>

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.
/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.