Was this a political thing for them, that they don't support these behaviors politically and so concluded after "examining" the resulting effects that behaving in this way (controlling guns or recycling) don't have the claimed effects?
I'm of the opinion that most strong advocates of recycling also aren't aware of these numbers, and more importantly, don't care, but maybe I'm wrong on that (but I doubt it from most of the conversations I've had).
Educational and stimulative efforts (through fines or rewards) have been successful in the sense that most people generally agree that being less wasteful and trying to recycle is a good idea, and know/feel that they could do more. This culture seeps into meetings, boardrooms, and annual reports, as well as laws, courts, and policing.
Yes, it's a disgusting job. But I imagine for the growing unemployed population back home in Europe that's still better than starvation.
Furthermore, I really really don't have room for three to four different garbage cans in my tiny apartment.
Gun Control - I don't remember the arguments there, other than specifically arguing against most popular arguments against the second amendment.
I mean, shit, they called the episode "environmental hysteria" and they pulled the old "dihydrogen monoxide" thing. In so many words: We found some dumb people that care about the environment, therefore if you care about the environment you're dumb.
If I remember rightly they did something on environmentalism where they mostly interviewed unwashed hippies rather than environmental scientists.
That said, their approach to these topics tends to be one of the more tolerable I've seen, as they actually have a sense of humour, unlike most ideologues.