Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making rockets reusable uses more fuel but requires more raw materials to be mined, refined, and fabricated into parts. It's a tradeoff. The chief argument for reuse is cost, not emissions.
"More fuel" is irrelevant its about pollution. You can never make parts without using a fix amount of resources and energy and if they are used they will end up as waste which is pollution too. Fuel however is just energy in a specific form. If the fuel is created with electric energy and it all comes form coal then it pollution is high but there is a clear path to reduce it down the line. There is no such path with…
Unless you quantify the marginal energy cost of carrying additional fuel payload and recovering a component, convert it to an environmental impact quantity, and compare it to the environmental impact of marginal construction, you shouldn't make claims that sound correct in your head but are not backed up by anything. There's a tradeoff and we don't know which one has greater negative externalities. Not all cost of marginal production is allocated to energy and materials.