>

Δ you certainly have shifted my view, I think there are fundamentally more important things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint, compare to reducing and reusing.
/u/fantasy53 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

The problem is that the vast majority of recycling is a huge scam. Right now recycling is more symbolic, and just a political talking point. We take the time to separate everything into bins to make everyone feel like they’re doing something, but ultimately it all ends up in the landfill, and only something like 5% is actually recycled. Obviously reducing our consumption, and reusing things are key. But if we actually focused on recycling properly, it would make a difference, we choose ignorance though. >

You're telling me people in the waste management field are of questionable ethics? I'm shocked. >

You're telling me people ~~in the waste management field~~ are of questionable ethics? I'm shocked.
Fixed it for you >

Which popular culture do you participate in? In the UK, the order of the three Rs is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle; recycling is last. >

While I appreciate that, I don’t think reduce and reuse get nearly enough attention as compared to recycle >

But they are literally the first two in the mnemonic before recycle. What kind of attention do you mean? What culture are you talking about? >

I get what you mean about the mneumonic- but people's actions skip to the 'recycle' part. There has been a better social movement to reuse with charity shops especially... still 'reduce'-ing a footprint is done last. >

The OP is about popular culture focus, not about people's actions. Reducing via less fast fashion, repairing what you own etc is popular, as is reusing and repurposing rather than throwing away. Charity/thrift is mre reuse than recycle, recycle is like melting down to core elements and then restructuring. >

Peoples actions are reflected by popular culture, and sometimes popular culture informs people actions.
A lot of people jump straight to recycling rather than considering reducing the amount they purchase or reusing what they have already. >

You still haven't specified which culture. People DO reduce consumption and reuse what they have, there are social movements behind both. >

What on earth don’t you understand here? You are being deliberately obtuse. How in the world does the order of the slogan have anything to do with what most people actually do? OP is exactly right that far more attention is given to recycling and recycling programs. And corporate sponsored ads have historically promoted recycling. 
Humans are creatures of convenience. It’s easy to throw a soda can into a different colored bin. It’s quite a bit less practical (impossible in most stores) to bring reusable containers to buy bulk nuts or dried herbs or pasta. It’s also a lot easier to get people to throw something in a separate bin than it is to get them to buy less shit. Thems just the facts of the matter. >

Action is not the same as focus >

The biggest things in culture are social media, movies, TV shows
Across those it seems that recycling is talked about more frequently than the other two IMO >

Isn't it far more useful to say that there is insufficient focus on recycling as well as on reuse and reduction?  Why are we focusing on a relative focus level of recycling rather than the absolutes here?  We need to be recycling more than we do and that should be fine to say, and we should also be saying we need to reduce consumption. >

The problem with focusing so heavily on recycling is that companies will pump out tons of useless rubbish with the excuse that it can be theoretically recycled, whereas if we encourage people to reduce what they buy, on the whole the  overallamount of rubbish will decrease. >

yes, we should encourage people to reuse and reduce.  we should also encourage recycling.  and...we should encourage companies that produce goods to use recycled materials and to use reusable packaging/materials.  All of these things are true, but you're pushing a negative position against something we should do more of. >

Δ I think it’s fair to say that we can both encourage reduction and reuse and also suggest recycling as a third option, but I do think most recycling at the moment is a bit of a scam and  encouraging waste management companies and take it more seriously could benefit the environment in the long run. >

I agree with that.  I consider this to be within the envelope of "focus on recycling".  We consumer side has made massive strides, but the post-disposal side has a long way to go. >


It’s far more important, if we want to be more eco-friendly, to reduce consumption and then reuse what we already have, and then recycle as a last resort.

Reducing consumption is more important than recycling, but there are far more meaningful things you can do to than focus on your personal footprint. Look at the graph – policy changes absolutely dwarf the magnitude of even the most impactful personal footprint change. 
The market failure is the biggest issue. That's why the single most impactful climate mitigation policy is a price on carbon, and the most impact you as an individual can have is to volunteer to create the political will to get it passed.
And returning the revenue from a carbon tax as an equitable dividend would help a little bit with inequality, while creating jobs and growing the economy. 
Taxing carbon is in each nation's own best interest, and the IPCC makes clear carbon pricing is necessary. 

The purpose of the carbon tax is achieved as well, with carbon dioxide pollution projected to decline 33% after only 10 years, and 52% after 20 years, relative to baseline emissions.

To go from ~5,300,000,000 metric tons to ~2,600,000,000 metric tons would take at least 100 active volunteers in at least 2/3^rds of Congressional districts contacting Congress to take this specific action on climate change. 
That's a savings of over 90,000 metric tons per person over 20 years, or over 4,500 metric tons per person per year. And that's not even taking into account that a carbon tax is expected to spur innovation.
Meanwhile the savings from having one fewer kid is less than 60 tons/year. Even if it takes 2-3 times more people lobbying to pass a carbon tax than expected, it's still orders of magnitude more impact than having one less kid, and that's even more true once effective policies are in place. >

Even if you advocate for policy changes it doesn't diminish your personal responsibility to cutting emissions; life isn't a zero-sum game. Also, it's unclear how much tangible impact an individual could really have without resorting to extreme measures. As long as republicans control any branch of government, they will do everything in their power to block climate legislation. >

Time and energy are limited resources, though. Here are some things I've done, you can decide for yourself whether you think they're "extreme":


Used MIT's climate policy simulator to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results here.


Talked with friends and family about a carbon tax. I've convinced several that a carbon tax is a good idea. I've convinced a few to start volunteering for carbon taxes. 34% of Americans would be willing to volunteer for an organization to convince elected officials to act on climate change. If you feel like you're up against a wall in your own political conversations, here's some short trainings on how to have better political conversations. The IPCC has been clear that carbon pricing is necessary, and talking about climate change has been scientifically shown to be effective at increasing policy support. 


It took a few tries, but I published a Letter to the Editor to the largest local paper in my area espousing the need for and benefits of a carbon tax. Maybe you don't read LTEs, but Congress does. 


Joined several organized call-in days asking Congress to take climate change seriously and pass Carbon Fee & Dividend before joining the monthly call campaign. These phone calls work, but it will take at least 100 of us per district to pass a U.S. bill. 


Wrote to my favorite podcast about carbon taxes asking them to talk about the scientific and economic consensus on their show. When nothing happened, I asked some fellow listeners to write, too. Eventually they released this episode (and this blog post) lauding the benefits of carbon taxes.  


Written literally dozens of letters to my Rep and Senators over the last few years asking them to support Carbon Fee & Dividend. I've seen their responses change over the years, too, so I suspect it's working (in fairness, I'm not the only one, of course). Over 90% of members of Congress are swayed by contact from constituents. 


Hosted or co-hosted 4 letter-writing parties so that I could invite people I know to take meaningful and effective action on climate change.


At my request, 5 businesses and 2 non-profits have signed Influencer's Letters to Congress calling for Carbon Fee & Dividend. 


Recruited a friend to help me write a municipal Resolution for our municipality to publicly support Carbon Fee & Dividend. It took a lot of hard work recruiting volunteers from all over the city, sometimes meeting 2-3 times with the same Council member, but eventually it passed unanimously. Over 100 municipalities have passed similar Resolutions in support of Carbon Fee & Dividend that call on Congress to pass the legislation. 


Tabled at several events, usually collecting letters from constituents to their members of Congress


Started a Meetup in my area to help recruit and train more volunteers who are interested in making this dream a reality. The group now has hundreds of members. I've invited on several new co-leaders who are doing all the work at this point. 


It may sound silly, but I invited all my Facebook friends to "like" (and by default, follow) CCL on Facebook. Research shows 55% of those who engage with a cause on social media also take additional action.


Gave two presentations to groups of ~20 or so on Carbon Fee & Dividend and why it's a good idea that we should all be advocating for. I arranged these presentations myself. 


Co-hosted two screenings of Season 2, Episode 7 of Years of Living Dangerously "Safe Passage"


Attended two meetings in my Representatives' home office to discuss Carbon Fee & Dividend and try to get their support. 


Created cool charts to show how our lobbying is progressing, how our recruiting is progressing, and where we still need the most help


Created a wiki to help Redditors get involved and find their niche. 


Recruited thousands of Redditors to join me


It may be that at least some of these things are having an impact. Just eight years ago, only 30% of Americans supported a carbon tax. Now, it's an overwhelming majority -- and that does actually matter for passing a bill. The difference is showing up in lawmakers, too, with a growing number cosponsoring meaningful legislation. Personally, I think we're close to passing a bill here. And having more volunteers does help. 
A growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter. We need more volunteers around the world acting to increase the magnitude, breadth, and likelihood of passage of carbon pricing. The evidence clearly shows that lobbying works, and you don't need to outspend the opposition to be effective. >

I mean this earnestly, good job and you should keep it up.
But again it's unclear what these actions actually tangibly do to reduce carbon emissions. Given that every democrat voted for the inflation reduction act, they are already in favor of climate regulations. I am not at all convinced any republican congressperson would be convinced by lobbying to support climate regulation. Going forward, republicans control the house in 2022, and they will in all likelihood gain control of the senate in 2024 so it is highly unlikely substantial climate regulations will be passed for multiple years.
Furthermore, the supreme court can do literally whatever they want to neuter climate regulations and there's not a damn thing you can do about it

Time and energy are limited resources, though

All of those actions you listed take tons of time and energy. But I fail to see why reducing your consumption, cutting out meat, or not having kids takes any time or energy. >


“You’d be hard-pressed to find G.O.P. members who would be on board with approving these Democrat priorities,” Senator John Boozman, Republican of Arkansas, said in a statement.
He described the climate provisions as “a far-left agenda” that is “opposed by every Republican in the Senate.”
...
And many of the clean-energy tax credits in Build Back Better have been backed by Republican lawmakers in the past and even written by them.

Yeah I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to agree. They don't stand for anything beyond obstructionism >

Again, it's already working. >

Recycled aluminum requires something at least 75% less emission compared to utilizing prime aluminum( aluminum that is made from ore). It is usually going to be a lot more due to sourcing the energy need to make pure aluminum from hydrocarbons. 
Recycle your aluminum. It has many applications beyond  container stock. 75% of the aluminum that has ever been created is still in use today.
“Production of primary aluminium through the Hall Heroult electrolysis process is energy intensive. The carbon footprint of primary aluminium is thus highly dependent on the source of electricity used. As a result, the carbon footprint of primary aluminium varies between less than 4 tons CO2-equivalents per ton aluminium in hydropower-based regions to more than 20 tons CO2-equivalents per ton aluminium in coal power-based regions. The recycling process of aluminium, however, requires a lot less energy than primary aluminium production, and thus emits less CO2 - approximately 0.5 tons CO2-equivalents per ton aluminium.” >

In 1987, the Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
We have to work in the paradigm we are living in while trying to make the next one better. Changing the paradigm takes money, which ultimately has to come from either the private or the public sector (or both!). 
Reducing consumption is important, but we all still have to eat, bathe, wear clothes, and live our lives. So we have to find the best ways to deal with inevitable waste. Lots of big companies are making big changes (I work in packaging and product sustainability), but those changes take way longer and way more money than you’d probably guess. I’d love to see a returnable packaging economy in the States, but that takes a huge effort, tons of stakeholders with divergent priorities, and LOTS of money. So while I work on that, the best thing I can do TODAY is make current packaging recyclable and encourage consumers to recycle responsibly. Lots of companies have joined The Recycling Partnership, which helps fix issues in American recycling to make it better and more efficient. Conscious Container is another great group working in making returnable glass bottles a reality (like it is in essentially every other country), but it’s slow going. Yes, returning, washing, and re-using glass bottles is best and I’m happy to support the initiative. But the best thing I can do TODAY is encourage everyone who uses glass bottles to find a way to recycle. 
Changing consumer behavior is HARD and there are many people who will never change: they will buy water bottles and other convenience items and messages to reduce consumption will be lost on them. But we can make it easier for them to recycle.
Perfect is the enemy of good, especially in a messy field like sustainability. Strive for perfect (reduced consumption, reusable packaging) in the future, but do good with what’s available today. >

I'm going to use PBS kids as representative popular culture here.
Sesame street had a show about recycling. Why did they not talk about reduce?
Because the show was talking about trash and litter - which is notorious for being generally useless. The goal of the show was to speak to cleaning up areas and there was a bit of talk about what was trash vs recyclable. The emphasis on recycle was what to do about other people's stuff as a child. And kids cannot reuse or reduce stuff as easily as adults. Hence why it was important to show recycling.
Additional pop culture shows that feature re-using are shows like American picker and the antique shows. They often don't talk about recycling at all! Just what can be reused and sold and everything else is trash.
As for reducing, and popular culture show for that is Marie Kondo's show about what sparks joy. She talks a lot about paring down ownership of stuff to what sparks joy. >

I agree with what you are saying, but allow me to shift your view even further. Reducing, reusing, and recycling are all well and good, but by far the biggest contributors to your carbon footprint are air travel, having kids, and eating meat.
So really, if we have to prioritize something, those are the things we should focus on.