TNR BLOGS

May 17, 2008 | 1:56 AM
May 16, 2008 | 10:40 PM
May 16, 2008 | 8:45 PM

May 16, 2008 | 7:03 PM
May 16, 2008 | 1:57 PM
May 16, 2008 | 1:28 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM

May 16, 2008 | 8:14 PM
May 16, 2008 | 2:08 PM
May 16, 2008 | 11:22 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
09.04.2008
Little Plastic Bits

If anyone's looking for a good subway read, you could do worse than Alan Weisman's The World Without Us. Just about every page would make for great blog fodder, but let's go with the bit about a sailor who finds a massive floating whirlpool of garbage in the middle of the Pacific:

Capt. Charles Moore of Long Beach, California, learned that the day in 1997 when, sailing out of Honolulu, he steered his aluminum-hulled catamaran into a part of the western Pacific he'd always avoided. Sometimes known as the horse latitudes, it is a Texas-sized span of ocean between Hawaii and California rarely plied by sailors because of a perennial, slowly rotating high-pressure vortex of hot equatorial air that inhales wind and never gives it back. Beneath it, the water describes lazy, clockwise whorls toward a depression at the center.

Its correct name is the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, though Moore soon learned that oceanographers had another label for it: the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Captain Moore had wandered into a sump where nearly everything that blows into the water from half of the Pacific Rim eventually ends up, spiraling slowly toward a widening horror of industrial excretion.

For a week, Moore and his crew found themselves crossing a sea the size of a small continent, covered with floating refuse. It was not unlike an Arctic vessel pushing through chunks of brash ice, except what was bobbing around them was a fright of cups, bottle caps, tangles of fish netting and monofilament line, bits of polystyrene packaging, six-pack rings, spent balloons, filmy scraps of sandwich wrap, and limp plastic bags that defied counting.

By 2005, the gyre had sprawled out some 10 million square miles—Africa-sized. Moore figures there's some 3 million tons of plastic junk sitting on the surface of the gyre, with six times that much bobbing underwater, weighted down by barnacles and algae. Not to mention the six other major tropical gyres around the world, all with their own floating landfills. (Here's an earlier article on Moore's research.)

Unsightly as it is, the floating garbage is less troublesome than the fact that so much plastic in the ocean keeps crumbling into smaller and smaller particles without ever biodegrading, and get swallowed by various sea creatures—when the particles get small enough, even zooplankton will chow down. No one quite understands what effect this has on sea life,  or the broader ecosystem, although the discovery that plastics act as "sponges" for various toxins isn't much comfort. The particles are everywhere, and are going to be around for millenia, at least until some super-microbe comes along that can  digest plastic.

Anyway, now it seems the U.S. government wants to clean the North Pacific patch up. Sure, it might be impossible—we're talking 3 million tons of plastic, most of it chunks too small to scoop—but that won't stop them from trying. Moore thinks cleanup's too crazy a notion, and we'd be better off trying to curb plastic consumption in the first place. (Fun fact: The United States churned out 120 billion pounds of plastic resin in 2007, double the amount produced 20 years ago.) Of course, the American Chemistry Council thinks cramping plastic production is a horrible idea, and argues that we should focus on putting recycling bins on beaches and cracking down on litterbugs instead. But what would you expect them to say?

Update: Dave Roberts points to a new video of the gyre, shot by vbs.tv:

             

--Bradford Plumer

Posted: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 5:27 AM with 5 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

literatehobo said:

Curbing consumption would be the best approach, but practically that's very difficult. Much of the plastic consumption comes through behaviors that governments can't/shouldn't regulate. Though on a personal level I'd love to ban fast-food places from churning out billions of cheap plastic toys that last a few weeks, I have no interest in government attempting to achieve that through coercion.

The way to approach consumption on a regulatory level is to find issues on which citizens WANT change. For example, the obscene amount of packaging on most consumer goods, which wastes untold amounts of plastic and causes a great deal of consumer difficulty. Theoretically standards could be established for minimized but still effective packaging, that would greatly reduce the amount of crap that has to be cut/torn/mangled off an item.

With regards to trash and littering, I would like to see greatly increased civil penalties for such things, as well as prison work crews on every road and beach front in America picking up this crap. We could also work to make recycling and regular trash disposal easier and more affordable for citizens. People will do something if it's easy; the best way to influence cultural practices is to make the desired behavior cheaper and/or easier than the alternative. Improve funding for trash cans, recycle bins, easy trash pickup, etc all over the place, and you will decrease the amount of litter. This sort of thing is an appropriate government service and worth the cost compared to the alternative.

April 9, 2008 7:58 AM

Brad Plumer said:

literatehobo--Nice to see you posting on the site again! Those are really good points, and I agree, although if it *is* the case that plastic is causing these huge negative externalities, it might be worth talking about a tax to help pay for some cleanup. (Although at the moment, carbon's obviously the biggest issue out there, so I'm not really planning to go too crazy here…)

April 9, 2008 12:14 PM

jts44 said:

I've been told many recycling centers are full up and won't accept any more recyclables. I don't know if it's true, but it would make sense to find better economic incentives for the use of recycled materials.

April 9, 2008 12:40 PM

literatehobo said:

Brad,

Thanks. I'm philosophically opposed to using taxes as a tool of policy, whether to encourage or discourage something. What exactly would a tax on plastic accomplish, much less look like? Unless you could somehow specifically direct all the plastic tax revenue directly into cleanup/recycling/trash services, there would be little connection between the intention of the tax and the result, which would just be more onerous regulation on manufacturing, passed-on costs to consumers, and another un-monitored revenue stream for the government to waste. What's the point of government's left hand taxing plastic when government's right hand is actively encouraging a consumptive economy? The two influences negate each other and we're left with an unsustainable economy AND a byzantine government structure.

Carbon may be the biggest issue, but are you forgetting that plastic is a petroleum product as well and is thus linked to the more obvious carbon sources? If nothing else, our massive consumption of plastic increases our dependance on oil, both as a direct competition to fuel and as the increased energy use needed to transport and manufacture plastic. Consider all the intermodal containers of consumer goods shipped to this country every day, and what the combined weight of plastic packaging in those containers adds to the fuel bills for ships, trucks, and railroads. These things are all related, something no presidential candidate seems to grasp. You want to reduce oil consumption and carbon emissions, go after the root sources, don't throw darts at the surface of the problem.

jts,

Not only are many recycling centers "full", many cannot use what they get and end up disposing of it anyway. Many city residents happily fill their recycling bins each week with no idea that it's going to end up in the same place as their trash anyway. Encouraging and developing the technology, expertise, and industry to truly reuse and exploit these resources is the kind of economic shift we need to be making, as many of these jobs and facilities are best located in places that are desparate for jobs.

What sort of economic incentives would you suggest? Tax breaks? Subsidies?

April 9, 2008 1:43 PM

singlespeed said:

literatehobo....

one of the easier, albeit not cheapest, things to do is to pass regulatory requirements that packaging formulations meet specific environmental requirements for biodegradability or buy-back from the manufacturer. Packaging is a big issue for conspicuous plastic usage and those frickin' water bottles everyone has to have. Really...does a water bottle have to last 500years for a one time use? I agree that another tool is to charge outrageous littering fees. I traveled in Australia last summer and was astonished at the derth of litter. The fact that littering fees were $200 for each infraction is a good incentive to keep that litter or ciggy butt in your pocket or find the nearest rubbish/recycling bin.

I would like to see a two-pronged approach to the 30-second disposable life-cycle that many of our products have. If you get a chance to check out the book Cradle-to-Cradle I'd highly recommend it. Getting consumer product manufacturers in the US to go this route is the hard part but I think you make reformulation for biodegradability an option or they have to buy back the product after use by charging a deposit.

The building industry is moving in the direction of leasing finish materials. Companies like 3Form will reclaim their product and recycle it into new products making it a near zero waste stream product. In the end I think it will take more than just an either or approach to plastic reduction (think of all the oil saved there!) and instead require forcing life-style change by price, reformulations, buy-back programs and those high litter fees.

April 9, 2008 6:05 PM