Leven zonder plastic

David de Rothschild's catamaran, Plastiki

A couple of years ago I drove around Oahu, the main island in Hawaii and I noticed something very disturbing.  All around the island there were plastic bag trees growing. The trees, which grew on the edge of cliffs overlooking the ocean on all sides of the island,  were covered with billowing plastic bags.

From time to time I’d stop the car and try to grab at the bags but it was not easy as the trees were often in precipitous positions.

I couldn’t help but wonder where the bags would wind up.  Surely there must be thousands flying off these trees annually.

Another sight I won’t forget is seeing plastic bags floating in the harbour of Ushuaia – the southern most port of South America. Those bags have a one way trip to Antarctica.

I’ve also discovered the destination of the Hawaiian plastic bags.

I have copied the following from the website http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-garbage-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html . The article is titled, The World’s Rubbish Dump: A tip that stretches from Hawaii to Japan by Kathy Marks and Daniel Howden.

A “plastic soup” of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said.

  The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world’s largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting “soup” stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan. 

Map of the Plastic Soup Area from http://yachtpals.com/plastiki-9041

Charles Moore, an American oceanographer who discovered the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” or “trash vortex”, believes that about 100 million tons of flotsam are circulating in the region. Marcus Eriksen, a research director of the US-based Algalita Marine Research Foundation, which Mr Moore founded, said yesterday: “The original idea that people had was that it was an island of plastic garbage that you could almost walk on. It is not quite like that. It is almost like a plastic soup. It is endless for an area that is maybe twice the size as continental United States.”

The United Nations estimates that there are more than 13,000 pieces of plastic in every square kilometre of ocean surface. They also estimate that the above floating garbage dump is about six times the size of England and that it kills a million seabirds, 100,000 sea mammals and countless fish every year.

I noticed that powerful beverage companies are bemoaning huge losses of profits because of bans against plastic bottles – notably the banning of bottled water in Bundanoon, Australia. Bundanoon was the first town in the world to replace plastic bottles with free public bubblers and drew world wide attention for their stance. As profits declined substantially, the beverage industry retaliated by producing Facebook, You Tube and Twitter items that mocked the residents of Bundanoon.

But Bundanoon is not alone its stand. The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change has stopped having bottled water delivered to its offices and discourages staff from buying new bottles. Other councils in New South Wales have also taken a stand against plastic water bottles and have installed water bubblers.

I wrote a book, the Doofuzz Dudes and the Babbling Bottles, to highlight the problems caused by disposable drinking bottles.

Doing the same thing is a very interesting man, David de Rothschild, who is the Rothschild banking heir and a committed environmentalist and adventurer.  

David de Rothschild

Sailing in his catamaran, Plastiki, David set out from San Francisco in March this year on a voyage to prove that plastic bottles can withstand the harsh conditions of the ocean. Plastiki is kept afloat by 12,500 plastic bottles. His mission is to draw attention to the fact that plastic never degrades and that every bit of plastic ever produced is still somewhere in the planet, with much of it choking the oceans and inside fish and birds after being broken into small particles by sunlight. (Read about the journey on http://www.theplastiki.com/). So sorry, but that means that your tasty dish of fish also comes with an extra serve of plastic.

Whilst on his voyage, David noted many plastic bags, bottles, lids and styrofoam containers floating past.

To take an excerpt from http://yachtpals.com/plastiki-9041

If the plastic is inert and stable, who cares? Well, recently, scientists have noticed that some very nasty chemicals, like PCB’s for example (banned in the US for over 30 years), are somehow finding their way into fish caught far out at sea. PCB’s don’t dissolve well in sea water, and they are notably heavier, so it was long thought that any PCB’s that made it to the ocean would sink out of the way (or at least become some future generation’s problem to deal with). Thus, scientists had been perplexed as to where the PCB’s are coming from. But then a new theory was put forth, and suddenly it all made sense.  

Many persistent organic pollutants like PCB’s have a high lipid solubility – meaning they’re oily, or at least can be dissolved in oily materials. If you’ve ever tried to clean spaghetti sauce or any kind of grease off of a plastic container, then you know exactly what’s going on. It seems things like the PCB’s literally stick to the porous surface of the plastics, much like stubborn cooking grease. So, instead of falling to the depths, some of the most persistent toxins man has introduced to the world are staying glued to some of the most persistent garbage we’ve ever produced, and being introduced right back into our own food chain. Put simply: Our chickens of the sea are coming home to roost! 

The way the toxins like PCB’s get into the food chain is via those plastic bits. Small fish tend to eat everything that fits into their mouths (which worked out well for hundreds of millions of years), so they eat the poisoned plastic pieces. Digestive juices and processes then break the physical bond between the PCB’s and the plastic, and introduce the PCB’s into the fish’s fatty tissues. Then the small fish are eaten by bigger fish, until the toxins from all the plastics that all those little fish ate, end up concentrated on the Mahi Mahi platter at your local restaurant. 

Don’t eat fish? Well, fish byproducts are used in livestock feed. Organic vegan? Fish emulsion is a common “natural” fertilizer. By now, you’re getting the picture: That problem way out there in the middle of the ocean is now in your refrigerator. And remember, we only looked at one kind of plastic, and one kind of toxin. It’s a big, big mess out there, and getting bigger. But the message isn’t that the sky is falling. Though we can’t yet solve the problem, we can slow its progress while we figure it out. The first step is to get the word out, and as noted: Plastiki is an attempt to do that.

David noted something else that also is of great concern –  there were hardly any fish in the sea and no marine animals. One wonders if this is because of the seas being overfished or because plastic is killing marine life. Either way, if there’s not enough fish to go around then penguins, whales, bears and birds will all be starving. Even served with a side dish of plastic, it’s still better than eating nothing!

A sea of fishing boats in Kerala, India

I also noticed when I was in Antarctica that there were not the huge numbers of marine animals passing that I had expected. I saw just one whale and no seals. All I saw were penguins and when we visited penguin breeding grounds we were told that each year their numbers had diminished.

After this year. cruise ships carrying more than 500 people will be banned from Antarctic waters. This is to avoid the possibility of oil spills but I would also feel that it would be beneficial to the penguins as surely they can’t enjoy the endless parade of gawking passersby.

But back to plastic. Fortunately, more and more supermarkets have stopped supplying plastic bags for groceries. However, how will we clean up the dreadful mess in the ocean?

Oh I know! We should find another planet with water and start again. What a shame that it seems that we were given the very best piece of real estate within cooee of our solar system and guess what? We blew it!

FACING SHARKS

The Sydney Aquarium has launched a program known as Shark IQ in an effort to diminish people’s fears about sharks.

New tracking technology, a hatchery and shark nursery have been unveiled at Darling Harbour. The NSW government and the CSIRO will track the movement of bull sharks and great white sharks along the east coast of Australia.

They are anxious to protect the grey nurse shark and the speartooth shark which are both critically endangered in Australian waters.

Maybe if there are hardly any fish left in the sea as observed by David de Rothschild, then they are all dying of starvation. That is, if they can escape the Chinese fishermen who hack off their fins for shark fin soup.

CADBURYS RETHINKS PALM OIL DECISION

I wonder if Swiss Chocolatiers would approve of palm oil as an ingredient in chocolate? I think not.  I love the way Cadbury is trying to persuade people that they made the substitute, not as a financial consideration, but with the taste buds of the consumer in mind. Ha!

It seems that chocolate lovers weren’t impressed.  It’s probably too late for the poor orangutans and other jungle dwelling animals that have already lost their homes but at least that’s one less customer for palm oil.

The following item was copied from an article on www.news.com.au -

CADBURY has caved in to pressure from outraged chocolate fanatics and pledged to remove palm oil from its Tasmanian-made blocks.

The company had tried to persuade Cadbury lovers its new recipe, replacing some cocoa butter with palm oil, would make its chocolate smoother, The Mercury reports.

But consumers were not convinced and Cadbury has been forced to apologise and revert to the original recipe, after being flooded with complaints.

“We are removing palm oil and returning to a cocoa butter only recipe for Cadbury’s entire moulded block chocolate range, including our flagship Cadbury Dairy Milk brand and product lines such as Old Gold and Dream,” Cadbury Australia managing director Mark Callaghan said yesterday.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/cadbury-removes-palm-oil/story-e6frfm1i-1225764168405#ixzz0yh2wFwar

Please watch and enjoy this awe inspiring video on TED TV by Capt. Charles Moore.  It changed the way I look at bottled water and the plastic bottle caps that don’t get recyled in our current systems.

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/capt_charles_moore_on_the_seas_of_plastic.html

Keith

(Albatross Chick after injesting plastic bottle caps from the Pacific Garbage Patch of Midway Islands)

Photo Credit: Chris Jordan Photographic Arts.  http://www.chrisjordan.com/

Image: The Independent

By Kathy Marks, Asia-Pacific Correspondent, and Daniel Howden
A “plastic soup” of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said.

The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world’s largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting “soup” stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan.

Charles Moore, an American oceanographer who discovered the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” or “trash vortex”, believes that about 100 million tons of flotsam are circulating in the region. Read the rest of this story

This is a chance for people around the world and in the United States to join together in telling President Obama that we want him to lead the United States in taking bold and significant action to reduce greenhouse gasses.

We all have a voice – use it.  Find MY VOICE HERE 

Nonfood items found inside the Albatross included;

5 Plastics Caps

1 strip of canvas

1 Wire Brush

1 metre of Monofilament

1 Pen Cap

1 Oyster Industry Spacer

2 Handfuls of Plastic

Albatros being cut open 2

►

The ocean is the life support system for our planet. It provides much of the air we breathe, much of the food we eat and serves as the basis of our ecosystem.
Degradation of this support system, caused by marine debris, climate change, overfishing, pollutants, and habitat destruction, is exacting a price we can no longer afford to pay. Our ocean cannot protect us unless it is healthy and resilient and, sadly, our ocean sick.
Sources of Marine Debris

Plastic debris originates from a wide range of sources Estimates suggest around 80% of marine debris originate from land-based sources and the
remaining 20% is from ocean-based sources.
The effect of coastal littering and dumping is compounded by vectors such as rivers and storm drains discharging litter from inland urban areas. Huge volumes of non-organic wastes, including plastics and synthetics, are produced in more developed, industrialised countries. Conversely, in less developed and more rural economies, generally a much smaller amount of these non-biodegradable persistent wastes are produced. However, in the future, as less developed countries become more industrialised, it is likely that they will also produce more plastic and synthetic wastes and this will increase further the threat of pollution of the marine environment.

Tourism related litter at the coast: this includes litter left by beach goers such as food and drink packaging, cigarettes and plastic beach toys.

Sewage Related Debris: this includes water from storm drains and combined sewer overflows which discharge waste water directly into the sea or rivers during heavy rainfall. These waste waters carry with them garbage such as street litter, condoms and syringes.
Fishing Related debris: this includes fishing lines and nets, fishing pots and strapping bands from bait boxes that are lost accidentally by commercial fishing boats or are deliberately dumped into the ocean
Waste from ships and boats: this includes rubbish which is accidentally or deliberately dumped overboard.

While the types of debris are as diverse as the products found around
the world, it all shares a common origin – people

Toxicity
Plastics may be releasing pollutants because of their original additive components. Additives like, Nonylphenols, PBDEs, Phthalates, and Bisphenol A (BPA), are added to plastic during production to catalyze monmers into polymers and give it different properties like flexibility, durability and UV resistance. Some of these chemicals are considered hormone-disrupters.
These chemicals have the potential to be released from plastics  and enter the marine environment. Additives even contaminate the foods they are designed to protect. As an example, BPA has been linked with cancer and “mimics the activity of the endocrine disrupting chemicals. New research also demonstrates that plastics absorb, transport, and desorb hydrophobic pollutants. Nonylphenols, PCBs, DDT and DDE are three of the hydrophobic
pollutants that are carried or absorbed by plastic particles and released by plastic debris

Top  10  Debris Items Collected Worldwide
2007 Ocean Conservancy’s Interantional
Coastal Clean-up

Cigarettes/cigarette filters 1,971,551
Food wrappers/containers 693,612
Caps/lids   656,612
Bags    587,827
Beverage bottles (plastic) 494,647
Cups/plates/cutlery  376,294
Beverage bottles (glass)  349,143
Cigar tips   325,893
Straws/Stirrers   324,680
Beverage Cans   208,292

Total Top 10 debris worldwide 6,088,027
Top 10 debris worldwide 7,238,201

Marine pollution is pervasive
Marine pollution is one of the most significant environmental problems facing mankind. Two thirds of the Earth is covered by interconnected oceans,making marine debris a global issue. It is found floating in all the world’s oceans, from the polar regions to the equator.

Marine debris is defined as any manmade object discarded, disposed of or abandoned that enters the coastal or marine environment. It may enter from a ship, or when washed out to sea via rivers, streams and storm drains. Since the 1960s, plastics have become the major cause of marine pollution. Our use of natural materials has been largely replaced with durable, highly  buoyant synthetic items.  Between 1960 and 2000, the world production of plastic resins increased 25-fold, while recovery of the material remained below 5%. Between 1970 and 2003, plastics became the fastest growing segment of the US municipal waste stream, increasing nine-fold, and marine litter is now 60–80% plastic, reaching 90–95% in some areas. Plastics are now used virtually
everywhere. They are durable, lightweight, cheap, and can be made into virtually anything. It is the very properties that make plastics so useful, their stability and resistance to degradation, that causes them to be so harmful when they are discarded.

60 billion tons of plastic are produced
yearly and most of this for single use

Once they enter the ocean these products – such as cigarette filters, food wrappers, beverage bottles and cans, grocery and trash bags, and fishing line, nets and gear – can travel for hundreds of thousands of miles on ocean currents, posing a threat to ocean ecosystems and wild- life along the way.

Plastics persist in the environment and do readily degrade by natural biological mechanisms. However, plastics in the ocean are weathered; broken up either mechanically or by the action of sunlight into smaller and smaller fragments. Eventually, these are  reduced to into tiny pieces the size of grains of sand.  These particles have been found suspended in seawater and on the seabed in sediments. Even such tiny particles may be causing harm to the marine environment since they are ingested by small sea creatures and may concentrate persistent organic pollutants (POPs) present in the seas.

No one knows the true length of time it will take for these plastic pieces to biodegrade, but researchers estimate that it could be several centuries. This is alarming, especially considering that 60 billion tons of plastic are being produced every year, and most of this for single use.

How long does trash take to decompose?
*A tin can that entered the ocean in
1986 is still decomposing in 2036
*A plastic bottle that entered the
ocean in 1986 is decomposing in
2436
*A glass bottle that entered the ocean
in 1986 is decomposing in year
1,001,986

Solutions
There are a number of global, international and national initiatives in place that are aimed at protecting the oceans from marine debris. The most far reaching of these is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships (MARPOL). Annex V of MARPOL was introduced in 1988 with the intention of banning the dumping of most garbage and all plastic materials from ships at sea. A total of 122 countries have ratified the treaty. There is some evidence that the implementation of MARPOL has reduced the marine debris problem but other research shows that it does not appear to have any positive impact. It must also be remembered that an estimated 80% of marine debris originates from sources on land. Even with total global compliance with MARPOL these sources would remain.Other measures to address marine debris include manual clean-up operations of shorelines and the sea floor as well as school and public education programmes. While the
above measures are important at preventing or reducing the problem of marine debris, the ultimate solution to waste prevention is to implement a responsible waste strategy, namely the concept of “Zero Waste” . Such a strategy encompasses waste reduction, reuse and recycling as well as producer responsibility and ecodesign. Ultimately, this would mean reduction of the use of plastics and synthetics such that they are only used where absolutely necessary and where they have been designed for ease of recycling within existing recovery infrastructure. It is possible that biode-
gradable plastics could be used where plastic was deemed necessary but could not be seen as an environmentally  sound alternative unless they are known to break down rapidly to non-hazardous substances in natural environ-
ments.However, the vast majority of debris cannot be removed due to its small size and abundance. By focusing efforts on urban areas, we focus on the most significant sources and conveyances of debris. Since there is no viable way to clean up the small plastic particles once they reach waterways,
especially the ocean, the best way to begin mitigating the marine debris problem is to stop the flow of debris to the marine environment.

Plastic Recycling
Only 3-5% of plastic is currently recycled. There are seven different types of plastics in general use, all of which have numbers with the recycling triangle symbol. However, of those seven, only two can actually be recycled.
Plastics with the number 1 triangle that makes up water and soda bottles, and
the number 2 triangle that is used for milk jugs, are the only plastics that can be recycled at this time. Also, recycling plastic is different from recycling other products like glass and aluminum that can be made back into the products they were before. Recycled plastics cannot be used for food again because plastic melts at low temperatures, so chemicals and residue of past contents remain in the plastic. The plastics’ molecular composition changes, its quality degrades, and the range of its usefulness shrinks.20 Plastics cannot be melted at higher temperatures because this process releases toxins into the air. So recycled plastic must be downgraded and enter items that will not normally come into contact with food products. A milk jug can not be recycled into a new milk jug unless a new layer of virgin plastic is put on the inside of the jug to protect the milk from the chemicals absorbed by the recycled plastic. Virgin plastic is cheaper to use than recycled plastic, so most manufacturers opt for the virgin material. Most of this recycled plastic becomes clothing or carpet that goes to the landfill once its second use is finished. Some of the lower quality plastic that has been ‘recycled’ is actually shipped to Asia, where it goes into landfills

The need for educational awareness
Much of the marine debris arises from conscious acts of littering or dumping by individuals. Each person throws away approximately 185 pounds of plastic per year. The natural tendency when littering is to be rid of one’s garbage as fast as possible. Once a product is purchased, then consumed, the left over bi-product becomes garbage that a person naturally seeks to rid himself or herself of as quickly as possible. If there are no garbage or recycling bins nearby, the average person will drop it after a short period of time. Plastics’ lightweight makes it prone to flying away even if it does land in a proper trash
receptacle. Providing easy access collection receptacles, thus not requiring people to make a special trip is a cost-effective
way to mitigate natural tendencies.

Communication is essential. Since human behavior is the major cause of marine debris, it is important to educate the public about the problems, so that the average person does not just drop their trash, but waits to find a garbage bin or preferably a recycling container to throw away unwanted product. The message needs to be clear and delivered in an effective way to reach the target audience. The presence of debris along shorelines can lead to serious economic problems for regions that are dependent on tourism. For example, California has a $46 billion ocean tourism industry and the trashed beaches are having a detrimental effect. The cost of removing the polluted debris reaches millions of dollars every year. Managing solid waste has high costs for both collecting it and its ultimate recycling and disposal. Reducing the wastes generated in the first place is the most cost effective means to address the issue, as less waste reduces both the costs of managing it and the chances for debris being released.

Harm to Wildlife
Countless marine animals and sea birds become entangled in marine debris or ingest it. This can cause them serious harm and often results in their death.  Marine debris which is known to cause entanglement includes derelict fishing gear such as nets and mono-filament line and also six-pack rings and
fishing bait box strapping bands. This debris can cause death by drowning, suffocation, strangulation, starvation through reduced feeding efficiency, and injuries. Particularly affected are seals and sea lions, probably due to their very inquisitive nature of investigating objects in their environment. Entangle-
ment rates in these animals of up to 7.9% of a population have been recorded. Furthermore, in some instances entanglement is a threat to the recovery of already reduced population sizes. An estimated 58% of seal and sea lion species are known to have been affected by entanglement including the Hawaiian monk seal, Australian sea lions, New Zealand fur seals and species in the Southern Ocean.

Whales, dolphins, porpoises, turtles, manatees and seabirds have all been reported to have suffered from entanglement. Many different species of whale and turtle have been reported to have been tangled in plastic. Manatees have been found with scars or missing flippers due to entanglement. 51 species of
seabirds are also known to have been effected . Derelict fishing gear also causes damage to coral reefs when nets or lines get snagged by the reef and break it off.

* Filter – feeding animals, mucous web feeding jellies and salps, are found to be heavily impacted by plastic fragments. The smaller the fragments, the fewer of them were found to be free floating, indicating that filter feeders had caught them.

* Filter feeders are at the lower end of the food chain, and fifty species of fish and many turtles are known to eat them, thus accumulating plastics in their stomachs.

* Plastic materials accumulate and concentrate organic chemicals and environmental pollutants up to one million times their concentration in the surrounding sea water.

Ingestion of Marine Debris
Ingestion of marine debris is known to particularly effect sea turtles and seabirds but is also a problem for marine mammals and fish. Ingestion is generally thought to occur because the marine debris is mistaken for prey. Most of that erroneously ingested is plastic. Different types of debris are ingested by marine animals including plastic bags, plastic pellets and fragments of plastic that have been broken up from larger items. The biggest threat from ingestion occurs when it blocks the digestive tract, or fills the stomach, resulting in malnutrition, starvation and potentially death. Studies have shown that a high proportion (about 50 to 80%) of sea turtles found dead
are known to have ingested marine debris. This can have a negative impact on turtle populations. In young turtles, a major problem is dietary dilution in which debris takes up some of the gut capacity and threatens their ability to take on necessary quantities of food. For seabirds, 111 out of 312 species are known to have ingested debris and it can affect a large percentage of a  population (up to 80%). Moreover, plastic debris is also known to be passed to the chicks in regurgitated food from their parents. One harmful effect from plastic.

Ghost Fishing
Discarded or lost fishing nets and pots can continue to trap and catch fish even when they are no longer in use. Known as ghost fishing, it can result in the capture of large quantities of marine organisms. Consequently, it has become a concern with regard to conservation of fish stocks in some areas and has resulted in economic losses for fisheries.

“The base of the marine food chain is being displaced by a non-digestible, non-nutritive component which is actually out-weighing and out-numbering the natural food. “
Charles Moore, Captain, ORV Alguita; Founder.

Potential Invasion of Alien Species
Plastic debris which floats on the oceans can act as rafts for small sea creatures to grow and travel on. Plastic can travel for long distances and therefore there is a possibility that marine animals and plants have been found in the oceans in areas remote from their source. This represents a potential threat for the marine environment should an alien species become established. It is postulated that the slow speed at which plastic debris crosses oceans makes it an ideal vehicle for this. The organisms have plenty of time to adapt to different water and climatic conditions.

The Ocean Garbage Dumps

The North Pacific Central Gyre has six times by weight more plastic particles than zooplankton exist in this location.Hence the common nickname for this region is the “Eastern Garbage Patch”, as the gyre traps and holds the trash unwittingly discarded by humans.

Many studies have been carried out in different countries and oceans estimating the quantity of plastic on beaches, the sea floor, in the water column, and on the sea surface. Most of these studies have focused on large
(macro) debris. A limited body of literature also exists concerning small to microscopic particles (micro debris). The results show that marine debris is ubiquitous in the world’s oceans and shorelines. Higher quantities are found in the tropics and in the mid-latitudes compared to areas towards the poles. It has been noted that high quantities are often found in shipping lanes, around fishing areas and in oceanic convergence zones. studies on different areas of the marine environment reported quantities of floating marine debris that were generally in the range of 0-10 items of debris per km2. Higher values were reported in the English Channel (10-100+ items/km2) and Indonesia (more than 4 items in every m2). Floating micro debris has been measured at much higher levels: the North Pacific Gyre, a debris convergence zone, was found to contain maximum levels, that when extrapolated, represent, near to a million items per square kilometre

The North Pacific Central Gyre is a convergence zone with high atmospheric pressure, thus having weak currents and winds. With little current moving the water, marine debris that has been circulating in the oceans gets caught in these gyres (six in all). The Algalita Marine Research Foundation has performed multiple studies in the North Pacific Central Gyre and has found that six times by weight more plastic particles than zooplankton exist in this location.8 Hence the common nickname for this region is the “Eastern Garbage Patch”, as the gyre traps and holds the trash unwittingly discarded by humans. Plastics have been found throughout the ocean water column. Some plastic is buoyant (it floats), some neutrally buoyant, while other plastic is heavier and sinks. The plastic particles that float will circulate through the ocean currents, often travelling great distances as can be seen from the variety of debris on various coast lines. Uninhabited islands have some of the worst marine debris problems (as in the case of Kure Atollcurrents along their borders washing up debris from inhabited places.

The seabed, especially near to coastal regions, is also contaminated predominantly with plastic bags. Plastic is also found coastlines from populous regions to the shores of very remote uninhabited islands.
Research has shown that marine debris was present on the seafloor in several locations in European waters, and also in the USA, Caribbean and Indonesia. In European waters the highest quantity recorded was 101,000 items/km2 and in Indonesia the equivalent of 690,000 items/ km2. Surveys of shorelines around the world have recorded the quantity of marine debris either as the number of items per km of shoreline or the number of items per square meter of shoreline. The highest values reported were for Indonesia (up to 29.1 items per m) and Sicily (up to 231 items per m).

Uninhabited islands have some of the worst marine debris problems just from the currents along their borders washing up debris from inhabited places.

Se ne era parlato già qualche tempo fa (anche qui nel blog), ma pare che ora di questa shoccante notizia se ne siano dimenticati tutti. Le preoccupazioni da parte degli studiosi si stanno facendo sempre più serie, così ho deciso di riproporre il post di qualche mese fa in cui parlavo di quella che possiamo definire la discarica più grande del mondo.

Gli americani la chiamano “rubbish soup” (minestrone di spazzatura) o “plastic soup” (minestrone di plastica), ma sono diversi nomi che sono stati dati a questo preoccupante fenomeno. Si tratta di un’enorme distesa di rifiuti che copre un’area addirittura doppia a quella degli Stati Uniti. L’immensa massa di spazzatura (divisa in bue grandi blocchi) viene tenuta insieme dalle correnti; un po’ galleggia finendo periodicamente sulle spiagge e un po’ si deposita sul fondale. L’enorme discarica ha inizio a circa 900 chilometri dalla costa californiana e si estende lungo l’Oceano, supera le Hawaii e sfiora pure il Giappone.

A lanciare l’allarme dalle pagine dell’Independent era stato Charles Moore, l’oceanografo americano che ha scoperto i 100 milioni di tonnellate di scarti che fanno il bagno nelle acque oceaniche. Moore, erede di una famiglia di petrolieri, si era imbattuto per caso in questa enorme distesa di rifiuti mentre navigava a margine di una regata. “Per una settimana – ha detto – mi sono ritrovato in mezzo a un mare di immondizia. Come avevamo potuto insozzare un’area così gigantesca?“. Sconvolto dalla scoperta, Moore vendette le sue partecipazioni nell’impero di famiglia e divenne un ambientalista militante.  Gli esperti, però, sono a conoscenza del fenomeno già dalla fine degli anni ’80 (QUI).

Pare che circa un quinto della spazzatura arriva lì perché gettato dalle navi, il resto giunge dalla terraferma. A preoccupare maggiormente è la smisurata quantità di plastica perché si degrada difficilmente. Ci si trova di tutto: palloni da football, mattoncini del Lego, siringhe, accendini… e una quantità enorme di buste di plastica. La discarica marina è iniziata a formarsi oltre mezzo secolo fa ed è sconvolgente sapere che ogni pezzo di plastica finito lì dagli anni ‘50 ad oggi è imprigionato ancora nell’enorme “minestrone”.

La plastica galleggiante provoca ogni anno la morte di migliaia di mammiferi marini e di circa un milione di uccelli, ma rappresenta un rischio anche per la salute dell’uomo. Alcuni minuscoli pezzetti di plastica, infatti, assorbono agenti inquinanti (ad esempio, idrocarburi e pesticidi) che poi entrano in diversi modi nella catena alimentare. ”Ciò che cade nell’Oceano finisce dentro agli animali e prima o poi nel nostro piatto”, ha detto Marcus Eriksen, direttore dell’istituto di ricerca che sta analizzando il fenomeno.

Insomma, abbiamo trasformato l’Oceano Pacifico in un contenitore per la raccolta della plastica, ma la produzione di materiali plastici (e di rifiuti in genere) non accenna a diminuire. Quando impareremo a rispettare l’ambiente e noi stessi producendo meno plastica (e meno rifiuti in genere) e a riciclare?

The size of the problem: Plastic rubbish, referred to as “rubbish soup” or “trash vortex”, which has been accumulated in the sea for decades, has created two floating continents up to twice the size of USA in the middle of the Pacific ocean, and continues to grow at an alarming rate. Plastic is not biodegradable and cannot be digested, so it stays around forever. It does however break up into smaller pieces as the result of exposure to sun’s rays (or photodegrade) and after that, causes untold environmental harm.

Where does it come from? Around 20% of the floating “soup” comes from rubbish discarded from ships and oil platforms, with the rest coming from land.

How it was discovered: Because the debris are translucent, to a great extent broken up into small pieces and float just below the surface, they are invisible to satellites. Bizarre as it seems, it was discovered only by chance in 1997 by an americal oceanographer Charles Moore who was taking a shortcut home after a yacht race and literally sailed into the Eastern rubbish patch. He says that this was an ocean he had never known:

There were shampoo caps and soap bottles and plastic bags and fishing floats as far as I could see. Here I was in the middle of the ocean, and there was nowhere I could go to avoid the plastic

He ended up sailing through it for a week and said that the rubbish float probably went on for hundreds of miles. It was then estimated that the size of the patch was the size of Texas and was going to double in size in the next decade.

Why the Pacific? A combination of Pacific currents sitting underneath a stable high atmospheric pressure system with very light winds (also called the Gyre), typical of the Pacific ocean’s natural rhythm, cause the the “soup” to accumulate during the winter months in two areas of the ocean, so that it reaches its maximum density by spring. Changing currents then disperse it so that some of it is washed ashore in great quantities, small pieces creating plastic dunes, large pieces visible to an untrained eye.

Environmental impact: The “soup” is causing harm in several ways:

• It is highly concentrated (outnumbering plankton by up to 6 times and rising) and can be broken up into small pieces. Birds mistake plastic for edible things and pick out large amounts of it, later dying of malnutrition, blocked digestion, or getting slowly poisoned as the result
• As plastic breaks down further and further, it enters the food chain of the entire living ocean and gets into the human food chain
• Particularly dangerously, huge masses of tiny plastic pellets called nurdles – the raw materials of the plastics industry – are lost or spilled every year. They are likened to chemical sponges that attract dangerous chemicals like pesticide DDT, which also enters every living creature’s the food chain. Consequences include cancer, obesity, infertility, immunity problems, and many other nasties.

Algalita Foundation: Charles Moore was so alarmed by his discovery that he set up a non-profit organisation Algalita Marine Research foundation dedicated to protection of the marine environment through research, education and restoration.

What can be done by us: To stop the plastic soup from getting any larger, we need to change the way we think about plastic in our daily lives.

The easiest-to-do things include:

• Use canvas or recycled bags for your shopping
• Use items packaged in metal, glass, or paper packaging – instead of plastic
• Spread the word! Not everyone is aware of the dangers of plastics
• Speak to manufacturers and ask them – why do they still use non-biodegradable packaging? There are plenty of much greener alternatives out there and people want to see these used.

It’s a call for action. It is up to us to make the change, and demand a corresponding change in the attitudes of industry and commerce.

For more information about Algalita, check out this site

http://www.algalita.org/

Sapete dove si trova la più grande discarica del Mondo? I più maliziosi avranno già esclamato Napoli, invece si tratta di un luogo insospettabile: l’Oceano Pacifico (QUI la notizia).

Gli americani la chiamano “rubbish soup” (minestrone di spazzatura) o “plastic soup” (minestrone di plastica). Si tratta di un’enorme distesa di rifiuti che copre un’area addirittura doppia a quella degli Stati Uniti. L’immensa massa di spazzatura (divisa in bue grandi blocchi) viene tenuta insieme dalle correnti, un po’ galleggia finendo periodicamente sulle spiagge e un po’ si deposita sul fondale. L’enorme discarica ha inizio a circa 900 kilometri dalla costa californiana e si estende lungo l’Oceano, supera le Hawaii e sfiora pure il Giappone.

A lanciare l’allarme dalle pagine dell’Independent è Charles Moore, l’oceanografo americano che ha scoperto i 100 milioni di tonnellate di scarti che fanno il bagno nelle acque oceaniche. Moore, erede di una famiglia di petrolieri, si era imbattuto per caso in questa enorme distesa di rifiuti mentre navigava a margine di una regata. “Per una settimana – ha detto – mi sono ritrovato in mezzo a un mare di immondizia. Come avevamo potuto insozzare un’area così gigantesca?“. Sconvolto dalla scoperta, Moore vendette le sue partecipazioni nell’impero di famiglia e divenne un ambientalista militante. Con i soldi ricavati fondò la Algalita Marine Research Foundation, una fondazione per la ricerca sugli ecosistemi marini.

Pare che circa un quinto della spazzatura arriva lì perché gettato dalle navi, il resto giunge dalla terraferma. A preoccupare maggiormente è la smisurata quantità di plastica perché si degrada difficilmente. Ci si trova di tutto: palloni da football, mattoncini del Lego, siringhe, accendini… e una quantità enorme di buste di plastica. La discarica marina è iniziata a formarsi oltre mezzo secolo fa ed è sconvolgente sapere che ogni pezzo di plastica finito lì dagli anni ’50 ad oggi è imprigionato ancora nell’enorme “minestrone”.

La plastica galleggiante provoca ogni anno la morte di migliaia di mammiferi marini e di circa un milione di uccelli, ma rappresenta un rischio anche per la salute dell’uomo. Alcuni minuscoli pezzetti di plastica, infatti, assorbono agenti inquinanti (ad esempio, idrocarburi e pesticidi) che poi entrano in diversi modi nella catena alimentare. ”Ciò che cade nell’Oceano finisce dentro agli animali e prima o poi nel nostro piatto”, ha detto Marcus Eriksen, direttore della ricerca della Algalita Marine Research.

Insomma, abbiamo trasformato l’Oceano Pacifico in un contenitore per la raccolta della plastica, ma la produzione di materiali plastici (e di rifiuti in genere) non accenna a diminuire. Quando impareremo a rispettare l’ambiente e noi stessi producendo meno plastica (e meno rifiuti in genere) e a riciclare?

The last few days have afforded me a chance for reflection on the incredible journey I have been on.  Whilst on the plane back to Tokyo for the very short 8 hour flight I spent a lot of time looking out the window.  Seeing the breathtaking blueness of the ocean blending into the sky from above led me to contemplate the 28 days it took to reach Hawaii.  I looked down on the waves and wondered if it would be possible to spot the Sea Dragon from this height.    For me the whole journey was an unbelievable experience.

We witnessed Mother Nature at her best and her… um … most interesting.  Stunning sunsets and sunrises, a full moon, the Milky Way shining so bright, dolphins playing alongside the boat, magnificent albatross gliding above, glorious sunshine, gale force winds, stinging rain, howling wind, whales, peace, quiet, isolation and incredible beauty; we had it all and more.

Every day on each daylight watch we had to do one hour timed observations.  It was both one of my favourite and saddest hours.  Sitting back to back with a friend at the front of the boat, each looking out to the water beyond we recorded everything we saw.  Being able to spend 1-2hrs a day just staring at the middle of the ocean was a privilege.  Witnessing the myriad blues or greys was such a pleasure.  But it was very sobering noting the progress of the boat by the amount of plastic that was floating past in what should be a pristine environment.  Over the weeks we documented more than 700 pieces of plastic, which translated into a piece of plastic floating by every 3 and a half minutes!  60 odd years of disposable plastic has left this legacy.  We saw toothbrushes, water bottles, shampoo bottles, cigarette lighters, Styrofoam pieces, broken buckets, crates, buoys, nets and ropes, bottle lids, containers small & large and hundreds of unidentifiable fragments.  I thought of the path we took across the Pacific Ocean and how insignificantly narrow the swath of water we sailed through was.  Indubitably the ocean is so vast and the findings from our expedition were in my thoughts as we flew over the thousands of miles we had navigated.  To put our results into perspective with the minute fraction of the ocean we surveyed is almost unimaginable.  We can still only guess at how much plastic is out there but we do know that this amount must be huge.   Sadly, the visible surface plastic is not the worst part.

Every sub-surface trawl we did contained plastic.  There were coloured micro fragments, nurdles and larger pieces trapped in the net amongst the fish, jellies and other marine life.  One of our last trawls contained the most amount of plastic and possibly the least amount of marine life, the sample contained hundreds of pieces of coloured plastic.  This was truly the infamous plastic soup.

The terrible thing is that there is no way we can clean up this mess we have already created.  We cannot sieve the entire ocean to remove this we can only work on ways to stop our addiction to plastic and try and stem the flow of plastics that make their way into the ocean everyday making this problem worse.  It needs to be a joint action from everyone; individuals, families, schools, businesses, industry and government.  We all need to work together to reduce our plastic consumption and change our purchasing attitudes, that is basically the bottom line.

In my first entry on disposable plastics I roughly identified two types of disposable plastics, one being all the single-use packaging/holding/utensil products we use, the second being micro plastics or ‘micro beads’. Micro beads are a fairly recent (and growing) new application of plastics, primarily used as abrasive and fiber ingredient in a range of cosmetics products, soaps, eye lash enhancers, toothpaste, hair-gel, bathing gel and what not.

my three products with plastic as ingredient

Going through my own grooming ‘range’ I quickly identified three products, ELMEX Sensitive toothpaste, containing Polyethylene (PE), L’Oreal Techni Art Glue structurising fiber gel, containing VP / VA ((VinylPyrrolidone/Vinyl Acetate), and L’Oreal Studio Out of Bed fixating fiber cream, containing PVP (Polyvinylpyrrolidone). Imagine, brushing your teeth with plastics ….. big no-no for me. Won’t be using that one any more.

I’m mentioning ELMEX and L’Oreal not to single them out, many other cosmetics manufacturers include polymers in their product, they just happen to be in my personal grooming pallet. Happened, to be exact.

In exploring directions for solutions I’d like to come back to the material -, product –, and use characteristics (and the combination of the three) I mentioned in my first blog entry. I will also discuss that these characteristics will need to be considered in relation to the environment or ecosystem they reside in.

Material -, Product -, and Use Characteristics

Starting with the product – and use characteristics we are talking about products in liquid form that are used for grooming purposes, for example exfoliation, brushing teeth, or modeling hair. Typically these are products that are single use, and at some point end up in your bathroom – or shower sink and into the sewage system.

elmex sensitive - one example from my grooming 'range'

Research[1] has established that micro beads are already present in the marine environment. The North Sea Foundation (Stichting De Noordzee) funded research by the Institute for Environmental Studies on identifying micro plastics in three samples of North Sea water. The outcome was positive. The research paper can be downloaded from their website (in Dutch). Also on their website you can find a list of products containing micro plastics or micro beads. Look at: http://www.noordzee.nl/productenlijst-microplastics/ (also in Dutch).

Fendall and Sewell[2] identified that on average each household uses one or two products containing micro plastics or micro beads (I already beat this average….) . They also identify the particle size of these plastics to be small enough firstly to not be picked up in any water/sewage purification plant and secondly to start accumulating into plankton (who feed by filtering water). You may know that plankton stands at the bottom of our food chain, so eventually we also find plastic particles back in the fish on our dinner plate.

When considering the material characteristics of polymers, research on the effects of micro plastics exposure is limited. While the internet provides plenty of ‘proof’ suggesting these products are ‘not suspect’, these same sources also indicate so-called ‘data gaps’, where further research is needed or where available research may indicate certain toxicity effects.

polyethylene (PE) as ingredient of the toothpaste

Other research[3] has been done though on the uptake of small micro plastics in human lymph -, heart -, and vascular systems. Smaller micro plastics particles are shown to be able to ‘contaminate’ the human fetus[4]. Further research has been done on the uptake of micro plastics into the marine environment, like lobster[5], blue mussel[6], and mussels and oysters[7]. Plenty of research done, but given the complexity of the topic (plastics and it’s effects on human health and ecosystems) much remains to be discovered.

The conclusion could be that we do not have the full picture of the effects of micro beads on ecosystems and human health. It has been established though that the marine ecosystem has been contaminated with these persistent inorganic polymers, and that the human body is susceptible for uptake of these materials (either direct or through food chain contamination). Toxicity is ‘not suspected’ according to some research and institutes, however ‘data gaps’ in research do exist.

Given the available information, common sense and the precautionary principle would indicate that introducing plastics into the natural environment is not desirable by any standard.

It’s the materials level!

In the previous paragraph I established that product – and use characteristics offer no leads for resolution. Because of the product (liquid) and use (single use, ends up in the sink) it is not effective to invest time in ‘closing loops’. For micro beads in cosmetics and grooming products the issue (and it’s solution) really lies on the materials level, and should be addressed there.

In the short-term I believe substitution of micro beads for natural materials is the only way to effectively address the ecosystem – and potential health risks. And this is not impossible. In fact, micro beads replaced perfectly natural products like pumice, roughly grained oatmeal, and apricot or walnut husks during the late 90’s. Replaced because of cost advantages of up to a factor 10. Let’s substitute (back)!

With this notion I’m not saying we should stop using micro beads all together, I’m only making the point not to use it as ingredient in these cosmetic products, where the product chain cannot be closed effectively and the material itself is a pollutant. If responsible recycling can be ensured (for instance recycling of micro beads in pillows) the risk is much reduced.

License to Operate

The introduction of product responsibility will need to require product manufacturers to apply the precautionary principle and carefully consider the combination of material -, product -, and ‘use’ characteristics. Product – and chain – design should facilitate either (1) recycling in a technological chain or (2) a positive impact within the biological chain.

Designing for a positive impact within the biological chain, i.e. to design the ecosystem and ‘facilitate’ biodiversity is a huge task and complex to accomplish. Impact assessment is a challenging new area of expertise and knowledge to be discovered, as measuring impact not only depends on understanding material -, product -, and use characteristics. Positive impact depends on the product in relation to the location in which it is used. Understanding location and scales of impact will be key to developing ‘good’ products in the future. In my view, environmental awareness understood in this way will be key for companies moving forward.

In the case of micro plastics as ingredients in cosmetics products there is little that can be done to create a closed technological loop. It flushes through the sink. Hence I think the action here should be on substitution at a material level.

Who should act?

The question remains, whether it can be left up to companies to make a (partly ethical) common sense evaluation of whether it is in the long-term public interest to use these types of ingredients in cosmetics products.

This week I found myself questioning the compatibility of liberal market economy with sustainable behavior. I was listening to a speech of the Head of Corporate Sustainability of AKZO Nobel. Interesting speech but towards the end he made a plea for politics to get moving on creating and enhancing a ‘level playing field’ for sustainable development. I found the remark rather out-of-order.

This kind of  ‘old school’ thinking may work in the short run, with government requiring the substitution of plastics from cosmetics products. However, frameworks and laws will always be too little too late. It’s always about trying to put fences around ‘the unwanted side-effects’. What if we focus our attention more on having a positive influence?

Consumer platforms (like ‘Nudge’ in The Netherlands) can play a key role in creating consumer awareness, changing lifestyle, and helping product manufacturers recognizing the alternative business opportunity. Would you substitute your plastic – for a natural hair gel if it would cost 10 cents or so more, but is not causing cost to explode down the line, because we need to clean-up the mess in our oceans? I would and am! This is a medium term effect though.

In the long run though companies will need to start recognizing both their dependency and impact on natural ecosystems. The introduction of product responsibility, i.e. designing the product chain in terms of material -, product -, and use characteristics in relation to location is an important step towards this end. This also means that the same product in different locations may be good or bad. The world is NOT homogeneous, even if our liberalized markets would love it to be. Some companies are starting to understand this relationship, also because for some loss of biodiversity and pollution actually hurts the bottom line. I can only hope more companies will gain the same understanding.

In my next blog entry I will be focusing on the other category of disposable plastics, the single-use packaging/holding/utensil products and explore some of the options for short-term and long-term actions.

Related articles

• Disposable Plastics: Single Use, ‘Eternal’ Waste (design2sustain.eu)
• Europe Thinks Nanoparticles Need More Tests (bellasugar.com)
• What’s in toothpaste? (mnn.com)
• Accumulating ‘microplastic’ threat to shores (chaikadai.wordpress.com)