People over-emphasize the recycling aspect of "reduce, reuse, recycle"
<i>&quot;In a series of experiments, the UV researchers first asked participants first to list &quot;reduce,&quot; &quot;reuse,&quot; and &quot;recycle&quot; by order of efficacy — the correct answer being the same one in the old slogan — finding that a whopping 78 percent got it wrong. In a second experiment, the researchers had participants use a computer program to virtually &quot;sort&quot; waste into recycling, compost, and landfill bins. Unfortunately, the outcome of that survey was even more stark, with many incorrectly putting non-recyclable waste, such as plastic bags and lightbulbs, into the virtual recycle bin.&quot;</i><p>That doesn&#x27;t mean that recycling has &quot;backfired&quot;. It just means that it&#x27;s not occupying much consumer attention. Which it shouldn&#x27;t. It&#x27;s not about virtue signaling. It&#x27;s about bulk materials handling.<p>As I pointed out the last time this came up on HN, the machinery that sorts recyclables today does a far better job than humans. It&#x27;s not even clear that it&#x27;s even worth having people sort out trash from recyclables. Here&#x27;s a plant that takes in ordinary trash and sorts it.[1] About 25% goes to the landfill, the rest is recycled. San Jose has two such plants. Total capacity over 200 tons per hour.<p>This problem is routinely being solved by mostly boring but useful heavy machinery. 
The non-serious players talk about &quot;green&quot; and &quot;eco&quot; and want &quot;awareness&quot;. The serious players in recycling talk about tons per hour.<p>Modern recycling plans aren&#x27;t that big. The one that does all of San Francisco is about the size of a Target store.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=taUCHnAzlgw">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=taUCHnAzlgw</a>