Recycling plastic for example is very limited. It's very hard to get everybody to perfectly recycle, then we can still only recycle a limited amount of plastic a limited number of times. Clearly, recycling plastic isn't green. It's only ever so slightly less harmful.
We have been recycling plastic for a long time and we are still choking in it's waste.
I still recycle myself though, even as I'm trying to reduce my consumption of (single-use) plastics, which isn't easy at all. But I also support a ban on as much plastic products as possible, since recycling is a non-solution and the problem unacceptable. I think such bans are gaining public support, at least in Europe. Just like the public is starting to become aware that individual action on reducing footprint isn't enough and even distracts from holding the right actors accountable. Landmark cases here in the Netherlands such as the Urgenda case and the case against Shell help spread that awareness.
"Biomass is so bad it's worse than coal" "EVs are so bad you're better of with an ICE" "Recycling is so bad you're better off not bothering"
Notice a pattern there? Attacking alternatives that are better, but not perfect (nothing is) is an obvious tactic to fall back on once the more blatant denial starts to falter.
Meanwhile, if you looked up a study about recycling, including specifically plastic, you'd see the consensus is that it saves energy, and carbon and money.
There's definitely nuance but plastic is unavoidable in modern society. No one is going to ban it entirely, even if they do ban most disposable uses. And if they don't ban it, then the people who create products with it should be forced to pay for the recycling and someone should check it actually happens. There is no downside to this. The extra cost being borne by the producer even makes it less attractive to people who only care about money.
Ignoring that easily achievable collective goal in favour of an impractical personal achievement of avoiding plastic is exactly the kind of thing people seem to be waking up to these days.
Reduce reuse and recycle. Yes they all matter, but not bothering to recycle the stuff you don't reduce or reuse is obviously only beneficial to the people who sell the fossil based input materials.
> you're better off not bothering"
Nowhere in my comments did I say that it's better to not recycle. I've even made the same argument as you did regarding EV elsewhere, debunking the idea that because EV isn't perfect, it's not worth the effort.
I've said "I still recycle myself" and "Of course recycling as a mechanism is part of a sustainable economy". I do not have, expressed or implied, anything like that recycling plastic is a bad idea. I don't know how to make that point clearer. My point however, is that it isn't a solution and convincing the public that it is, was a deceptive corporate propaganda campaign by the leading beverage and packaging corporations, designed to avoid taking responsibility and more drastic actions.[1] It's painful, but the green movement must recognize it has been misled and that recycling is really not enough, not by a long shot.
> plastic is unavoidable in modern society
This doesn't mean we can't significantly reduce our consumption of single use plastic and avoid a substantial amount of plastic usage, which is only increasing.
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec...
You said this:
> Clearly, recycling plastic isn't green. It's only ever so slightly less harmful.
You didn't need to emphasise how little you think recycling helps. I take it to mean "it's better to just not use plastic" and agree but as I said, on a society wide scale that is simply not happening so advertising that attitude to other people, who certainly will not stop using plastic, spreads the meme that recycling is basically useless and that is a bad strategy. Which coincidentally is the same message that fossil fuel providers push.
Collectively we need to use less and recycle the stuff we do use efficiently. As I said, there's no downsides to this, nor any conflict between those two things any more than saying we should use both wind and solar.
You don't use solar when wind makes more sense nor vice versa. But if you personally decide to install solar panels because that works well for you, it's not helpful to say "wind is not green, just ever so slightly less harmful". We need both, both are better than the status quo.
Unfortunately the term and concept of recycling covers all of these plus plastics, which have been largely a failure. This confuses both consumers and policy makers.
The people against any kind of market regulation will argue that all recycling is inherently inefficient if the market doesn't do it spontaneously.
This is obviously undermined by the obvious success of many metal recycling schemes where the regulations created a market.
So they then flip from recycling to "plastic recycling". If you then point out the many plastic recyling successes they'll jump to specific plastics and ways of using plastics that make it harder to recycle them. The obvious solution of using further regulation to get people to update their processes to use the easily recyled plastics is mysteriously avoided even though it has literally been done for decades across the globe, sometimes led by corporate co-operation (e.g. milk in various countries is in semi-standardized containers).
If you have a gut reaction that recycling, or just plastic recycling is a bad thing, you've been conned by fossil fuel producers who compete with recycled plastic as a feedstock.
Recycling is green and economic. This is the scientific consensus and also blatantly logical. Anyone arguing otherwise has consistently been in the pocket of big business or political parties that thrive on letting big business do whatever they want. We have decades of evidence of that.
But the most common story you hear about recyling is that it's a pointless greenwash and the alternative is ..... the status quo. Constant stories of how it went wrong in some case, or got subverted by those same big companies and the moral always seems to be "don't try to do green stuff, it's all a scam and/or silly hippies who do more damage than good", which is exactly the "doomed" strategy you mention.
Almost certainly a whole bunch of people reading this comment have a direct mental connection of "recycling" -> "scam", "waste", "not even good for the planet" similar to what has been cultivated for wind turbines, solar, EVs etc though most of those seem to be losing steam faster, probably only because those industries have their own lobby groups now.