Plastics Pollution in Our Oceans . . .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

So LE people should only try to study or address one thing at a time?

Nope. Just a little depressed at our capacity for really f#@king stuff up.

[ParL]

[QUOTE=Lake-Effect;3636432]It seems that whenever that claim is made, what's really being said is "YOUR science is biased", or more simply "science is biased". The people claiming this are usually doing so in an effort to discredit or deny some significant scientific finding, while attempting to shore up a weak or nonexistent contrary position. Tribalism trumps truth. (neat, huh? Put that on a T-shirt)
[/QUOTE}


Having been a research scientist I can say that the ones doing biased research for some interest group (e.g. the ones still "proving" that tobacco is harmless, climate change does not exist (or at least is due to anything but human action), etc) are generally pretty obvious to those inside the particular sub-field, and ignored. Once you look at study design, what other literature they cite and how, and hos they interpret their data there is not much credibility left. But there is good money to be had if you can stomach it.



But science is expensive, most of us can understand how costly lugging a few hundred kg of specialist kit to Antarctica and back would be, with a team to run it. Or "just" outfit a lab that may have kit for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Plus a team of specialists. So one need to collect those funds from somewhere, the two main ones being various public agencies (e.g. the NIH for bio-medical field) or the charitable orgs, large and small. Industry have lots of money, but they often either (a) want a particular answer (see above) or (b) tend to prefer sponsoring the last steps that gets things ready for sale. Example for the latter would be to test drug candidates or particular niches of physiology that is of interest in drug design. By the way, the public ones may have policies that give priority to certain fields, or de facto bans on things that go against public health, but not really directions for expected results.

Since 2022 has brought us staggering inflation and now the threat of widespread famine, there's probably more immediate and pressing things to address than microplastics.

That is the big problem with long term problems like climate change: they spend decades being "important but less urgent than...", and now is is larger and more important: fairly minor adjustments from the 1980s on would have done wonders, but were seen as "too expensive" then: now nothing short of massive adjustments will mitigate it.



And science is like boat work. You can say that this boat is with huge margins ready for a non-stop circumnavigation, but there are still things that you can work on or improve. The fact that people argue the merits if different antifouls does not mean that antifoul may be unnecessary, nor does the fact that I do not need it in a northern fresh water lake invalidate the need in the tropics. But if I really wanted to I could make a (stupid) argument that since there are huge disagreements on types, and there are several cases where people get by fine without, there is therefore no reason to be alarmist and use it for my Pacific crossing before the science is settled...



And I don't think anyone knows for sure how big a problem microplastics will turn out to be, But I have seen no serious arguments for "harmless".

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by ParL

...But science is expensive, most of us can understand how costly lugging a few hundred kg of specialist kit to Antarctica and back would be, with a team to run it. Or "just" outfit a lab that may have kit for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Plus a team of specialists. So one need to collect those funds from somewhere, the two main ones being various public agencies (e.g. the NIH for bio-medical field) or the charitable orgs, large and small. Industry have lots of money, but they often either (a) want a particular answer (see above) or (b) tend to prefer sponsoring the last steps that gets things ready for sale. Example for the latter would be to test drug candidates or particular niches of physiology that is of interest in drug design. By the way, the public ones may have policies that give priority to certain fields, or de facto bans on things that go against public health, but not really directions for expected results.

Are you making the case that all science IS biased (therefore untrustworthy), or that scientific research should be as independent as possible, with stable and sufficient arms-length funding? I'm hoping the latter.

...
I don't think anyone knows for sure how big a problem microplastics will turn out to be, But I have seen no serious arguments for "harmless".

I totally agree that plastic pollution is a problem that must be addressed. Taking a wider view, all the slow-motion catastrophes - human-made or caused pollution, loss of forest and other natural habitat, agricultural monocultures, accelerating extinctions and loss of biodiversity, extreme dependence on cheap fossil-fuels, the resulting alterations to climate, etc... it's all one problem: ever-increasing exploitation and consumption without regard for the consequences, and ignoring the reality that we are now bumping up against the limits of the planet's finite resources, and its ability to withstand the growing demands and insults we put on it.

So, do we on CF actually care about plastic pollution? Welp most of us are here are owners and operators of big globs of plastic... but boats are a drop in the bucket compared to other plastic consumption. And I recall some members of CF going apesh!t over a proposed ban on plastic straws.

And I'm sure you'll agree that the recent more immediate crises - surging energy costs, a looming food crisis (droughts, Ukraine wheat, transportation costs, inflation, etc), playing footsie with WW III, and more locally the US drifting towards civil war... it's kind of distracting.

[Bycrick]

Like every human endeavor, science is always biased. The people who supply the funding are not going to give someone money to prove that the supplier of funds is greedy, dangerous, should be put out of business, should be thrown out of office, etc. Everybody has an axe to grind, all the time. So, one shouldn’t take anything on faith alone.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Like every human endeavor, science is always biased...
... So, one shouldn’t take anything on faith alone.

Especially unsupported general rants that claim: "Everybody has an axe to grind, all the time."

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nope. Just a little depressed at our capacity for really f#@king stuff up.

Oh we’re really good at that top shelf

[GordMay]

Canadians will need to find alternatives for hard-to-recycle, [but have easy alternatives] plastic straws, takeout containers, grocery bags, cutlery, stir sticks, and plastic rings, used to hold six cans or bottles together, by the end of the year, as the federal government puts the final motions in place, to ban some single-use plastics.

In October 2020, the Canadian government designated manufactured plastics as toxic, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That designation was needed, before any items could be banned.
A coalition of plastics makers sued the government, over the designation, in May 2021, with the case expected to be heard sometime this year.

“Economic Study of the
CANADIAN PLASTIC INDUSTRY, MARKETS AND WASTE”
More about ➥ https://www.shakeuptheestab.org/clim...canada%2C-2019

The study ➥ https://publications.gc.ca/collectio...1-2019-eng.pdf

[GordMay]

On June 22, 2022, the Government of Canada will publish the Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II.
In advance of publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, the regulatory text is provided below. This page will be updated with links to the official publication when they become available on June 22, 2022.
Regulatory text ➥ https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...gulations.html

Overview ➥ https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...-overview.html

[GordMay]

INC-4 Plastics Pollution Treaty Negotiations

A week of negotiations kicks off Tuesday [April 23 - 29, 2024], as representatives from 176 countries, descend on Ottawa, to tackle global challenges, posed by plastics.
INC-4, as the Canada-based session is called, is expected to host more than 4,200 participants, making it the most attended session since INC-1 kick-started negotiations in Uruguay in November 2022.

The fourth, and penultimate instalment of talks, tees up a final session [INC-5], later this year [late November?], in Busan, Korea, where parties hope to sign onto a binding international treaty, on plastic pollution.

To date, negotiations have amounted to a bulky 69-page draft treaty [1]. Negotiators will now work to whittle that text down, to a list of core issues. Succeeding at that, will be key to scoring a global treaty, at the final session.

The UNEP estimates [2] that, without action, nearly a fifth of the world's shrinking carbon budget — the emissions allowance to keep warming under 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels — will be taken up by plastic production and use by 2040.

A core group of 60 countries*, including Canada, have established the High Ambition Coalition [HAC] to End Plastic Pollution, and aiming to end plastic pollution by 2040. [3]

[1] “Intergovernmental negotiating committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. Fourth session Ottawa, 23–29 April 2024
Item 4 of the provisional agenda” ~ by United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]
➥ https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/ha...oDraftText.pdf

[2] “Our planet is choking on plastic” ~ UNEP
➥ https://www.unep.org/interactives/be...tic-pollution/

[3] “End Plastic Pollution by 2040" ~ by The High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution
➥ https://hactoendplasticpollution.org/#

*HAC Member States [some notable States missing]
Rwanda
Norway
Canada
Peru
Germany
Senegal
Georgia
Republic of Korea
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Portugal
Chile
Denmark
Finland
Sweden
Costa Rica
Iceland
Ecuador
France
The Dominican Republic
Uruguay
Ghana
Monaco
Slovenia
The United Arab Emirates
Republic of Ireland
The Netherlands
Belgium
Luxembourg
Cape Verde
Burkina Faso
Australia
Azerbaijan
Colombia
Austria
Greenland
Jordan
Panama
Mali
New Zealand
Bulgaria
Montenegro
Cook Islands
Mexico
Guinea
Antigua and Barbuda
Armenia
Maldives
Federated States of Micronesia
Nigeria
Romania
Gabon
Japan
Mauritius
Spain
Estonia
Palau
Israel
Togo
Solomon Islands
Malawi
Moldova
European Union
Seychelles
Benin

[GordMay]

A new study [1], based on audits of plastic pollution, in 84 countries, over a five-year period [2018 - 2022], documenting the scourge of plastic waste, around the world, has found that more than half of branded plastic pollution can be traced back to just 56 companies.

More than 20 per cent of all branded pollution is linked to four brands: The Coca-Cola Company (11 per cent), PepsiCo (five per cent), Nestlé (three per cent) and Danone (two per cent).

They found that 50% of items had no discernible branding, after being exposed to the sun, water, and air.

The researchers said their study highlights the need for greater transparency, about the production, and labelling, of plastic products, and packaging, to make it easier to track pollution, and hold companies accountable.
Earlier this week, Canada announced a new registry [2], that would require companies to provide details, on how much plastic is being produced, and where it ends up.

The study also notes that the production of plastic doubled, from 200 million tonnes in 2000, to 400 million tonnes in 2019.

The study comes as representatives, from 176 countries gather in Ottawa, for a summit on how to reduce plastic waste. [see previous post #159]

Plastic waste is often painted as a consumer problem, that can be solved with improved recycling.
But, only nine per cent of all plastics are recycled. The rest end up in landfills, or the wider environment.


[1] “Global producer responsibility for plastic pollution” ~ by Win Cowger et al
➥ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj8275


[2] “The Government of Canada requires producers to take more responsibility for the plastic they put on the market” ~ Environment and Climate Change Canada
➥ https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...he-market.html


See also:
“Categorization of plastic debris on sixty-six beaches of the Laurentian Great Lakes, North America” ~ by Ian A Arturo and Patricia L Corcoran
➥ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/ac5714

[GordMay]

A project, that helps prevent plastic pollution from entering Lake Superior, and Thunder Bay's local waterways, is receiving $45,000 in Ontario funding [1].

The project, a new partnership between EcoSuperior and the City of Thunder Bay, includes installing LittaTraps [2] Catch Basin Insert/Filters, in storm drains, across the city.

The devices will be placed at city parks, waterfront areas and parking lots. They work to identify and address plastic pollution hotspots, by capturing small fragments of plastics (microplastics), before they enter marine ecosystems.

Lake Superior is the world's largest freshwater lake, providing drinking water for Thunder Bay, and the wider region. However, more than 70,000 pounds (over 31,000 kilograms) of plastic debris end up in the lake, each year, according to a 2022 report [3] by the American Chemical Society [ACS].

[1] “Ontario Community Environment Fund” ➥ https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-...&utm_term=medi

[2] “LittaTrap” Catch Basin Insert *
➥ https://www.enviropod.com/en-ca/products/littatrap

[3] “Microplastics in the Great Lakes: Environmental, Health, and Socioeconomic Implications and Future Directions” ~ by Claire Fuschi et al, for ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.
➥ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c02896


* The EnviroPod LittaTrap is designed for 100% capture, of plastic and litter 5mm and larger.
Scientists categorize degraded plastic waste products by size. Microplastics are tiny particles less than than five millimetres in diameter, or about the size of a sesame seed.
Nanoplastics are flecks too small to be noticed by the human eye with diameters of less than a billionth of a meter or a nanometer. By comparison, a sphere with a diameter of one nanometre is as small relative to a softball as a softball is to the Earth.