By what logic has burning something constituted recycling?
It would be much more accurate to call it a one time reuse, unless of course we want to start claiming we are recycling oil by burning petrol. Or perhaps we are recycling nuclear waste when we use depleted uranium in ammunition.
We don't learn, we find what we call solutions and our behaviours do not change.
The point I am trying to make, and perhaps I shouldn't because how dare I criticise someone doing things nominally better than us, is that we alter our behaviour or we destroy the environment. It is not simply a waste problem, we are extracting resources from the planet at a rate that exceeds its capacity to regenerate them. What is Sweden doing about consumption patterns, are the phones and computers that people buy in Sweden created from resources in Sweden?
Of course not.
But hey they are burning their waste so look how clean and efficient they are.
Never-mind that all the products being sold and consumed in Sweden are just as resource intensive as everywhere else, don't worry about the fact that our planet can not maintain our current global consumption trends.
We can burn our waste.
Swedish consumption patterns have not dropped, nothing of substance has really changed.
People that understand the implications of that have a moral imperative to point it out, and to claim that the burning of waste is a step forward is entirely disingenuous.
It is very clear that Swedish private consumption took a much smaller hit than Danish private consumption in 2008-9 and consistently has grown stronger in the following years.
The only thing Sweden is doing by burning waste is burning waste, like the rest of the developed world consumption patterns continue to track higher and further away from any remote semblance of sustainability.
And that is the real issue, burning waste might mean we have less waste laying about the place, but it does absolutely nothing about impending resource scarcity.