I suspect that e.g. living in a smaller house or apartment, driving less and driving a smaller vehicle (more generally, living in an urban area with less pavement and other infrastructure per capita compared to suburbs), better insulating buildings (or constructing them with other passive heating/cooling) and scaling back the temperature control, using less hot water or heating it less, reducing water use on yards/landscaping, reducing use of energy-intensive gadgets (e.g. drying clothes on a line, using a smaller television), consuming less meat and dairy, buying local vegetables in season instead of shipped thousands of miles, and otherwise eating more canned food and recycling the cans, taking local vacations vs. traveling internationally, etc. might have more effect than explicitly trying to optimize only for quantity of personal trash generated.
One problem with our current economy is that our prices do a terrible job at signaling true costs, and the whole system is so complex that any individual person has almost no chance at guessing correctly, if trying to organize their life to reduce external impact. (So much of the price we pay is distorted by some clever company arbitraging international tax differences, cheating regulatory controls, defrauding poor countries and bribing their officials to cover it up, or dumping unlimited toxic shit in places without any oversight.)
It’s like trying to optimize code without a profiler.
As one small example, I’d love to see some kind of systemic analysis of the comparative environmental costs of ordering something online and having it delivered in a truck from a warehouse wrapped in cardboard and then recycling the cardboard vs. driving a single person in a large car to and from a store 10 miles away, including the land and energy costs of keeping inventory in the local stores, employing the cashiers, etc. Personally I little idea what the total impacts are of these two choices.