The Ocean Cleanup Is Starting(forbes.com)
forbes.com
The Ocean Cleanup Is Starting
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkart/2018/08/28/the-ocean-cleanup-is-starting-aims-to-cut-garbage-patch-by-90-by-2040/#69796ad0253e
11 comments
[deleted]
Still need to implement effective waste management systems at its source, but progress is progress.
> Roughly eight million tons of plastic enters the ocean every year. That’s according to a 2015 report, which also identified where the bulk of this trash originates. At the top of the list: China, the Philippines, and Indonesia.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/explore-...
> Roughly eight million tons of plastic enters the ocean every year. That’s according to a 2015 report, which also identified where the bulk of this trash originates. At the top of the list: China, the Philippines, and Indonesia.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/explore-...
Do we need to address waste at the source? Sources are diffuse, innumerable, and spread among different jurisdictions with different levels of commitment to environmental stewardship. I'm skeptical of our ability to stem pollutants at the source.
There's a certain attraction to centralized cleanup efforts substituting for this near-impossible task of enforcing source standards worldwide. While it's theoretically less efficient to pollute and then clean it up, this model may have the advantage of actually working.
There's a certain attraction to centralized cleanup efforts substituting for this near-impossible task of enforcing source standards worldwide. While it's theoretically less efficient to pollute and then clean it up, this model may have the advantage of actually working.
It really depends on the cost benefit analysis. If we can convince the largest polluters to reduce their pollution levels to bellow what can be removed via beach cleanups (which are relatively low effort), eventually that gets a clean enough ocean.
Framing the issue is important. Yes, the environment is all good, but what the polluting nations will gain from reducing their pollution needs to be highlighted. Less plastic in rivers probably requires less plastic on streets which probably requires better sanitary conditions in general which means healthier workers and higher productivity. Cleaner air means less breathing problems means healthier workers and higher productivity, etc. Eventually, people might notice the nicer environment and develop that as a cultural goal in itself, as the US eventually did after getting tired of rivers catching on fire, but emphasizing worker productivity is probably a quicker way to get developing countries on board. Something about healthy oceans = more protein from the sea should help a bit too.
Framing the issue is important. Yes, the environment is all good, but what the polluting nations will gain from reducing their pollution needs to be highlighted. Less plastic in rivers probably requires less plastic on streets which probably requires better sanitary conditions in general which means healthier workers and higher productivity. Cleaner air means less breathing problems means healthier workers and higher productivity, etc. Eventually, people might notice the nicer environment and develop that as a cultural goal in itself, as the US eventually did after getting tired of rivers catching on fire, but emphasizing worker productivity is probably a quicker way to get developing countries on board. Something about healthy oceans = more protein from the sea should help a bit too.
The plastics are diffused, innumerable, and spread through-out the ecosystem in varying environmental conditions where solutions will have varying effectiveness and possible negative impacts on wildlife. I'm skeptical of our ability to implement a large-scale collection effort that will collect a meaningful percentage of the waste, with a further concern that a poorly implemented solution may in fact add to the waste and/or impact the environment in ways just as damaging as the pollutants it does remove.
Yes, enforcing standards worldwide is a "near-impossible" task. But cleaning up waste at the scales we're talking about, after it's entered the ecosystem, is impossible. There is no magic bullet here, and the more people who ignore what has to be done to fix the problem, hoping projects like this will make it better, the worse it will get.
Yes, enforcing standards worldwide is a "near-impossible" task. But cleaning up waste at the scales we're talking about, after it's entered the ecosystem, is impossible. There is no magic bullet here, and the more people who ignore what has to be done to fix the problem, hoping projects like this will make it better, the worse it will get.
> cleaning up waste at the scales we're talking about, after it's entered the ecosystem, is impossible.
That's a very strong claim, especially attached to an article about cleanup mechanisms. Are you sure some kind of synthetic biology mechanism couldn't work?
Waste removal (be it carbon or plastic) is an engineering problem; source regulation is a political problem, and political problems tend to remain unsolved until it is impossible that they remain unsolved.
That's a very strong claim, especially attached to an article about cleanup mechanisms. Are you sure some kind of synthetic biology mechanism couldn't work?
Waste removal (be it carbon or plastic) is an engineering problem; source regulation is a political problem, and political problems tend to remain unsolved until it is impossible that they remain unsolved.
Yes it was a strong claim, and I should clarify that I specifically meant impossible using a solution based on ultra-large-scale-infrastructure methods like this. The scales required to have a meaningful impact on the quantities of plastic in the ocean are such that the project itself would have a larger negative impact then the waste itself, and this specific solution seems to have some serious questions about how effective it will be at removing any amount of waste, given dispersion depths and scale of the plastic particles.
A synthetic biology mechanism could be a viable approach at these scales, and there are some very interesting developments in this area in regards to breaking down and conversion of waste materials. There is a whole host of potential problems, largely of the "impossible to predict and impossible reverse" kind, that come with the idea of introducing a synthetic orgasm into the global ecosystem.
Yes, waste removal is an engineering problem, but one that may not have a safe and viable solution. Source regulation is a political problem, with all complexities that come with it, but it's a workable solution, and also has the additional advantage of at least helping even if only partially implemented.
A synthetic biology mechanism could be a viable approach at these scales, and there are some very interesting developments in this area in regards to breaking down and conversion of waste materials. There is a whole host of potential problems, largely of the "impossible to predict and impossible reverse" kind, that come with the idea of introducing a synthetic orgasm into the global ecosystem.
Yes, waste removal is an engineering problem, but one that may not have a safe and viable solution. Source regulation is a political problem, with all complexities that come with it, but it's a workable solution, and also has the additional advantage of at least helping even if only partially implemented.
> Waste removal (be it carbon or plastic) is an engineering problem; source regulation is a political problem, and political problems tend to remain unsolved until it is impossible that they remain unsolved.
Then move the plastic collection to the mouth of the 10 rivers in south east asia where the plastic is being emitted from.
Then move the plastic collection to the mouth of the 10 rivers in south east asia where the plastic is being emitted from.
I would enthusiastically support research and testing on this solution.
Many of the objections to clean-up in the open-ocean are not relevant here. The depths are very restricted, the ecosystems are more limited, the weather conditions less extreme and less variable, the plastics should be less broken down. The impacts and infrastructure would be similar to, and on the scale of, projects such as locks and dams.
I would see this as a first step to source control. Looking at collected materials, it would become quickly obvious where the major sources of the plastics are, and they could start being addressed.
There is a social issue here too though. I would expect this kind of project would be resisted in the same way that more local clean-up and source-control efforts in those regions are already resisted.
Edit: There is also the issue that a sizable portion of the ocean plastics seem to be from discarded/lost fishing equipment.
Many of the objections to clean-up in the open-ocean are not relevant here. The depths are very restricted, the ecosystems are more limited, the weather conditions less extreme and less variable, the plastics should be less broken down. The impacts and infrastructure would be similar to, and on the scale of, projects such as locks and dams.
I would see this as a first step to source control. Looking at collected materials, it would become quickly obvious where the major sources of the plastics are, and they could start being addressed.
There is a social issue here too though. I would expect this kind of project would be resisted in the same way that more local clean-up and source-control efforts in those regions are already resisted.
Edit: There is also the issue that a sizable portion of the ocean plastics seem to be from discarded/lost fishing equipment.
> I would enthusiastically support research and testing on this solution.
This would probably be helpful to deploy at scale: http://baltimorewaterfront.com/healthy-harbor/water-wheel/
Alone it's not an entire solution, but the technical challenges are not terribly difficult if you can constrain by the rivers dumping waste into the ocean. This is more a funding/political/logistical issue (as others have mentioned/insinuated in-thread).
This would probably be helpful to deploy at scale: http://baltimorewaterfront.com/healthy-harbor/water-wheel/
Alone it's not an entire solution, but the technical challenges are not terribly difficult if you can constrain by the rivers dumping waste into the ocean. This is more a funding/political/logistical issue (as others have mentioned/insinuated in-thread).
[deleted]
That would be a good start.
They should do this in rivers, near the end before it goes in the oceans or seas. Getting partnerships with local and national governments to do this would be easier than asking for charity.
This made me think of the trash often visible on a river shores because it is caught by tree branches.
I wonder if beavers dams can be used for that to ?
This made me think of the trash often visible on a river shores because it is caught by tree branches.
I wonder if beavers dams can be used for that to ?
Kinda like the Mr. Trash Wheel in Baltimore?
http://baltimorewaterfront.com/healthy-harbor/water-wheel/
http://baltimorewaterfront.com/healthy-harbor/water-wheel/
There are a lot of comments in this thread shitting on this project for not doing their cleanup at the rivers, but failing to realize that that reason we've identified those rivers as the source of ocean plastic is because of The Ocean Cleanup project's paper in Nature Communications:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15611
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15611
> the organization plans to continue operations with help from the proceeds of recycled plastic.
That's not going to work. The proceeds from recycling the plastic aren't even going to pay for recycling the plastic.
That's not going to work. The proceeds from recycling the plastic aren't even going to pay for recycling the plastic.
It's a little more thought out than you give them credit. Imagine a pair of lawnchairs made from "ocean cleanup plastic", the idea is that people would pay a large premium for this. It's like a brand that saves the world.
I don't think that such a bad idea actually.
I don't think that such a bad idea actually.
An example already in circulation are the ocean plastic shoes. I like the idea that ocean plastic goods become fashionable
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/adidas-shoes-made-f...
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/adidas-shoes-made-f...
Right, it also raises awareness of the problem and puts it in people’s faces. It’s hard to argue pollution isn’t a problem with someone wearing shoes made out of it.
Clearly they’re not going to turn all the ocean plastic into flip flops, or anything necessarily, but multiple options do need to be explored.
Amazing that nay sayers seem to manage to write off the whole problem with nitpicks at minor or temporary aspects of actual attempts to do something about it. Early attempts at green energy largely failed, often having carbon footprints and costs greater than conventional approaches, but without all that work we’d never tackle the problem. You have to start somewhere.
Clearly they’re not going to turn all the ocean plastic into flip flops, or anything necessarily, but multiple options do need to be explored.
Amazing that nay sayers seem to manage to write off the whole problem with nitpicks at minor or temporary aspects of actual attempts to do something about it. Early attempts at green energy largely failed, often having carbon footprints and costs greater than conventional approaches, but without all that work we’d never tackle the problem. You have to start somewhere.
It works for carpet. Plastic bottles are pellitized and repulled as carpet fiber that is sold as eco friendly at a premium.
No, I get it. I'm saying that all those tchotchkes sold at a premium won't even cover the cost of recycling the plastic, much less fund the whole project.
Worse, they will be paying to recycle (dispose of) it. Right now there are major issues and limitations in the processing of even the generally clean/sorted and re-usable plastics from residential collection. Some recycling facilities are being forced to simply dispose of even these materials as they would any other waste. (https://phys.org/news/2018-07-trash-piles-china-door-recycli...)
What they are collecting is partially broken down by ocean salts and UV light, and has absorbed contaminants (a lot of these plastics are actually from fishing equipment, but the post-consumer component largely enters the ocean via some exceptionally polluted river systems). These are going to be small and unmarked plastic pieces, you would need spectrographic analysis on each piece to determine the type of plastic before it could be recycled.
What they are collecting is partially broken down by ocean salts and UV light, and has absorbed contaminants (a lot of these plastics are actually from fishing equipment, but the post-consumer component largely enters the ocean via some exceptionally polluted river systems). These are going to be small and unmarked plastic pieces, you would need spectrographic analysis on each piece to determine the type of plastic before it could be recycled.
I think the idea might be to sell souvenirs to support the cause, not bulk plastic.
That would still be very difficult. You have to know what kind of plastic you have before you can work with it, some plastics off-gas dangerous vapors when cut for example, and they would need to test for chemical contamination before it could be distributed.
Also, how many thousands of tones of souvenirs can someone sell? :P
Also, how many thousands of tones of souvenirs can someone sell? :P
Sometimes people are motivated are pay a premium if they feel the cause is good (it can be marketed on the product). In this case, how much would the difference be?
It seems like a lot of comments are debating the relative merits of which solution will work, whether this is the right solution, pointing out this doesn’t address the entire problem et al.
What about AND?
work on reducing plastic waste AND try to get it out of the water. Deploy this solution, try it AND iterate on it. Do this AND the next idea AND the next. Keep trying things until you find the right solution.
It seems to me that this project does a lot more good than harm, even if it doesn’t work, it paves the way for solutions that might.
The amount of naysaying and nitpicking here is depressing. Is it perfect? No. Does it address every problem? No. Is it a start? Yes.
How many times has the right solution been the first thing someone tried? Rarely. But you keep trying stuff until you find something that works.
At least this guy is DOING something rather than endlessly debating how to fix it.
It’s easy to be an armchair engineer saying you could dream up 10 better solutions. Well great, go do it then.
Props to this kid and his organization for taking action on a problem to try and do some good in the world.
What about AND?
work on reducing plastic waste AND try to get it out of the water. Deploy this solution, try it AND iterate on it. Do this AND the next idea AND the next. Keep trying things until you find the right solution.
It seems to me that this project does a lot more good than harm, even if it doesn’t work, it paves the way for solutions that might.
The amount of naysaying and nitpicking here is depressing. Is it perfect? No. Does it address every problem? No. Is it a start? Yes.
How many times has the right solution been the first thing someone tried? Rarely. But you keep trying stuff until you find something that works.
At least this guy is DOING something rather than endlessly debating how to fix it.
It’s easy to be an armchair engineer saying you could dream up 10 better solutions. Well great, go do it then.
Props to this kid and his organization for taking action on a problem to try and do some good in the world.
Not to mention that this project brings additional attention to the problem. The more attention there is the more likely it is that politicians will take up the matter and strive for a political solution to the source problem.
And even if that doesn't happen, getting rid of even a small amount of pollutants from the ocean can't be a bad thing, can it?
And even if that doesn't happen, getting rid of even a small amount of pollutants from the ocean can't be a bad thing, can it?
I live on a peninsula and our beaches are covered in plastic. Over the last couple of years people litter pick most weekends, but to me it is hopeless. There is so much. You could spend ten thousand man hours a day cleaning and on the next tide the beach would be full again. Its just crazy how much crap there is in the ocean.
Imagine how much plastic is in one garbage truck, now chop it up into small, 5cm bits. Now spread it across a beach, try to pick that up. It takes all day.
We need machines to help us.
Imagine how much plastic is in one garbage truck, now chop it up into small, 5cm bits. Now spread it across a beach, try to pick that up. It takes all day.
We need machines to help us.
I live near the beach in Japan. I admit that I don't go and pick up plastic off the beach. I definitely should because it's not really an onerous task. I'll try to schedule it occasionally (I mean, I'm near enough that I can actually walk to the beach, anytime I want).
However, on the beach near me, there isn't much garbage. And pretty much any day I go, there is a group of students picking up garbage on the beach. When I used to work at the school, each home room would have beach days where they go and pick up garbage. And each club has beach days where they go and pick up garbage.
I live on Suruga bay, so it's not right on the Pacific and I'm sure that cuts down a lot of the garbage. But just with the local high school sending 20 people down there practically every day, it seems to keep it under control.
It's one of those cultural things. There is garbage everywhere because we don't have a culture to clean it up. We feel like we shouldn't have to. We feel like it should be someone else's job. Maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but a consistent effort by a small group of people can make a big difference.
However, on the beach near me, there isn't much garbage. And pretty much any day I go, there is a group of students picking up garbage on the beach. When I used to work at the school, each home room would have beach days where they go and pick up garbage. And each club has beach days where they go and pick up garbage.
I live on Suruga bay, so it's not right on the Pacific and I'm sure that cuts down a lot of the garbage. But just with the local high school sending 20 people down there practically every day, it seems to keep it under control.
It's one of those cultural things. There is garbage everywhere because we don't have a culture to clean it up. We feel like we shouldn't have to. We feel like it should be someone else's job. Maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but a consistent effort by a small group of people can make a big difference.
If you pick up all the plastic on the beach and put it into either general waste or plastic recycling bins, what percentage will actually end up back in the sea or in open landfill somewhere?
modify some farming equipment. First separate sand from plastic by washing it then float it though a vibrating tank to sort it. What part of the technology belongs on the tractor will have to be figured out over time.
If you separate it by type and size properly it can just be sold/recycled.
While it could be commercially viable I do think money should be pumped in from other sources. Preferably from [remaining] industries creating and using the materials found.
If you separate it by type and size properly it can just be sold/recycled.
While it could be commercially viable I do think money should be pumped in from other sources. Preferably from [remaining] industries creating and using the materials found.
I'm not sure what sort of beach you are imagining, I assume a long sandy one.
Ours are rocks, cliffs, deep bays, long sandy beaches that there is no way in hell they'd allow diggers or tractors on (conservation sites)
Ours are rocks, cliffs, deep bays, long sandy beaches that there is no way in hell they'd allow diggers or tractors on (conservation sites)
I'm glad to see this project is trying.
There is a lot of fear over this cleanup method. Perhaps due in part that the proposal is new and hasn't proved itself effective yet. The suggestion is if it fails then it will add more garbage to the ocean than was removed.
I suspect most of the concerns are stemming from how quickly they are trying to move. The apparent afterthought of how this will impact wildlife while collating the debris, and early failed trials with mild weather. These are good critiques. I'd like to see answers for those issues, out a plan proposed to investigate and about for these concerns. I don't think it's reasonable to push all of that on a company that's trying, without offering some support or an alternative.
I suspect most of the concerns are stemming from how quickly they are trying to move. The apparent afterthought of how this will impact wildlife while collating the debris, and early failed trials with mild weather. These are good critiques. I'd like to see answers for those issues, out a plan proposed to investigate and about for these concerns. I don't think it's reasonable to push all of that on a company that's trying, without offering some support or an alternative.
Do you have any sources about the wildlife concern? I was under the impression that the impact was negligible compared to the potential benefit.
Also, re: adding more plastic than was removed:
While that may be technically correct if it doesn’t work, the way I see it is this:
-this project:
-potential benefit to the oceans: high
-potential risk to the ocean: comparatively low
—99.9% of companies we debate about on this site:
-potential benefit to the oceans: zero
-potential risk to the oceans (assume here we are talking about any company that creates or purchases, directly or indirectly, any kind of plastic): high
On that alone, it seems like the risks far outweigh the benefits.
I also think if you think about the types of companies you see created every day: delivery services, manufactured products of any kind etc. All those companies have the externality of potential plastic waste. For example a delivery startup is going to be purchasing plastic spoons or plastic food boxes. No one is sitting around criticizing them for potentially adding plastic to the oceans. We all talk about economics and scale and product and software. But that company is almost certainly adding to the growing problem of plastic in the oceans without providing any upside.
Meanwhile this company is proposing launching large objects that could become waste in the oceans, yes. Although they are satellite tracked and I’m sure could be removed easily. But the upside is removing way more waste than they are discharging. So it seems worth the risk to me.
Also, re: adding more plastic than was removed:
While that may be technically correct if it doesn’t work, the way I see it is this:
-this project:
-potential benefit to the oceans: high
-potential risk to the ocean: comparatively low
—99.9% of companies we debate about on this site:
-potential benefit to the oceans: zero
-potential risk to the oceans (assume here we are talking about any company that creates or purchases, directly or indirectly, any kind of plastic): high
On that alone, it seems like the risks far outweigh the benefits.
I also think if you think about the types of companies you see created every day: delivery services, manufactured products of any kind etc. All those companies have the externality of potential plastic waste. For example a delivery startup is going to be purchasing plastic spoons or plastic food boxes. No one is sitting around criticizing them for potentially adding plastic to the oceans. We all talk about economics and scale and product and software. But that company is almost certainly adding to the growing problem of plastic in the oceans without providing any upside.
Meanwhile this company is proposing launching large objects that could become waste in the oceans, yes. Although they are satellite tracked and I’m sure could be removed easily. But the upside is removing way more waste than they are discharging. So it seems worth the risk to me.
This effort is just a stunt: http://www.deepseanews.com/2017/01/what-did-the-boyan-slat-a...
that's old, and already covered at length. check this if you're interested:
https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/a-peculiar-survey/
https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/environmental-impact...
https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/a-peculiar-survey/
https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/environmental-impact...
The Pacific Ocean has a way of destroying dreams that few today have experienced. I'm rooting for TOC to succeed, but I'm not optimistic.
The Forbes page wants me to accept their advertising cookies. When i click "no thanks" and select the "only required cookies" and hit apply the "preferences submission process" either jaks at ~90% or if it goes through then the site renders a white page. Anyone else experiencing the same?
This is most likely because of your ad blocker. The page tries to set opt-out cookies which are blocked by the ad blocker.
A huge fan of Boyan and TOC!
And it will harm ocean wildlife more than it will help... https://www.kcet.org/redefine/6-reasons-that-floating-ocean-...
This is a bad article (as if being a listicle didn't give that away). Number 6 is "it's far more efficient, cheaper, and safer to keep the plastic out of the ocean in the first place", which is like saying that the best way to clean dog poop off of your carpet is to not have a dog.
It's too late for that, investing in clean-up in _addition to_ prevention HAS to be a top priority for us. In fact, this is in the form of BECCS is the very basis of the Paris Climate Accords. Investing in prevention won't undo the damage that's been done, and a lot of environmental groups who only promote prevention (like those cited in your article) are doing more harm than good.
It's too late for that, investing in clean-up in _addition to_ prevention HAS to be a top priority for us. In fact, this is in the form of BECCS is the very basis of the Paris Climate Accords. Investing in prevention won't undo the damage that's been done, and a lot of environmental groups who only promote prevention (like those cited in your article) are doing more harm than good.
The article was not arguing for inaction, it was arguing that this particular solution is not viable and could cause more harm then good. Both due to negative environmental impacts and diverting funds and attention from more workable and effective solutions. Yes, we need to figure out how to clean up the plastics that are there, but more importantly, we need to stop adding more and more every day.
... which is like saying that the best way to clean dog poop off of your carpet is to not have a dog ...
I would argue the analogy is more "the best way to clean dog poop off of your carpet is to train your dog not to shit on your carpet." Yeah, there is still a shit stain we have to clean up, but we can't rent a steam-cleaner every time he needs to take a crap, and if we try to clean it up with a vacuum, it's going to make everything much worse.
... which is like saying that the best way to clean dog poop off of your carpet is to not have a dog ...
I would argue the analogy is more "the best way to clean dog poop off of your carpet is to train your dog not to shit on your carpet." Yeah, there is still a shit stain we have to clean up, but we can't rent a steam-cleaner every time he needs to take a crap, and if we try to clean it up with a vacuum, it's going to make everything much worse.
> I would argue the analogy is more "the best way to clean dog poop off of your carpet is to train your dog not to shit on your carpet."
Well, I would argue this analogy is also rather inapt. Much better would be training your 7.5 billion dogs not to shit on your carpet. Until most of those dogs are trained, it makes sense to search for tools to clean up the poop.
We haven't yet extensively tested the vacuum cleaner, and it's not clear how effective it will be, or whether it might make the situation worse.
Well, I would argue this analogy is also rather inapt. Much better would be training your 7.5 billion dogs not to shit on your carpet. Until most of those dogs are trained, it makes sense to search for tools to clean up the poop.
We haven't yet extensively tested the vacuum cleaner, and it's not clear how effective it will be, or whether it might make the situation worse.
No, we haven't extensively tested it... but everyone who makes vacuum cleaners are telling us they won't clean up dog poop, and people who know about carpet cleaning in general are saying there are other better ways to clean it up and the vacuum will just make a mess. But, of course, as you said none of these analogs are really apt, they are just silly simplifications of a major issue.
I'm just trying to say that nobody is arguing for inaction here, on any front, they are arguing for trying to use the available resources in the most effective way possible. But people love magic bullet solutions, they want to back something that will just fix everything, so they ignore whole fields of experts and professionals, jump on the bandwagon with one buzz-worthy genius, and waste resources that could be better utilized elsewhere.
My concern is less that this particular project will fail, but more that it distracts people from the real long-term solutions, and the changes that need to be made for us to work towards those solutions, and actually gives them an excuse to ignore them. I've actually heard people cite projects like this as a reason NOT to worry about the amount of waste they generate. Attention is a valuable resource, and when it comes to ecological issues, it's in desperately short supply.
Also, unless any proposed clean-up solution can ultimately remove all the waste, it's actually less effective then any solution that uses the same amount of resources to prevent the same amount of plastics (yearly) from entering the ocean ecosystem. The net amount of plastic in the oceans each year will be the same in both cases, and you remove the negative impacts the new plastics have before they are removed from the ecosystem (leaching surface coating chemicals into the water for example), and since new plastic is not cycling is as quickly, it will increase the rate of decomposition. This is the argument for making reduction a bigger focus, as opposed to clean-up.
I'm just trying to say that nobody is arguing for inaction here, on any front, they are arguing for trying to use the available resources in the most effective way possible. But people love magic bullet solutions, they want to back something that will just fix everything, so they ignore whole fields of experts and professionals, jump on the bandwagon with one buzz-worthy genius, and waste resources that could be better utilized elsewhere.
My concern is less that this particular project will fail, but more that it distracts people from the real long-term solutions, and the changes that need to be made for us to work towards those solutions, and actually gives them an excuse to ignore them. I've actually heard people cite projects like this as a reason NOT to worry about the amount of waste they generate. Attention is a valuable resource, and when it comes to ecological issues, it's in desperately short supply.
Also, unless any proposed clean-up solution can ultimately remove all the waste, it's actually less effective then any solution that uses the same amount of resources to prevent the same amount of plastics (yearly) from entering the ocean ecosystem. The net amount of plastic in the oceans each year will be the same in both cases, and you remove the negative impacts the new plastics have before they are removed from the ecosystem (leaching surface coating chemicals into the water for example), and since new plastic is not cycling is as quickly, it will increase the rate of decomposition. This is the argument for making reduction a bigger focus, as opposed to clean-up.
The article presented an excellent way to cleanup large plastics without ensnaring wildlife - pick them up when they briefly wash onto beaches.
It seems that there's a key point of contention. That link claims:
> But the vast majority of plastic in the ocean is made up of particles one centimeter and smaller, remnants of larger pieces broken up by ultraviolet light, the corrosive effects of seawater, and physical abuse from wave action and marine creatures.
But the posted article claims instead:
> "Research shows the majority of plastic by mass is currently in the larger debris," as noted on The Ocean Cleanup website. "By removing the plastic while most of it is still large, we prevent it from breaking down into dangerous microplastics" that can absorb toxic substances and travel up the food chain.
So which is it?
And even if the claim that "the majority of plastic by mass is currently in the larger debris" is wrong, because they didn't sample deeply enough, doesn't the argument that "removing the plastic while most of it is still large, we prevent it from breaking down into dangerous microplastics" remain valid?
The risk of structural failures generating more debris, and problems with anti-fouling treatments, seem manageable through good maintenance. Or better design.
But then, what to do with the debris collected? Recycling per se does seem hopeless. I mean, we aren't even recycling much regular plastic waste, because it's mixed and contaminated. But maybe just crack it down to simple hydrocarbons, and make sure to capture the metals and halogens.
> But the vast majority of plastic in the ocean is made up of particles one centimeter and smaller, remnants of larger pieces broken up by ultraviolet light, the corrosive effects of seawater, and physical abuse from wave action and marine creatures.
But the posted article claims instead:
> "Research shows the majority of plastic by mass is currently in the larger debris," as noted on The Ocean Cleanup website. "By removing the plastic while most of it is still large, we prevent it from breaking down into dangerous microplastics" that can absorb toxic substances and travel up the food chain.
So which is it?
And even if the claim that "the majority of plastic by mass is currently in the larger debris" is wrong, because they didn't sample deeply enough, doesn't the argument that "removing the plastic while most of it is still large, we prevent it from breaking down into dangerous microplastics" remain valid?
The risk of structural failures generating more debris, and problems with anti-fouling treatments, seem manageable through good maintenance. Or better design.
But then, what to do with the debris collected? Recycling per se does seem hopeless. I mean, we aren't even recycling much regular plastic waste, because it's mixed and contaminated. But maybe just crack it down to simple hydrocarbons, and make sure to capture the metals and halogens.
The bulk of the mass is in larger pieces, but the number of tiny pieces vastly outnumbers the large pieces.
Imagine it being like an extension of this set of plastic piece masses: (100, 80, 50, 25, 10, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
One large piece (say, a Troll doll) has more mass than the pieces is breaks down into, but those pieces are more numerous than the whole doll.
Imagine it being like an extension of this set of plastic piece masses: (100, 80, 50, 25, 10, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
One large piece (say, a Troll doll) has more mass than the pieces is breaks down into, but those pieces are more numerous than the whole doll.
Well, Ocean Cleanup says "the majority of plastic by mass", so that seems to address your size distribution argument.
I am guessing, however, that their evidence shows that "the majority of plastic by mass" in the top whatever meters is in large pieces, but the distribution of small pieces goes far deeper.
I am guessing, however, that their evidence shows that "the majority of plastic by mass" in the top whatever meters is in large pieces, but the distribution of small pieces goes far deeper.
That is one of the criticisms of project's research. They only looked at the water column to a depth of 5m, while other studies have seen that the plastics disperse to depths of at least 100m.
What would be wrong with just burying it? We're not hurting for landfill space.
Why waste all those good petrochemicals?
Who said anything about waste? The plastics will be there in the landfill, ready for future mining and cracking once it becomes cost effective to do it.
OK, fair enough. But why wait?
Because, right now, it's cheaper to get hydrocarbons out of the ground than to break down old plastics, and the price signal is an excellent pointer toward the best application of our scarce resources.
Price signals tend to ignore externalities. I'm not arguing that there's a huge issue re cracking or burning plastic waste vs landfilling it and using more oil. You'd need to compare ecological and climate impacts of the alternatives, and that's more than I want to do here.
And not to be boring, but ignoring externalities is why humanity will get seriously screwed through global climate change. There isn't any workable mechanism to price that, as far as I know. Carbon credits are a joke. So it bugs me when people go on about price signals. When there's substantial time lag, the price signal is too late to be useful.
And not to be boring, but ignoring externalities is why humanity will get seriously screwed through global climate change. There isn't any workable mechanism to price that, as far as I know. Carbon credits are a joke. So it bugs me when people go on about price signals. When there's substantial time lag, the price signal is too late to be useful.
Why are carbon credits a joke? Carbon pricing is an obvious Pigovian approach to reducing emissions and it's what we'll eventually end up using, in conjunction with CCS. What's the problem?
The problem is that they'll be effective, if ever, two or three decades too late.
That depends on the price theye are set at. It is not surprising that the politicians who have the environment near the bottom of their priority list (ie all of them) have created credit systems riddled with loopholes.
I don't see how it depends on price. If it's too late, it's too late. And OK, maybe if you're talking about serious scale CO2 removal. Or (dog forbid) stratospheric sulfate injection. But where would the energy for that come from? Where would our food come from?
These are all good points, but considering that humans are already ingesting microplastics found in seafood and rice, at least someone is trying to do something about the problem. Beach cleanup does not help solve this.
It may already be too late due to the incredible amount of microplastics already in the Earth's major bodies of water and the fact that science doesn't know how much it will impact the ecosystem or create/exacerbate human medical problems.
It may already be too late due to the incredible amount of microplastics already in the Earth's major bodies of water and the fact that science doesn't know how much it will impact the ecosystem or create/exacerbate human medical problems.
... at least someone is trying to do something about the problem ...
I really can not fathom this sentiment, which seems to be the primary counter-argument to virtually all criticism of this project (as well as to criticisms of many other pie in the sky solutions to major issues). There are countless people who have devoted their lives to studying ocean eco-systems, safeguarding the nature, and understanding our impact on the environment. Many who have been trumpeting the problem of ocean plastics decades before it became a pop-issue. There are also millions of people, and billions of dollars worth of industry that is dependent on a healthy ocean eco-system.
Do you really believe that nobody else is trying to take action on this issue? Or could it be that people who have devoted lifetimes to understanding the reality of this issue and the engineering requirements and impact of large scale ocean structures have done the risk assessment and realized that this kind of approach is not viable?
The people who understand the problem have a solution, which is unfortunately the only viable one: The reduction of single use plastic products, more effective recycling and waste disposable programs, and a general reassessment of the volume of, and manner in which, we use plastics. But people want a magic pill that doesn't require them to accept that they are a part of the cause of ecological issues like this, and the only solution is for us, as a society, to change some of the aspects of our day-to-day lives. So they happily ignore the real solutions, click "Like" on posts that say their going to solve the world's problems, and berate entire fields worth of scientists, engineers, and ecologists for not "doing something about the problems".
I really can not fathom this sentiment, which seems to be the primary counter-argument to virtually all criticism of this project (as well as to criticisms of many other pie in the sky solutions to major issues). There are countless people who have devoted their lives to studying ocean eco-systems, safeguarding the nature, and understanding our impact on the environment. Many who have been trumpeting the problem of ocean plastics decades before it became a pop-issue. There are also millions of people, and billions of dollars worth of industry that is dependent on a healthy ocean eco-system.
Do you really believe that nobody else is trying to take action on this issue? Or could it be that people who have devoted lifetimes to understanding the reality of this issue and the engineering requirements and impact of large scale ocean structures have done the risk assessment and realized that this kind of approach is not viable?
The people who understand the problem have a solution, which is unfortunately the only viable one: The reduction of single use plastic products, more effective recycling and waste disposable programs, and a general reassessment of the volume of, and manner in which, we use plastics. But people want a magic pill that doesn't require them to accept that they are a part of the cause of ecological issues like this, and the only solution is for us, as a society, to change some of the aspects of our day-to-day lives. So they happily ignore the real solutions, click "Like" on posts that say their going to solve the world's problems, and berate entire fields worth of scientists, engineers, and ecologists for not "doing something about the problems".
I don't disagree, my comment was directed to the problem of the plastic that is already in the ocean.
There are many problems that need to be addressed, but plastics are continuing to get poured into the ocean and it doesn't appear that humanity is successfully addressing that problem at the moment unfortunately.
There are many problems that need to be addressed, but plastics are continuing to get poured into the ocean and it doesn't appear that humanity is successfully addressing that problem at the moment unfortunately.
[deleted]
The Ocean Cleanup net does nothing to clean up microplastics though...
Removing macroplastics from the ocean removes the chance of them turning into microplastics. Microplastics are what all the great garbage patch gets broken down into over time, so yes I do think it addresses it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics
Then what's the point?
This is a waste of time and resources. The most likely to succeed solution to the ocean plastic problem is genetic engineering.
Develop a lifeform that lives in the sea and feeds on plastic, introduce it to the oceans.
Develop a lifeform that lives in the sea and feeds on plastic, introduce it to the oceans.
Or develop a lifeform that stops polluting and respects the environment it lives in. :)
Isn't one of the problems that this stuff already ends up in the food chain.
If it just fell to the bottom of the ocean and was buried under sediment we probably wouldn't care that much.
If it just fell to the bottom of the ocean and was buried under sediment we probably wouldn't care that much.
That’s great until it starts feeding on every plastic item in our modern world
Doesn't plastic, especially white shopping-bag plastic, reflect more solar radiation than open ocean? Wouldn't covering a large portion of the earth with white plastic actually lower global temperatures? I saw a video where an open water reservoir was covered with floating plastic balls to reduce evaporation. Maybe a large plastic island would help fight global warming.
The Garbage Patch isn't a floating island, it's a region where microscopic particles of garbage are more common per cubic meter of water than usual.
In theory, yes. But it would also destroy all ocean life, with perhaps the very tiny exception of the ecosystems around deep-ocean thermal vents.
But, as another post has explained that this isn't what the ocean-plastics are. They would be better described as a thin soup, or cloud, of tiny plastic particles dispersed over hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of ocean, down to depths of up to 100m.
But, as another post has explained that this isn't what the ocean-plastics are. They would be better described as a thin soup, or cloud, of tiny plastic particles dispersed over hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of ocean, down to depths of up to 100m.
You could've perfected this comment if you mentioned that you toss your own shopping bags into the ocean to fight global warming.
technically true but still a horrible idea
There are some people who dismiss the Millennials, but it's clear to see that many of them want to have a positive impact and prefer a meaningful life over hedonism.
I hope the project works out, but even if it won't work, the signal he's sending is very empowering.