It's a violation of HN etiquette to accuse people not not reading the articles.
Apparently the companies use artful language to imply certain processes without specifically naming them:
"All three companies make green promises on their websites and in promotional videos, using buzzwords like "sustainability" and "environmental solutions." One Waste Connections video goes as far as to say, "sustainability and becoming more green … have been hallmarks and backbones of Waste Connections from the day we formed the company."
But if any company specifically contracted for recycling and did not recycle, it is a breach of contract with possible repercussions.
Recycling requires that the materials return to the market at a certain point, but it does not require a short window of time between collection and processing of materials.
This is where some creative lawyering can go a long way: if you can say that you're going to process it at some indefinite point in the future, you're not comitting fraud unless the contract defines an specific time limit, specific technical processes, and an specific destination for the processed materials.
I don't think commercial contracts that meet all these criteria are viable at scale.
You can defend a position without snidely representing other positions, similar or opposite to yours, but if you choose to make so, make sure you've correctly named your target.
It's a direct 1 to 1 reduction in oil usage.
Burning plastic is what we should be doing.
And I suppose pumping co2 into the atmosphere is to keep future generations nice and warm? And we're helpfully clearing the rainforests for them too.