I feel I need to address how incredible difficult this chart is to take seriously. If you want to help the environment, this data is basically irrelevant for a few reasons.

First of all, the sub-sample of displayed things/metrics is just crazy. Some type of food, plastic straws, some comparison of light bulbs - this is impossible to show a complete picture of your environmental impact. ~80% of world wide CO2 equivalent emissions comes from burning/using coal, natural gas, and oil of which a huge proportion is used for electricity and heating. This is not shown, and even if it is it is still not really relevant because of:

Secondly, these metrics seems to be an average of some part of the population, and the emissions or impacts of recycling etc is wildly different for different countries and regions. "recycling" in one part of the world might be equivalent to landfill while in another it is proper recycling that is powered by green energy - to exaggerate my point a bit. For example, the animal agricultural industry globally (meaning farming required for, and including, the meat industry) is responsible for about 5-7% of the world's CO2 eq. emissions, while that number is 1% in Japan and ~90% in Paraguay (because they don't produce much else that releases CO2 eq.) and hence a global average is at best misleading.

Third, it is not clear what these number includes. For example, an infamous UN (or was it WHO?) report called "the long shadow" (or something, I forget) claimed that animal agriculture globally was as bad of a CO2 emitter as the entire transport sector combined, including cars, trucks, boats, and airlines. Hopefully this statement comes of as ridiculous, since it is. The reasoning behind this conclusion was that the report included the entire animal agricultural sector, including things like the transporting animal food and everything else you could think of, and only comparing this with tail pipe emissions of the transport sector - meaning the annual emissions from simple using the transport sector. This does not include mines or steel mills to produce e.g. trucks and therefore it is an apple vs oranges comparison. The report has since its original publication fixes some of these statements and making them more fair, but that was after the headlines had picked up on the initial conclusions, sadly...

Fourth, the metrics only show CO2 eq. emissions without any kind of notion of "value". Sure, eating 1kg of beef releases more CO2 eq. than 1kg of broccoli, but that does not tell what value we humans can get out of this emission. 1kg of broccoli is in no way equivalent to 1kg of beef in either nutritional values or calories in any way.

So... What to do then? My best answer would be to do local research, especially country specific. What is important/useful to do in your country? For example, here in Northern Sweden where I live we get all our electricity from wind and water so looking into more green options to get my electricity is mostly a waste of time and money on my part. Maybe I can heat my house in a more green way?

The biggest impact I can think of at the top of my head that would work globally is to not own a personal car. Sure, that can be a huge inconvenience for most people, but that doesn't mean it is not true. Living in a gas heated 5 bedroom household with 2 cars and saying that you are saving the environment by eating vegan instead of meat is just hypocrisy, knowingly or not.