Microplastics in the sea

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by landsend

Reduce the population. Its the simplest, most effective method of solving all of our problems. Also the most politically impossible. Oh well.

No it isn't. The solution is cooperation. Apparently also near impossible.

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Absolute hogwash!

Plastic and the chemical / oil industries were always the bête noire of greenies, long before Silent Spring and the first Earth Day.

See my follow up post on that statement. As a store owner I was strongly encouraged to switch to plastic for conservation of trees.
I made no claims as to right/wrong/ecologically sound, but there was a definite push to use plastic to keep trees from being harvested for paper.

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

Great point - that's the whole problem with single-use plastic packaging. The simple intention is flashy packaging - not the dull packaging of the 1950's. The unintended consequence is the unexpected degradation of that packaging choice, which has led to the flooding of all living bodies on the planet with microplastic particles. Plastic particles that are, in reality, an un-natural product of ethene gas that is "molecularly “cracked”—its carbon and hydrogen atoms rearranged—to form ethylene, the main building block of plastic." The unintended consequence is that such plastic packaging must, as a very literal matter, be considered as a food product. Every living thing in the world is now fundamentally being force-fed an involuntary diet of microplastic - according to new and steadily published public research.

Other countries are of the same thought - the younger generations of the world are leaving that way behind. They're concerned about these facts:
https://qz.com/1689529/nurdles-are-t...-heard-of/amp/ - In fact, citizens are concerned with what's taking place in their own countries.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKCN1R823W

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...tics-ban-2021/ - As can be seen, the people want it. This is the start.

As far as our reaction - it's a fact that the US is the largest economy in the world. 5 years of ramping up notice for biodegradable single-use packaging, and the profit motive of the capitalistic system will take it from there. Off to the races. Profits are made on new production machinery. Current industry players re-tool with milk carton, or more recent technologies, and supply chains expand with corresponding profit. Economies of scale bring mass production costs down. Manufacturers that sell to the huge US market will also be happy to sell their packaging products to other markets. Other countries inevitably follow the leadership of the US, and their consumers prefer the lack of non-biodegradable single-use plastic waste in their environments.

I'd respectfully submit that a significant portion of China's existing single-use plastic production is destined for the US market. Our rejection of that old world packaging will decrease China's production of the disposable single-use plastic packaging produced for the US. The young people of China will be coming along shortly. They don't want to live in a smog-filled, plastic trash strewn hellhole. Just like the people of the eastern european communist block got fed up with communism enough to reach a critical mass.

Stating nothing can be done - until the other guy does it - is clearly a logical fallacy. In a nutshell, the younger generations see the logical stupidity of that fallacy. Like it or not.

While it's probably true that much of China's plastic packaging is intended for the US market, it's not relevant to the issue. Plastic packaging in the US doesn't end up in the ocean.

It's the growing consumption of first world products - in first world packaging - in countries without first world sanitation that is causing the problem.

[fivecapes]

Originally Posted by Jdege

Plastic packaging in the US doesn't end up in the ocean.

Can you back that up?

[fivecapes]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

...look at Singapore.

We need Singapore style laws - you spit in the street they cut off your tongue. Have you noticed how clean streets in Singapore are?

Barnakiel, that was Singapore maybe 20-30years ago. Things have changed. Now you can spit with impunity. People litter all the time, but the cleanup crew is everywhere to keep things under relative control. There are hardly any beat cops to be seen. Singapore streets are relatively clean but not spotless like before under LKY.

That gold standard belongs to Tokyo and they do it there without a big stick or public trash bins anywhere. It’s pride, upbringing, culture, whatever. Doesn’t matter, they still export as much plastic trash per capita as the rest of the G7.

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by fivecapes

Can you back that up?

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...ust-10-rivers/

By analyzing the waste found in the rivers and surrounding landscape, researchers were able to estimate that*just 10 river systems*carry 90% of the plastic that ends up in the ocean.

Eight of them are in Asia: the Yangtze; Indus; Yellow; Hai He; Ganges; Pearl; Amur; Mekong; and two in Africa – the Nile and the Niger.

[...]

The rivers all had two things in common; a generally high population living in the surrounding region – sometimes into the hundreds of millions – and a less than ideal waste management process.

The Yangtze is Asia’s longest river and also one of world’s most ecologically important rivers. The river basin is*home to almost 500 million people*(more than one third of China’s population). It is also the biggest carrier of plastic pollution to the ocean.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Jdege

While it's probably true that much of China's plastic packaging is intended for the US market, it's not relevant to the issue. Plastic packaging in the US doesn't end up in the ocean.

It's the growing consumption of first world products - in first world packaging - in countries without first world sanitation that is causing the problem.

Do you not see an opportunity for leadership here? We might feel smug about being better at burying our trash or shipping it away, but the first world still produces a lot more waste per capita, which is the root of the problem. We set a bad example.

Industry conned regulators and the public into shouldering the burden of recycling, but since we can no longer ship stuff away, and the current cost of recycling locally is proving to be impractical, we're back to square one. Industry must be responsible for the full life-cycle costs of their products and packaging, which will spur the development of truly recyclable or biodegradable single-use plastics.

[Hardhead]

IMO, recycling & proper trash disposal is an admirable thought - but it's never going to solve the problem. It's never going to solve the problem - because it's just never going to keep up with the problem. Many countries are primarily worried about just maintaining some semblance of functioning - and then they are worried far more about accumulating wealth - than proper plastic trash disposal. We have to be realistic.

It's a new problem - just now being discovered - but caused by a 30 year lag-time in seeing the real-life consequences of the decision to throw-away endless supplies of plastic packaging - after just 1 use in time. "Throw-away" plastic packaging is not ordained by God, or any other higher power. It's just a temporary phase of the economy, that needs to be evolved beyond - just like adding lead to paint and gasoline. Seemed like a good idea at the time - proved to be a very bad idea - and was easily changed.

By banning non-biodegradable, or non-inert, single-use packaging - a profit motive is created, that harnesses and directs all that is good about human creativity and ingenuity - via self-interest and free-market capitalism - towards the most efficient alternative solution. I'd submit it's the only possible solution that will EVER work - and it's very simple.

The means to get there - are left up entirely to the smartest minds who can address the problem of alternative packaging, and they are completely flexible. The only general requirement being - the "throw-away," single-use packaging, must be either 1) biodegradable within a reasonable period of time, 2) or be primarily inert. The problem of microplastic contamination did not exist before 1970. Why? Because we did not package every single product in "throw-away" plastic packaging - like we are now.

The natural human tendency is to make things much more complicated than they need to be - however, this solution is extremely simple. It decentralizes the solution, and allows maximum freedom. It would easily work - as stupid as that may sound to those who like to benefit by making things complicated.

I hope I am wrong - but I believe pervasive microplastic contamination is, in bitter reality, a very serious and growing human health problem. Every single study I have read - indicates health effects are likely. Serious effects - tumors, decreased reproduction, likelihoods of cancer, etc. In 50 years - we will likely know for sure. By the time we know for sure - it will literally, be too late. The Earth will be so poisoned with microplastic contamination it will be impossible to roll back time. And for what?

The microplastic - we are all consuming - perpetually increases in the human body - does not pass through, stays there, and never goes away. Read the credible articles attached to this thread if there is any doubt. Straight common sense indicates it is a serious problem - that needs a solution of action. One can gamble with ones own life & health - but it is hard to justify that for your children, and their children, and beyond. That is what we are doing - for no good reason at all.

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Do you not see an opportunity for leadership here? We might feel smug about being better at burying our trash or shipping it away, but the first world still produces a lot more waste per capita, which is the root of the problem. We set a bad example.

Industry conned regulators and the public into shouldering the burden of recycling, but since we can no longer ship stuff away, and the current cost of recycling locally is proving to be impractical, we're back to square one. Industry must be responsible for the full life-cycle costs of their products and packaging, which will spur the development of truly recyclable or biodegradable single-use plastics.

The plastic packaging that is causing such a problem in third world countries without adequate trash management wasn't invented for the third world countries, and the products that use it aren't largely made for sale in the third world. Finding an alternative, and building a market that creates sufficient economies of scale to make it affordable, is something that we are going to have to do.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Jdege

... Finding an alternative, and building a market that creates sufficient economies of scale to make it affordable, is something that we are going to have to do.

Excellent point. How much is the difference in cost between a carton of milk, and a plastic jug of milk? How much is the difference in cost between a 12 oz. can of soda, and a 12 oz. plastic bottle of soda?

I'd submit that a massive economy of scale - will be created with a stroke of a pen. A ban on non-biodgradable, single-use, plastic packaging by the US - in conjunction with bans already being considered and enacted by the EU, Canada, and other countries, would instantly guarantee it. The market will rush to meet it.

That's the simple solution. If needed, it can be modified.

[Hardhead]

Industry will never meet the biodegradable or inert requirement voluntarily. Why? - because they would have to change something. Why should they change - if they can make the exact same profit by not changing?

The answer is - the system of capitalism exists to serve humankind. Not the other way around.

The natural power of real capitalism is actually eager to solve the problem -- with a profit & efficiency - if we tell it to. It's only pure talking head propaganda, and lobbying BS to come, that says it can't.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

... The means to get there - are left up entirely to the smartest minds who can address the problem of alternative packaging, and they are completely flexible. The only general requirement being - the "throw-away," single-use packaging, must be either
1) biodegradable within a reasonable period of time,
2) or be primarily inert ...

Biodegradable & inert seem, to me, to be mutually exclusive properties. Perhaps benign might be a more appropriate term, than inert (if that's what you meant).

Most plastic is chemically inert, and will not react chemically with other substances. You can store alcohol, soap, water, acid or gasoline in a plastic container without dissolving the container itself. Because plastic doesn't react chemically with most other substances, it doesn't decay. Therefore, plastic disposal poses a difficult and significant environmental problem. Plastic hangs around in the environment for centuries, so recycling is the best method of disposal.

However, new technologies are being developed to make plastic from biological substances like corn oil. These types of plastics would be biodegradable. They might form a part of Hardhead's capitalist solution.

[Hardhead]

Thanks GordMay - Biodegradable or primarily inert - was what I was trying to express.

Plastic may be chemically inert - but it's not biodegradable - at least in a way the avoids pervasive consumption by humans. It would seem that "throw-away" plastic packaging must be banned, rather than recycling used as a remedy. Recycling is not proving effective - as per the numerous studies showing significant involuntary microplastic consumption by humans - as well as its presence in the very air we breathe. Not to mention - the visual eyesore in the environment wherever it accumulates.

I'd propose we simply pass a disposable packaging standard under the Commerce clause, in the US. Set a phased-in schedule - start 1st with plastic bottles - then move up to the recently pervasive and completely unnecessary plastic clam-shell packaging. (any doubt, refer to 1980 and earlier.) As supply chains steadily grow - other known categories of single-use packaging are phased into the evolution, as per an original known schedule. Simple - in reality.

We've sent people to the moon, massively bailed out the banks, and can now easily drill for oil over 3 miles down. This is simple. It can be guaranteed - the production market will rush to meet it - and competition will rush the price down to the absolute lowest price possible. If this is not trusted - consider that maximum profit can only be made, if the lowest production cost is obtained.

Due to the size and scale of the US packaging market - the competition will be massive, and so will the number of potential packaging producers competing for the market.

What is the difference in cost between a can of soda, and a plastic bottle of soda? The cost difference between a carton of milk, and a plastic jug of milk?

[john61ct]

It is possible that the "inert" non-biodegradability of mainstream plastics is exactly what makes them relatively harmless.

If replacement materials are claimed to break down, that very property may well release much more harmful bioactive substances, much faster.

The fundamental problem is the crazy-fast acceptance of radically world-changing technologies, long before testing and research verifies their impact.

By the time we discover and start to discover the dangers, we're already irreversibly fv¢ked.

Social stuff too, pervasive surveillance combined with forever-storage, then AI database mining, algorithm-based triggering of sanctions, combined with growing authoritarianism. . .

[Hardhead]

The complete lack of modern personal privacy - the endless harvesting of personal information, the harvesting web-browsing history & posts, credit histories, and purchase histories, texts, "thumbs up" or "thumbs down," etc. - and then routinely applying analytical algorithms to this personal information for private motives - is a whole other issue. Our elected representatives are working hard for us on this issue, like many others. Our media is doing its best to get the word out.

However it is defined - "throw-away" plastic packaging is, in reality, shedding microscopic parts of itself into the environment - and then into humans. That's a problem right up there with others. We have to trust the big cross-invested media on these issues - so we know what's going on in "reality." At least - that is what we are doing.