Landfill isn't demonised. It just happens to be the worst option for most stuff.
Libertarians in the US have been landfill stans for decades because they are funded by the people who provide the inputs for non-recycled plastics, namely fossil fuels.
The only thing they hate more than recycling is single use plastic bans, again because that means less fossil fuel sales.
Ironically, their anti-recycling propaganda has been so successful that people have just started supporting outright bans. And now they have to embarrassingly suggest that bans are unnecessary because single use plastics can be recycled instead.
> Landfill isn't demonised. It just happens to be the worst option for most stuff.
This would be what to expand on. Without this, you have no foundation for the rest of your comment. I'll happily listen to why landfills are bad, I don't care about a bunch of motives and associations that rely on your audience already agreeing with you that landfills are bad to have any relevance.
That's how propaganda works. It often leads by assuming the question, skips right past it into invective and speculation about the opponents' evil motives and associations; then when the audience asks about the question you skipped, it turns to speculation about the audience's evil motives and associations.
Landfill isn't demonized, it's just bad! I'm not going to tell you why, though, I'm going to talk about the character of the people who disagree with me.
Libertarians in the US have been landfill stans for decades because they are funded by the people who provide the inputs for non-recycled plastics, namely fossil fuels.
The only thing they hate more than recycling is single use plastic bans, again because that means less fossil fuel sales.
Ironically, their anti-recycling propaganda has been so successful that people have just started supporting outright bans. And now they have to embarrassingly suggest that bans are unnecessary because single use plastics can be recycled instead.