Microplastics in the sea

[Hardhead]

I believe someone once said - we don't need mind control, we have TV. That is true, in fact.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Paper can be managed with fast growing pine and other species plantations, absorbing carbon in the process. ...

That's a common sense idea -- many will be against it. You raise a great aspect of a solution right there. We just need to add the profit motive to move to an alternative packaging -- by a run of the mill Commerce clause specification -- that all disposable single-use packaging be either biodegradable within a reasonable period of time, or substantially inert.

Paper pulp would be processed locally for cost reasons, and that brings production jobs back to the US. If the pulp is not bleached - there is a major reduction in the environmental impact. Instead of dark lettering on a light background advertisement, for example - print lighter colored imaging on a darker shaded background.

We need to stimulate growth in our economy -- and these types of modern evolutions in the economy are a great way to do it. I'd encourage anyone to argue against it - if there's a logical reason, it would be good to hear it.

[S/V Adeline]

Hardhead,

Since you have mentioned it several times, and my only vice aside from smoking is coca~cola, I can assure you canned soda is already cheaper per oz than plastic bottled soda.

Such a pity as canned goes flat so quickly. All the gimmicks to 'reseal' cans and save for later are scams. Plastic allows you to compress the excess air out and reseal.

I drink canned, because of cost.

(Does not apply to micro cans sized to govt diet suggestions) <~~ those $^&% things are outrageously expensive

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by 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?

Has anyone thought about simply using plastics that sink?

[Hardhead]

I believe a lot of the microplastic shedding occurs at depth - so that might not be an improvement. If you really look at the facts - there is really nothing that is an improvement with plastic - except burying it deep in a hole, and hoping it doesn't contaminate groundwater.

Really, non-biodegradable, single-use plastic packaging just needs to be replaced with something else. Give all the enormous advances in nanotechnology, chemistry and synthetics - if there is a way to make it biodegradable - we need to hear it.

If there is not - then the only common sense course of action is to ban it - and let the creativity of the free market come up with some non-plastic disposable packaging.... you know - like we managed to do 40 years ago.

It's simple in reality.

[Hardhead]

If you ever wanted to see the real effects of lobbying and money in politics, and control of the media message - and wanted proof - the issue of microplastic contamination is it. In all its disgusting glory.

We're passing it on to our kids. If they can do better, it will be too late. I don't believe that is BS.

[micheal36]

Originally Posted by Cpt Mark

And then there is Flint MI. Maybe we're not as civilized as we think

This is very risky for us.

[GordMay]

There are different types of biodegradable plastics, which offer different degrees of degradability, and generally require specific conditions in order to do so. Some biodegradable plastic is also said to be compostable, but requiring temperatures of 60°C (140°F) or more, these are not conditions that can be provided by simply being buried in the ground, or in a compost heap at home.
While more sustainable plastic alternatives exist, they cannot be a sustainable solution without the infrastructure required to manufacture, collect and recycle them on a large scale. At the moment, the different types of bio-degradable and conventional plastic in use can pose problems for established recycling systems if they are mixed. It’s a complicated issue, requiring a careful definition* of desired outcomes.
Wikipedia has an excellent overview on Biodegradable Plastics.
➥ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic

* ie: Biodegradable and Compostable, for instance, must be specifically defined. Plastics are essentially inert.
Packaging waste directive and standards for compostability
Standards for Compostability EN 13432
➥ https://www.bpf.co.uk/topics/standar...stability.aspx

[fivecapes]

Originally Posted by Jdege

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

Thanks, most interesting.

I wonder how they reconcile that finding with the North Pacific Garbage Patch.

I look forward to their follow up report now that China has stopped importing plastic trash and after their recycling/waste sorting programs have kicked in.

[GordMay]

See also “8 steps to solve the ocean’s plastic problem” ~ by Nina Jensen, Chief Executive Officer, REV Ocean*
We must reduce our plastic dependency
Increased producer responsibility
Increase fees and taxes on polluting plastics
Increased waste management where the problem is greatest
Implementation of the zero vision for ocean plastic
Increased mapping, surveillance and research
Stop the flow of plastic waste into the sea
Increased funds for clean-up
Each is briefly discussed, here:
➥ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...lastic-problem

* REV Ocean ➥ https://www.revocean.org/

[barnakiel]

If one can dream it, one can achieve it.


So to say yes it can get done.


Except that to get anything done, it needs being done. This is where I hang up. I cannot see us doing it. I truly can't.


Perhaps you live in some rarefied hipster suburb of Palo Alto where people do not throw rubbish, where biodegradable packaging is a norm ...


I live in Las Palmas (think of Greece, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Marocco, etc.) There are millions of people here and they all throw it everywhere and they all consume all they can. Just look at obesity rates here.


As a race, we are bound to end up neck deep in our own skip. Except for some glorious Gates and Kennedys living in their Elysium maybe.



b.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

As a race, we are bound to end up neck deep in our own skip. Except for some glorious Gates and Kennedys living in their Elysium maybe.

I presume you are referring to the 2013 SF film, not the Greek original

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

If one can dream it, one can achieve it.


So to say yes it can get done.


Except that to get anything done, it needs being done. This is where I hang up. I cannot see us doing it. I truly can't.

That's the silly problem in a nutshell. Everyone agrees it could theoretically be done - but just because, it really can't be done. Essentially claiming that humans are incapable of acting logically. Consider playing that out to any logical conclusion. We could do it - but because we can't do it, we can't do it.

There is a huge and profitable industry that exists to make simple problems complicated. They love it - it makes them seem smart, and it's profitable in its inefficiency. We need biodegradable plastics, and we need to combine that with extensive recycling, and we need to money to finance the recycling, and we need people to agree to do the recycling, and we need access to the recycling, and we need to get the plastic to the recycling, and we need to make sure to follow everyone around and enforce the recycling, and we need penalties or taxes if they don't recycle, and we need to finance recycling in the 3rd world countries, and we need to maintain the recycling infrastructure, and we need to ensure the recycling infrastructure is not more harmful to the environment than the problem that it is supposed to address, and then we need to ensure there is a free-market willing to deal with the recycling raw product, and we need to make sure that any thrown-away plastic that is recycled once, is then recycled on the 2nd go-around, and then the 3rd go-around, and then if it the plastic is not recycled on the 4th go-around - then all the prior gains of recycling are lost – because the “dropped ball” thrown-away packaging was degraded to microplastic particles on the 4th go-around, and we need to make sure the recycling program is not made a political football, and we need to make sure the recycling program survives multiple and subsequent political administrations, and then we need to develop an entire new method of recycling based on each separate type of plastic we introduce, and if we try to recycle the wrong kind of plastic, it will spoil the recycling gains intended for the other kind of plastic, and then we need to sort the plastic, and then we need to sort all foreign bodies out of the plastic, and then we need to educate subsequent generations on the importance of recycling – because if recycling is working effectively, the problem disappears, and after all, what harm could result from throwing a single piece of plastic on the ground – because we recycle the rest, so this 1 piece won’t matter, and then everyone agrees with that, and then we have the political influence of players who are trying to insert themselves into the recycling process, and then we have the financial implications of changing the recycling model, and then… it's ingenious.

OR - we could be simple and smart - and ban single-use disposable plastic - and smartly return to the non-plastic packaging - the worked great for the entire world up until 30 years ago. The ONLY PRACTICAL SOLUTION - is banning the real source of the addressable problem – intentional “throw-away” plastic packaging - that has exploded in both use, and environmental impact, over just the past 30 years.

By banning non-biodegradable, or non-inert, single-use packaging (under the Commerce clause) - 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 packaging. 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. That was ingenious.

[boatman61]

The human mentality is incapable of acting logically where survival is concerned..
Take getting caught in a gale.. most will run for land when gaining as much sea room as possible is the best option.. or they will choose to fight nature by bashing on subjecting their boats to needless loads which can result in failures, rather than heave to.. running before just keeps one in the system longer whereas hove to allows the storm to overtake and pass quicker.
Not much difference with pollution, just running before and vacillating endlessly.

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

That's the silly problem in a nutshell. Everyone agrees it could theoretically be done - but just because, it really can't be done. Essentially claiming that humans are incapable of acting logically. Consider playing that out to any logical conclusion. We could do it - but because we can't do it, we can't do it.

There is a huge and profitable industry that exists to make simple problems complicated. They love it - it makes them seem smart, and it's profitable in its inefficiency. We need biodegradable plastics, and we need to combine that with extensive recycling, and we need to money to finance the recycling, and we need people to agree to do the recycling, and we need access to the recycling, and we need to get the plastic to the recycling, and we need to make sure to follow everyone around and enforce the recycling, and we need penalties or taxes if they don't recycle, and we need to finance recycling in the 3rd world countries, and we need to maintain the recycling infrastructure, and we need to ensure the recycling infrastructure is not more harmful to the environment than the problem that it is supposed to address, and then we need to ensure there is a free-market willing to deal with the recycling raw product, and we need to make sure that any thrown-away plastic that is recycled once, is then recycled on the 2nd go-around, and then the 3rd go-around, and then if it the plastic is not recycled on the 4th go-around - then all the prior gains of recycling are lost – because the “dropped ball” thrown-away packaging was degraded to microplastic particles on the 4th go-around, and we need to make sure the recycling program is not made a political football, and we need to make sure the recycling program survives multiple and subsequent political administrations, and then we need to develop an entire new method of recycling based on each separate type of plastic we introduce, and if we try to recycle the wrong kind of plastic, it will spoil the recycling gains intended for the other kind of plastic, and then we need to sort the plastic, and then we need to sort all foreign bodies out of the plastic, and then we need to educate subsequent generations on the importance of recycling – because if recycling is working effectively, the problem disappears, and after all, what harm could result from throwing a single piece of plastic on the ground – because we recycle the rest, so this 1 piece won’t matter, and then everyone agrees with that, and then we have the political influence of players who are trying to insert themselves into the recycling process, and then we have the financial implications of changing the recycling model, and then… it's ingenious.

OR - we could be simple and smart - and ban single-use disposable plastic - and smartly return to the non-plastic packaging - the worked great for the entire world up until 30 years ago. The ONLY PRACTICAL SOLUTION - is banning the real source of the addressable problem – intentional “throw-away” plastic packaging - that has exploded in both use, and environmental impact, over just the past 30 years.

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 packaging. 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. That was ingenious.

Would your single use plastic ban apply to everything and everyone?

The medical field alone would be at the cost of billions. Almost everything in a paramedic bag is single use, usually plastic, wrapped in single use plastic.
Many with diabetes uses single use plastic syringes wrapped in single use plastic. Daily or multiple times daily. Then test strips.

Where is the line drawn?

I'm not against the idea, per say, I just don't see it being a single ban solution.