People over-emphasize the recycling aspect of "reduce, reuse, recycle"
"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."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.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.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.Modern recycling plans aren't that big. The one that does all of San Francisco is about the size of a Target store.[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taUCHnAzlgw