People over-emphasize the recycling aspect of "reduce, reuse, recycle"
<i>"In a series of experiments, the UV researchers first asked participants first to list "reduce," "reuse," and "recycle" 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 "sort" 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."</i><p>That doesn't mean that recycling has "backfired". It just means that it's not occupying much consumer attention. Which it shouldn't. It's not about virtue signaling. It'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's not even clear that it's even worth having people sort out trash from recyclables. Here'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 "green" and "eco" and want "awareness". The serious players in recycling talk about tons per hour.<p>Modern recycling plans aren't that big. The one that does all of San Francisco is about the size of a Target store.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taUCHnAzlgw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taUCHnAzlgw</a>