then you realize, earth will be just fine. We are the ones who are screwed.

I hope they do this in India

Canada has tried a few times to set up effective recycling programs. Most have failed due to lack of infrastructure, technology and alternative markets. Only thing that truly works is beverage container deposit recycling programs. The most unusual part is, the most conservative, oil focused part of Canada has some of the best recycling programs going, abet nothing on the scale of anything in Europe.

incinerating trash is one of the best options after all recycling options have been exhausted. i am proud to live in a county in florida that has a state of the art facility like the ones in this video

Way better than in my country, we only have landfills, polluting ours rivers, right now it has been burning for four days straight. Our city it's full of smoke producing respiratory problems to us.

Burning plastic is not create toxic fume in 900 degree Celsius, it create Carbon dioxide.

23:58 The best part of the documentary!!! :D

9:21?.....WTF is that painting? OMG someone has completely lost their mind!!!!

Why aren't we talking about reduction of plastics instead of recycling. Seem each of us need to demand bans on plastic bags and containers. We can recycle cartons, cans, bottles, cardboard, and much more. Seem we each are responsible for the problem.

We are sorting our garbage as good as we can, my foreign friends usually get a big shock when we sort our garbage but if the company finds something that should not be in the garbage you can be fined but the thing is not long ago it came out that everything got burned anyway... okey then wtf are we sorting our garbage that keenly for if it gets burned in the same place anyway.

Why not use the waste to be put in between two concrete walls in places that are hot and maybe it would insulate for cold too. For building houses. I saw a video where a man got tires from a tire ‘graveyard’ and started just below the ground. He put aluminum cans inside the tires and then applied stucco to the outside and inside. When the house was finished, it was beautiful and kept the temperature at a steady 70 degrees Fahrenheit. This was in New Mexico or Arizona. Would plastic bottles be able to do the same thing?

I did a course in 2002 in Sweden about solid waste management. Recycling IS EXPENSIVE, that's why they rather burn it. The incinerators have really high technology, the one I visited in Mälmo had just emission of hydrogen.

Burning trash is for energy but driving cars is eco unfriendly.

Problem starts with engineers and companies. At one time both took pride in making an item that lasted as long as humanly possible (your grandparents tv and radio that still work for example). Now, they are engineered only to out last the warranty, and it's frowned upon as a "loss of sales" if a product lasts too long. Add to this the longevity issues on lead free solder (yes, lead in electronics is good and helps ward off premature waste, google it) and your left with this entire toppic being taken completely out of the hands of the end user. Now, if people would fight for the right to repair (again, google this), maybe companies will change as you have an option to repair rather than toss defective products, most encased in plastic.

Ok, I'm a literal waste consultant in Australia who talks trash for a living, so listen up if you want to learn a thing or two about recycling plastics! The problem with plastics is that they are really economically challenging to recycle. Plastics that come directly from oil are both CHEAPER and BETTER QUALITY. Recycling plastics at scale is hard without imperfections forming in the plastics, which forces companies to "down recycle" instead. Search "downcycling" for more details. Companies cannot produce the same products as they want with recycled plastics. I'm also sceptical that recycling is always more environmentally friendly... In Australia, we don't recycle plastics well; we don't clean them, have too many single-use plastic varieties in our waste stream (making it more costly to sort/also produces a lot of contaminates), and ship them all around the country, creating lots of C2O in the processes. If they let the professor who studied EfW finish, I imagine he would discuss the economic issues and the complex environmental ramifications of plastic recycling. Instead, they cut to a cute family-oriented recycling story... They also say that we don't get benefits from the heat energy these plants produce when it's in Australia. THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE. We have industries which need heat energy to produce goods which could be connected to these plants. Let the experts finish before cutting out and they would say EfW is the best solution to our current waste issues until we stop using as many plastics as we typically use. The film tries to shame Sweden for long recycling rates, but we have a terrible recycling rate in Australia, see the national waste database which says 13% get recycled (2021-2022). And 13% is only the percent of plastics collected for recycling not what actually gets recycled. In conclusion: The popularity of wanting to recycle plastics has come from the petrochemical industry, which has been trying to use it as a greenwashing tactic to distract people from reducing plastic consumption. It'd mean bad business for them. They want us to believe we should use as many single-use plastic items as possible and not feel bad cause they're being "recycled". Burning plastics is no worse than burning oil or coal in a power plant. It's better. Burning means we don't have to put plastics into the ground for a future generation to solve.

Go for it, blast away ! But know that the incineration of the rubbish is done under controlled conditions in a closed system. The gasses are being scrubbed (over and over) until what comes out of the chimneys is a (hell of a ) lot less harmful for the environment than burying your trash in landfills. Furthermore (if a bit less biased research would have been done, they would have found out that) most of the energy needs are being met by wind/water energy.

go back to glass bottles. recycling is good. recycling still requires power to process, and produces its own waste in dirty water from washing the plastic material.

1. Introduction. I write as a layperson i.e. non-expert. In my own small way I have campaigned for the adoption of zero waste. I am aware of the work of Dr. Paul Connett in this area and have referred to it in my advocacy. I live in eastern Australia and my advocacy was at the local council level. Although about as small as it gets in terms of representation/government, local councils have that tiny bit more power than what I do/anyone does as an individual. It is a global issue. 2. The linchpin to this story, as I perceive it. This 26m:07s report was half decent. It is a snapshot of the current state of play. Yes, it is legitimate to ask: if we have incinerators which convert waste to electricity then how much is diverted away from being recycled to being incinerated? Professor Goran Finnveden's claim (beginning at 07:31 in the video) I find to be a linchpin of this story. At 08:29, he states "Recycling is almost always... there can be exceptions... but almost always.. more ek.. more beneficial, both from an energy perspective and from the perspective of emissions." Professor Finnveden being introduced as someone who has studied waste to energy for many years. Clearly the issue of emissions is legitimate. The nitty gritty details of that is something I have nothing of value to say about; I have to defer to experts such as Professor Finnveden. 3. An important element of the story. There is the issue of what data is collected: materials which are sent to be recycled or materials which are actually recycled/materials which are actually incinerated? It too is a legitimate question. For whatever value it may have, I had nothing to do with this report. I am a viewer (and commenter here) just like anyone else. The 'Swerec' part of the story... yes I would have liked the reporter to interview them, but I also understand that they are human beings at 'Swerec'. It is obviously a hot issue. The company is no doubt making money - and probably a lot of it - but Craig Reucassel is a reporter from Australia. I'm not sure how much more I may say about this. I do see something of the argument each way i.e. for reporting it and that it is something which required more sensitivity in order to report it fairly and reasonably. I kinda wish that this point (i.e. #3) could be sent to everyone at 'Swerec' and to Craig Reucassel. They are in a difficult position i.e. all involved. I am one who empathises in this regard. 4. The last 10 minutes of the story and my conclusion. Yeah there are differences between Sweden and Australia. Indeed big differences it seems i.e. in terms of the infrastructure already in place. Craig Reucassel's conclusion at the end is reasonable but I am also conscious of the fact that he took the report where he wanted to and handled it as he wanted to handle it. Perhaps it was also influenced by the producer (I honestly do not know). Taking a step back a moment, zero waste does seem to be clearly preferable to anything else. Waste is essentially a stupid thing. If one has zero waste then, by definition, one is making use of whatever it happens to be that one is using i.e. completely, entirely. Nothing additional has to happen or indeed can happen. That is a qualitative ideal. We do not live in a world that is ideal. I get that. Still, in terms of what is prioritised and how efforts are directed, the goal of zero waste is the best one. Then? Well, allow processes to develop and let investigations continue. There is a place for seeing what is happening in other parts of the world. Surely, though, one is required to look at one's own activities i.e. wherever that may be. I mean... if nothing else... locals are best placed to change/maintain/influence what happens in their locality. Certainly more so than what happens somewhere else. Writing this comment has allowed me to process what I watched in the video. I am thankful for the opportunity to do so. If anyone else has gained anything from it then more power to you! Replies are welcome. I appreciate your time and attention in reading. Thank-you. Time: 1:18am Australian Eastern Standard Time Day and date: Sunday 31 July 2022 My email address: tom . 369 @ hotmail . com (remove spaces; please inform me how you came by my email address) Views: 869,154 Comments (including mine): 2,159

Thinking recycling is the answer for plastic is a mistake, a better solution is stop using plastic for single use packaging , reason being plastic needs to be extremely clean of any contamination in order to be recycled.

@Avi: Gasoline has a heating value of 44.6 mega joules/Kg. Polypropylene and polyethylene plastics are several million joules/kg higher.

The first step in dealing with all of this waste would be to stop producing so much in the first place.

I've always recycled everything into the most valuable commodity on earth. More land.

Here in western Colorado, I have to drive 20 miles round trip to the recycle station (fuel +time). Then it gets trucked to a sorting station 80 miles away(another truck+labor for "item"). Then it gets sorted(labor). Then it gets trucked to who knows where(MORE trucking, fuel and labor). Makes cents eh? There is a landfill 25 miles away with PLENTY of space. What costs more?

Without talking about the specific emissions and how much there are of them, this whole piece is worthless. If they can scrub the emissions quite well, then what is the problem? It's cheap energy. If they cannot, then the Swedish people are being lied to.

All those bales of plastic at Swerec look exactly like the ones dumped across Malaysia and Poland right now. Exposed to the elements they will start to degrade and won't be suitable for recycling anymore. And the fact that the company refused to let him in, together with the other guy not knowing the figures for recycling rates makes me think they actually burn the whole lot.

It makes me laugh when they talk about recycling rates in Eastern Europe. The only reason those rates are so high is because people are poor and waste collection is expensive compared to the cost of recycling materials collection. Of course people will recycle to have lower bills! And let's not forget to ask this question - where does this recycling go? Because I am pretty sure that most of Eastern European countries don't have facilities to actually recycle the waste, so they only collect it. Maybe this waste is shipped to China, maybe it's incinerated in the EU or maybe it just goes to landfill and EU turns blind eye...

biofuel and energy waste industries are only partly commercially run. There is a lot of governement waste of money going on still and the overall picture is that some kinds of waste we still need to pay for some are profitable and the more market the more effective the handling of both kinds will be.

This is a fantastic documentary that digs deep till the very end and sees past all the deception

Plastics could be incinerated with little to no emissions , but the ash leftover is very hazardous , what's happening with that ? You can live in plastic trash , but you'll die in the ash .

Pyrolysis already big in Norway... check Quantafuel.

Some day in the future we will start mining landfills to burn the stored trash into energy, to recover metals and to remove the worst source of ground water pollution.

While I support this idea I think calling it recycling a fraud. Why don't we accept it and call it what it is: waste to energy.

You cant burn exclusively plastic in a modern incinerator. It must be mixed with other waste to meet emissions requirements. As well, burning too much plastic increases the temperature and damages the refractory and fouls the incinerators pollution control equipment.

No the bananas are in those plastic bags because it actually reduces the total plastic involved in shipping the bananas...

What this hints at but never reached is that plastic recycling is something of a myth. Only a few types of plastic can be recycled and those that can are often formed to a lower grade plastic which itself cannot be recycled. More investment is required into the technology behind plastic recycling.

1. Swiss burn most of their rubbish ( costly ) due to restriction in landfill > destroy resource 2. Australia buried rubbish ( cheaper) due to VAST amount of lands > can be recycled later, once the suitable tech developed 3. Trolls back to cage, haters keep being troll. Have a blessed day.

Those things have scrubbers. The white stuff coming out of the chimney is water vapor.

90% of plastic never gets recycled. It gets burned or buried.

Too bad they can't float the plastic in huge aerated tub to separate it from the rest, maybe thick salt water to help plastic bags float as well.

You need a market for recycled plastics. If people are willing to pay more to use recycled plastics (very expensive), businesses will open up to cater to these consumers, there will be anchor factories, and all those plastics collection centres (vendors) will have a place to bring their waste to. Producing plastics from petroleum is still magnitudes cheaper than recycling them. In the end, it's about money. But yes, Journeyman has exposed Sweden as a fraud with its claims.

In other words, the best policy is thinking it through before you buy, because there's no guarantee it's going to be handled properly once you throw it out.

How about doing your best not to produce waste in the first place. As consumers, we do have choice in what we buy and we can demand businesses to make choices that have less impact on nature.

The lady talking about the maypole at approx 24.15 resembles Kate Quilton from Food Unwrapped.

Thats clean smoke, it's not black and nasty. Great job Sweden and your pollution is mild compared to everyone else.

Why don't they just charge the companies who use plastic with a levy which will increase every time they use more plastics containers etc. Whats wrong with going back to using glass containers its reusable ! Another option is to just ban the use of plastics for food & drink storage, thats start.

Swede here: I think the point is that the plastic dont end up in the nature killing animals and people.

very good idea. we could invent burners with filters for private heaters and not cart the waste through the countryside.

Why not convert it to oil so it can be recycled? Hydro Thermal Depolymerization could turn the waste into oil and then turned back into plastics or fuels for jet engines, heating oils, diesel fuels for trains and OTR shipping...

Are there some reliable comprehensive scientific studies showing what is better in total cost, recycling into new product of the same material (including all problems with it, like presorting by people, sorting in facilities, cleaning, dealing with contamination, energy to transport plastic between places, remelting), vs simply burning (which can skip most of the sorting stages, etc). I think electricity and district heating is good solution in many case, because it recovers much more energy back, than just generating electricity. As of the summer break. The solution would be simple, and probably what they do. Store stuff in land fill in the summer, and then burn in the winter. That would also eliminate need to import stuff. Another option is to use heat for other processes, i.e. for chemical processing, paper production, food processing industry, etc. Just locate the facilities close to source of heat and electricity for it to not go to waste.

Burning waste in to energy is better than Recycling your waste by sending to the other countries.Thanks swedish.

Recycle as much as possible but incinerate the rest. For Sweden incinerators make all the sense in the world. To turn waste into energy isn't destroying resources that could be made into products. Energy is a resource and we are turning low grade materials that cannot easily be recycled into an product rather than burying it in the ground to be forgotten. Energy is a resource and a resource a cold country like Sweden need a lot of - in particular as we need to heat our homes 3/4 of the year. While some plastics can easily be recycled (like PET) some cannot be recycled at all (like composites) or are so low grade that the recycling process itself is a waste of resources (like plastic bags). The realistic alternatives are to either bury it for future generations to deal with while risking toxic leakage or to incinerate it for energy. The energy we will need regardless and the only practical alternatives to heat plants are fossil fuels, wood or electricity. Wood is more rationally used for making other goods (and waste go to the very same incinerators) while electricity is a becoming a scare resource as we are not expanding nuclear or fossil fuel power. So in the end it is deciding weather we use the oil for heating directly or if we turn the oil into plastics, use the plastics, reuse the plastics and then use the plastic waste for heating.

the preferable way of dealing with our trash is always going to be an exercise in choosing the lesser of two evils. kudos to sweden, for putting in science and effort, while the rest of us mindlessly toss.

I just love your pronounciation of our Swedish names hahah 😂👍

Australia invests their money in shipping their recycling to Malaysia! This guy really pisses me off! Guess it must be “ Do as I say and not as I do!”

And maybe one of the option is to consume less and choose product with less packaging as possible.....also the responsible in this problem are the indusries that create all those differenrs product and push for sell !

Why doesn't anyone talk about banning single use plastic

CO2 is not a serious detrimental ' greenhouse gas' as it has little correlation to 'global warming'. The sun has 100 times the effect and with a low of 170 ppm CO2 as sustainable for all life on this planet, the base line of the recent low of 270ppm CO2 is a historic low when compared to the levels over 100 million years.

The Swedish wasteburning plants have state of the art filtration systems which filter out all toxic gases and particles. Its the best waste management system in the world. Where's the "hidden truth"?

DRIVE to the miniature recycling center...Brilliant. NOT. What most people don't understand or don't want to talk about is the key to it all is ENERGY DENSITY. It is the reason why wind and solar will NEVER be able to be more than a small part of energy production. What we know as "fossil fuels" is really CONCENTRATED energy. It has been accumulating over millions of SOLAR cycles. Plastic is really so cheap because it can be almost be considered a waste product of the oil refining process. After gasoline, diesel, motor oil and other materials used in other manufacturing processes have been removed, polymers are at the bottom of the stack. There is very little energy density left in plastic after it has been made into a final product. The key to RECYCLING is the energy needed and the cost to transport, separate and prepare. What can be made from recycled materials that makes it at least as economical as starting from virgin material? How much has a final product been processed from its base material and how close is it to what you may be able to make from it. Most metal products have higher recycle value because it takes less time, effort and additional energy to turn it back into a usable product then it takes to mine and process new material.

What I got from this man is the same thing so many say.... THIS would be HARD so let's just stick with all the waste and pollution.

You wash the fumes? What you mean is you have scrubbers before you vent to atmosphere........

Burning is the worst cause of dioxin formation. Underground is not so bad as plastic can stop water going deeper

I agree, this can be done in some places, not all around the world. For the people who live near the equator can't do this. And landfill isn't the answer. There must be a better way to do this. A better way to recycle and dealing with garbage.

reality is always complex. it's not perfect but we all - all - need to stop using plastic and over using other resources in general. avoiding waste in the first place is exactly right. mass consumption has to stop.

I would really rather have an engineer explain this to me than a half baked amateur comedian.

You know that waste in landfill, there are companies that will come dig it up and recycle it..

Burn coal to generate electricity or burn rubbish, tough choice ya got there Australia.

Cooling to the node! Deeply funny, if like me you will have a copper phone line with no mobile coverage for ever!

Please visit RWANDA, they don’t use plastic over there

Journeyman, it would be hood if u went back to sweeden, there building a plastics refraction plant.

BAHAHAHA, that sneaky joke at 23:16 "Cooling to the Node" was a GREAT jab at the NBN..

Also burning crude oil is recycling. In a time the mother earth make new crude oil from CO2.

Government regulations and laws do not really work, otherwise we would live in paradise and there would be no crime and pollution and what not.

Isn't burning for energy a good thing? Why are they acting like its bad?

Did anyone made calculations about how much fuel needed to transport that foreign rubbish????