It's tough this one. I did an interesting module at Uni called sustainability (it seems to be the latest buzz word now) and if you look at things from a life cycle analysis (cradle to grave) you get some interesting things...
Incineration with power generation = very good
landfill = bad
recycling plastics = very bad
recycling paper, glass, cans = good
Basically, because the government want to seem good but can't be ***** to resource it properly we're left with little piddly recycling centres that are inefficient, with the emissions of getting stuff there phenomenal. The only ones with a demonstrable benefit are glass, cans and paper. You need to use a milk bottle about 100 times to make it better than using a carton, because of the environmental effects of cleaning it etc.
The planet has gone through these cycles before, and apparently we're due a big cold snap anyway, with a long ice age. The evolution of the planet depends on it, so you could think we are actually doing something to preserve our way of life by heating up the earth to keep the ice at bay.
It all comes down to peoples perception. Take the Brent Spar (big oil rig that was due to be sunk but greenpeace kicked up a fuss). Life cycle analysis has shown that the best thing to do was sink it, not bring in to shore and cut it up. Do you hear green peace talking about that? The state of Pennsylvania estimates that they get as much oil as was released by the Exxon Valdez down their normal drain system every month.
All the behaviour is too entrenched now. If they want to change the world, they can go live in the forest, when we had a life expectancy of 30.
Can't tell I work for an oil company, can you
Mike