I read what I wrote and sounds good to me. May be a little harsh on this product launch, but making a point valid to me. I don't know how we got the point I imply that plastics can't be recycled, but yeah if you say so, I do imply plastics can't recycled and "that's just...".
Here "
instead of getting PC cases primarily from metal/wood/glass/paper,
which can be recycled or re-purposed, we get 99,9% plastic PC enclosure.
You have an appositive phrase declaring the indirect subjects in the dependent clause, metal/wood/glass/paper, are recyclable
unlike the direct subject of the independent clause, plastic.
Rearranging the clauses so they're not backwards.
"We get 99.9% plastic enclosure instead of getting PC cases primarily from metal/wood/glass/paper which can be recycled or repurposed."
Is it not implied that plastic cannot be recycled or repurposed?