Microplastics in the sea

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by TigerPaws

Sorry to be the barer of bad news but the world has a 500 year supply of oil and natural gas even at the expected 2050 usage. New fields, extremely deep deposits the Artic, Antarctic are but a few of the areas to be developed. The deep sea beds around the Falklands have more oil and natural gas than the North Sea Deposits originally had, then there is the Spratly Islands China and Japan want so badly. The basic estimate is that there is a 300 year supply for all of China's expected needs.

The world is awash in oil especially around 15,000' deep. I am sorry to say that as long as there is money to be made and power to be had we will be using fossil fuels for any foreseeable future.

SeaQuest OE II

That's great. Takes the worry out of things.

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

As a side issue, this thread has had a lot of views. Almost 12,000. If, out of that - 2,000 different people have read it, and half of them were to raise some general awareness with a friend or 2 - and then so on, further down the line - it might help to draw some more independent attention to the issue.

People can make up their own minds, however that may be. If there is one thing this issue needs - it's some actual attention.

I generally do not have an issue with products that are biodegradable but please let us be honest, look around you what is truly biodegradable or for than matter recyclable. My Carbon Fiber vessel is not recyclable, nor are my sails, most of the stainless could be but at what cost and what about the Teak woodwork or the curtains/blinds.

While recycling is a worthy idea in reality it is not cost efficient to be workable.

SeaQuest OE II

[Hardhead]

I agree - it's not realistic at all. That's why I think biodegradable, or inert, single-use packaging is the only practical, real world, solution - when available. Many products and base materials are much more inert to begin with. That solution is available with single-use packaging. (a.k.a. ask the 1950's)

There's always the careless idiots - that will always chuck it on the ground. It can stay there.

[TigerPaws]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

I agree - it's not realistic at all. That's why I think biodegradable single-use packaging is the only practical solution - when available. Many products and materials are much more inert to begin with. That solution is available with single-use packaging. (a.k.a. ask the 1950's)

There's always the careless idiot - that will always chuck it on the ground.

I agree some things can be changed, but there is always a price to pay, use more paper and we need to cut down more trees, Oh and the mfg process to make paper products is nasty and energy intensive. Ok we could revamp the packaging to use less of everything, over packaging is one of my pet peeves but then there will be more theft and idiots licking the ice cream or poising the Tylenol we take. There will always be something that will demand more packaging of the products we buy.

There is no single solution and without an international binding agreement nothing will change, who will enforce the agreement(s)? The UN (united nothing)?

Lastly there is the ultimate polluter War and like is or not, believe it or not there is another War coming and it will be brutal. All of the environmentalism will be forgotten.

SeaQuest OE II

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by TigerPaws

I agree some things can be changed, but there is always a price to pay, use more paper and we need to cut down more trees, Oh and the mfg process to make paper products is nasty and energy intensive. Ok we could revamp the packaging to use less of everything, over packaging is one of my pet peeves but then there will be more theft and idiots licking the ice cream or poising the Tylenol we take. There will always be something that will demand more packaging of the products we buy.

There is no single solution and without an international binding agreement nothing will change, who will enforce the agreement(s)? The UN (united nothing)?

Lastly there is the ultimate polluter War and like is or not, believe it or not there is another War coming and it will be brutal. All of the environmentalism will be forgotten.

SeaQuest OE II

I completely agree with you - with regard to the opportunity costs of the various alternate solutions to pervasive microplastic contamination - arising after just 30-40 years of non-biodegradable, single-use, plastic packaging - as an ongoing choice. Microplastic contamination is steadily increasing - and forecast to increase dramatically higher, in the future. Microplastic contamination has proven to increase in the environment, but never goes away.

I believe the problem is that we are beginning to live in denial - of new and troubling facts. Just as there is a environmental and economic cost to the alternate choice of packaging some products or liquids with cardboard or waxed products - there is a corresponding cost we are, in fact, incurring due to non-biodegradable, single-use, plastic packaging. These environmental and economic costs must be compared to one another - and a decision made. For example, my understanding of the manufacturing process for paper products - is that the desire to bleach paper pulp white, is a significant factor in the environmental effect. Why would that be strictly necessary? How were the same products packaged in the 1950's? - it certainly seemed to work great at that time. There was no microplastic contamination then - as there is now - after only 30 years of the new, never disappearing, turn plastic packaging into environmental trash idea.

It's comforting news that we have now located enough "new" oil to last 500 additional years - despite incredibly high predictions of vastly increased burning of oil - in the future plan. I'd respectfully submit it's the capitalistic ingenuity & profit motive - that have now allowed us to locate oil (3) miles down into the earth - after having exhausted all convenient supplies less than 3 miles down. That same ingenuity, and profit motive - can & would help us discover new packaging choices beyond the 1930's milk carton. As environmentally friendly as that old choice was - science can now do better - I'd bet. I'd also bet they can do better on energy sources too.

As far as enforcement of any particular solution to the problem - I'd respectfully submit that the economics of the market itself would enforce practical compliance with such a solution, all on its own. Once a supply chain of biodegradable or inert single-use packaging is produced by the free market (such as would inevitably occur, under real capitalism) - the sheer economies of scale, produced just for the US & EU markets - would make that new-world packaging choice the most economic - both by virtues of cost to produce & distribution. If not - it would be extremely close, and consumers prefer the lack of single-use plastic waste in their environments.

The EU study cited by GordMay, a few posts back - shows that careful economic analysis, of transitioning away from single-use plastics - has a net positive effect on the free market and economy. In addition - the young people of the world want it - the entire EU, Canada, and now even such countries as Kenya, Morocco, Zimbabwe, etc., are considering, or have actually already banned types of disposable plastic. It's a solution whose time has come -- or at least, hugely increasing numbers of the world's actual consumers think so. They have to live in it. We live in denial of a lot of issues. It's going to catch up with us I'd think. We should do something now.

[TigerPaws]

Hardhead the world at large is in denial, maybe things will change in my lifetime but I doubt it.
Maybe when there is less people the world will change.

SeaQuest OE II

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by TigerPaws

... the world at large is in denial

... yet so many get all hissy if you tell them that...

Those who actually run things have decided that it's more beneficial in the short term to suppress information and deny environmental problems, than to acknowledge and cooperate in any efforts to mitigate them. They know that in any case (barring complete social breakdown), their wealth will keep them from suffering the most serious consequences. Or any, maybe. Ask yourself why inequality is increasing, while problems languish.

Some here call that "adapting". aka "sucks to be poor..."

[Pegu Club]

I said earlier in this thread that the issue will get much worse before it gets better/addressed, and that is the truth at present. The only way it will get better/addressed is if governments force a behavior change, one can beat around the bush or philosophize all one wants to, but the above is the only way it changes.

So do we start emailing and letter bombing elected officials, and corporate entities, boycotting their products on mass, or booting politicians out of office, or change our purchasing habits? We all know corporations are only driven by the almighty dollar, and they pay the politicians to a large degree. So the only answer is to change our purchasing habits.... do we as a whole have what it takes to force change over the next twenty or so years? Maybe, maybe not.


Fair winds,

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

it's more beneficial in the short term

Root cause of all these messes.

"In the long run we are all dead"
— John Maynard Keynes

"We" being, all those alive today.

Rare is the culture with an effective ethos of long-term thinking, and with the advent of our ability to wipe ourselves off the planet, it seems the best most people can muster is

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Pegu Club

So do we start ... booting politicians out of office, or change our purchasing habits?

I think you hit the nail on the head with these two. Consumers are willing to buy biodegradable or inert packaging. They honestly want to - if it's available mainstream. The money tied up in oil doesn't want to evolve past disposable plastic packaging.

Booting politicians out of office - that refuse to address the growing microplastics contamination issue - by actually raising it in legislation - should speak clearly. We should do that too.

The rest of the entire world is ahead of the US on this issue - by far. We don't even hear about it.

I wonder why the big cross-invested media conglomerates we get the "news" from are like that?


We're being lied to by omission - on a lot of issues.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Pegu Club

The only way it will get better/addressed is if governments force a behavior change, one can beat around the bush or philosophize all one wants to, but the above is the only way it changes.

Not the only way, but government needs to lead, encourage, legislate and regulate us into the required changes

So do we start emailing and letter bombing elected officials, and corporate entities, boycotting their products on mass, or booting politicians out of office, or change our purchasing habits?

... yes to all, basically.

We all know corporations are only driven by the almighty dollar, and they pay the politicians to a large degree. So the only answer is to change our purchasing habits....

Useful, but not sufficient by itself, because not enough individuals are willing, or know how to make useful changes. While we still have some say at the ballot box, the best answer is to elect governments that acknowledge the problems and intend to lead us towards better behaviour. For businesses we need the carrot of incentives to pollute less and to develop sustainable alternatives, and the stick of regulations and pollution charges.... and they will simply follow the money. Profits from sustainable businesses are still profits...

[john61ct]

Funny, but not really

https://youtu.be/JZF7APMwgGE?list=PL...GH2MWai74ETI2T

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...GH2MWai74ETI2T

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by TigerPaws

Reusable bags, no single use plastic anything, biodegradable this or that? Nice concept but what you are talking about is not a drop in the ocean of the real world problem.

Like it or not the world is on the cusp of another major war, and if you think your worry about a little plastic is bad for the planet what about depleted Uranium Ordnance? How about a limited Nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran?

We all need to put our concerns in perspective.

SeaQuest OE II

Aww come on, you guys have been at war almost non stop since WW2.. in fact..
The U.S. Has Been At War 222 Out of 239 Years. This morning, I discovered an interesting statistic, “America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776“, i.e. the U.S. has only been at peace for less than 20 years total since its birth.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Aww come on, you guys have been at war almost non stop since WW2.. in fact..
The U.S. Has Been At War 222 Out of 239 Years. This morning, I discovered an interesting statistic, “America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776“, i.e. the U.S. has only been at peace for less than 20 years total since its birth.

Perhaps a good point. I think TigerPaws is concerned about shaping world events, and a larger, much more severe, conflict. Depleted uranium shells, and tactical nuclear weapons create a lot of lasting impact. Other, very strange, weapons are occasionally talked about. A lot of very short sighted decision making, existing all around the world, not just the US - is making dumb decisions seem smart. I heard a quote, it might have been Einstein - to the effect - if there is a world war 4 - it would just be bouncing the rubble. I think that's true.

[Pegu Club]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Aww come on, you guys have been at war almost non stop since WW2.. in fact..
The U.S. Has Been At War 222 Out of 239 Years. This morning, I discovered an interesting statistic, “America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776“, i.e. the U.S. has only been at peace for less than 20 years total since its birth.

This ^^^

Our peace loving nation....

Fair winds,