Plastic pollution of micron size has spread throughout our lives

From a Video Presentation by Dr. Sherri Mason, Penn State — Erie Campus, March 1, 2021

Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans has been publicized widely; we’ve heard about the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” Lesser known is the prevalence of microplastics in freshwater systems, which are conduits from land to the sea.

Dr. Sherri Mason, cutting-edge plastic pollution researcher and Sustainability Coordinator at Penn State Erie, will present an overview of what plastic is, its proliferation in our society, and its emergence as one of the most prominent environmental pollutants.

Dr. Sherri A. Mason completed her doctorate in Chemistry at the University of Montana as a NASA Earth System Science scholar. Her research group is among the first to study the prevalence and impact of plastic pollution within freshwater ecosystems. Among her many accolades Dr. Mason earned the Heinz Award in Public Policy in 2018.

>>>>>>>>………………>>>>>>………………>>>>>>>>

See also: Microplastics: An emerging threat to the Chesapeake Bay, David Alan, VRBO News Now, April 8, 2021

“You can see everything from water bottles to plastic bags,” said Chris Moore with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. We found a sneaker, dozens of construction hard hats, even a traffic drum. Every bit of trash we saw as we walked the shoreline was the ugly side of our reliance on plastics. The bigger problem is some of these larger plastic objects will break down here in the hot sun. Some of the trash will end up back in the bay to be torn apart by tides, forming microplastics.

The tiny specks of plastic — some invisible to the naked eye — pose a significant risk to a host of juvenile finfish found in the Chesapeake Bay. There are concerns that oysters and clams may be trying to filter microplastics and cannot. Microplastic contamination is not just a concern for the environment. A 2016 study showed the commercial seafood industry in Virginia and Maryland contributed $1.4 billion in sales and 30,000 jobs to the local economy.

There is a wonderful world to be found after plastics

From the letter of Michelle Chan, Friends of the Earth, March 22, 2021

It’s the public health and environmental crisis that not enough people are talking about: PLASTIC.

Plastic will soon outweigh all the fish in the sea. It fills our rivers and oceans, chokes wildlife, permeates our drinking water and our food, and persists in the environment for centuries.

Discarded plastics don’t just disappear. They break down into smaller and smaller pieces, turning into microplastics that contaminate our water, soil, and the food we eat. Can we count on you to act now to stop plastics from overrunning our environment?

Scientists estimate that there are already 51 trillion pieces of plastic in our oceans. That’s 51 trillion deadly hazards that cause harm to ocean organisms — from the smallest of corals to the largest of whales.

In 2020, over 11 million metric tons of plastic was dumped in the ocean. If this trajectory is allowed to continue, by 2040, 29 million metric tons of plastic will be dumped annually.

One plastic bag, or bottle cap, or fishing net, can suffocate, strangle, or starve its helpless victim. After their bodies decompose, the plastic is released back into the environment where it can kill again — because plastics do not break down.

700 known marine species have been killed by either plastic entanglement or ingestion of plastic — resulting in over a million animal deaths every year.

Sea turtles, dolphins, seals, fish, and sea birds are all at risk if something isn’t done soon to address the plastic crisis. So, let’s take action to protect our vulnerable wildlife from deadly plastic hazards.

The world is facing an indisputable plastic pollution crisis. But it doesn’t end there: the plastics crisis is also linked to the climate crisis. More than 99% of plastic is made from fossil fuels, and one of the main ingredients is a byproduct of natural gas. The fracking boom is fueling an unprecedented surge in plastic production as well.

In fact, because of fracking, the fossil fuel industry plans to increase plastic production by 40% over the next decade. This not only means more fracking pollution, but also an explosion of new toxic petrochemical plants. These plants would be devastating to the health of millions of primarily low-income, Black, and brown Americans along the Gulf Coast and in Appalachia.

Here’s the dirty truth behind their actions: The fossil fuel industry is using plastics as their “get out of jail free” card. With the public demanding a shift away from burning oil and gas for energy or fuel, the industry wants to maximize plastic consumption, including unnecessary single-use plastics.

In short, this industry is destroying our planet with plastic pollution, harming the health of frontline communities, and pushing us further to climate catastrophe. It’s beyond outrageous.

That’s why Friends of the Earth is supporting The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, which holds corporations and plastic producers accountable for the plastic pollution crisis. We are also working to push the Biden Administration to enact the Presidential Plastics Action Plan, a comprehensive set of Presidential actions to tackle the crisis with or without Congress. And we’re pushing Congress and the Biden administration to stop giving the fracking industry special treatment as a “clean energy” version of fossil fuels.

As the fossil fuel industry doubles down on plastic as the new frontier for petrochemical production, we must do everything in our power to shape a new future — A future that isn’t bought and shaped by the richest and most powerful industries in the world. A future with a sustainable economy that doesn’t leave anybody behind.

Help us win a plastic-pollution-free future. Support Friends of the Earth with a donation today.

Plastics are choking off our planet EARTH

Thank you, Michelle Chan,
VP of Programs, Friends of the Earth

NOTE: Friends of the Earth
1101 15th Street NW, 11th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005

WE ALL NEED TO REDUCE OUR PLASTICS USAGE A.S.A.P.

From an Article by Kevin Loria, Consumer Reports, June 2020 Issue, Volume 85, No. 6, pp. 26 – 35

Six (6) Ways to Use Less Plastic

While it’s practically impossible to eliminate plastic from modern life, there are a number of steps you can take right now to cut back.

1. Do: Drink tap water.
Don’t: Rely on bottled water.

Water from plastic bottles has about double the microplastic level of tap water on average, according to a 2018 study published in the journal Frontiers in Chemistry. So unless your tap water is contaminated with unsafe elements, such as lead, it’s probably best to drink tap. Fill up a metal reusable bottle for when you go out. You can always filter your tap water. Depending on the filter, that may further reduce microplastic levels. (Check CR’s ratings of water filters.)

2. Do: Heat food in or on the stove, or by microwaving in glass.
Don’t: Microwave in plastic.

Some heated plastics have long been known to leach chemicals into food. So if you’re warming up food, use a pan in the oven or on the stove, or if you’re microwaving, use a glass container. Also, avoid putting plastics in the dishwasher because of the high heat involved in cleaning.

3. Do: Buy and store food in glass, silicone, or foil containers.
Don’t: Store food in plastic, especially plastic that may contain harmful chemicals.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has said that plastic food containers with the recycling codes 3, 6, and 7 may contain potentially harmful chemicals, unless they’re labeled “biobased” or “greenware.” Don’t store food in these types of containers. Instead, use containers made of glass or silicone, or wrap your food in aluminum foil. If you’re storing food in or eating food out of plastic containers, know that plastics with recycling codes 1 and 2 are more likely to be recyclable—though they are usually recycled into lower-quality plastics. And there still may be harmful or unknown chemicals in any type of plastic.

4. Do: Eat fresh food as much as possible.
Don’t: Rely on processed food wrapped in plastic.

The more processed or packaged a food is, the higher the risk that it contains worrisome chemicals. Food cans are often lined with bisphenol A (or similar compounds). Buy fresh food from the supermarket, and—as much as possible—try to use refillable containers if your market allows. (Of course, with shopping made difficult by the coronavirus pandemic, prioritize your health and shop however is most feasible and safest.) Certain markets let you fill up cardboard or reusable containers with bulk items and weigh them, or you can use your own mesh bags for produce. Raw meat and fish need to be kept separate for safety reasons, but ask the store fishmonger or butcher to wrap these foods in wax paper instead of plastic. Take cloth—not plastic—reusable bags to the store to take your groceries home.

5. Do: Vacuum regularly.
Don’t: Allow household surfaces to get dusty.

The dust in your house could be loaded with microplastics and chemicals that are found in plastic, such as phthalates. Cleaning up dust may help reduce the amount of plastics you inhale, especially if you are stuck inside for long periods of time during a period of social distancing. CR recommends vacuuming regularly with a HEPA filter, which is best for trapping dust. (Check CR’s ratings of vacuums.)

6. Do: Work with your community.
Don’t: Assume your impact is limited to what you do in your personal life.

Legislation to limit the use of single-use plastics and plastic production may pull the biggest levers, but joining forces with community-level recycling groups can truly make a difference. Look for so-called zero-waste groups, which can offer guidelines for how to recycle or compost all your garbage—and which lobby for local rules that can restrict throwaway items. When possible, shop at markets that source goods locally, so they don’t require as much packaging and shipping. Seek out groups such as Upstream, a nonprofit working to create reusable takeout packaging for restaurants. And when possible, educate yourself about and support any city, county, and state legislation limiting single-use plastics.

###########################

See also: Many Simple Ways to Reduce Your Plastic Use Everyday | Two Wandering Soles, Katie Diederichs, June 17, 2018

Plastic debris and microplastic particles have already polluted the oceans

From an Article by CAROL ROIG, River Reporter, February 12, 2020

By now, most New Yorkers are aware that a ban on single-use plastic bags will go into effect on Sunday, March 1, 2020. While there has been some criticism of the bill’s numerous exemptions, it’s a good start to reducing the 23 billion single-use bags state residents use each year; that amounts to more than 1,000 per person according to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.

Building on the regulatory trend, NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently proposed limits on another significant source of plastic pollution: single-use food containers and packing peanuts made from expanded polystyrene, commonly known as Styrofoam.

The full picture of plastic pollution is pretty horrifying, not only because of the sheer volume of plastic we discard every year but also the health impacts of the material’s life cycle. Much of this litter makes its way to the oceans, spoiling beaches and clogging waterways around the world. Whales, fish, birds, turtles and other wildlife die each year after ingesting or becoming entangled in plastic waste.

Plastic never biodegrades—it just keeps breaking down into increasingly smaller pieces called microplastics that absorb a range of chemical pollutants, travel up the food chain to our plates and our drinking water, and accumulate in our bodies.

A new study published in Environmental Science & Technology, the journal of the American Chemical Society, synthesized data from 26 separate studies to calculate that the average American’s annual microplastics consumption ranges from 74,000 to 121,000 particles each year. Americans who drink bottled water for most of their daily intake may be ingesting an additional 90,000 microplastic particles annually. The study’s authors believe these values are likely underestimated.

Plastic & Health, a study published under the auspices of a consortium led by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), provides a comprehensive analysis of the health impacts of the full life cycle of plastics: from the 170-plus chemicals used in fracking to produce fossil fuel feedstocks; through the refining process, exposures to consumers and toxins released as plastic waste is processed and managed; and the long term effects on air, soil, water and human health.

The study documents impacts such as cancer, neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental problems, immune system impairment, damage to the skin and eyes, and respiratory and gastrointestinal problems, all especially intense for workers in the industry and people who live near plastics facilities.

The climate impact of plastics has received less attention, but CIEL’s companion study, Plastic & Climate, tracks greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from every stage of plastic production, use and disposal, including waste to energy. The report points out that “chemical manufacturing is profoundly energy-intensive, and the production of plastic feedstocks and resins is the most energy-intensive sub-sector of the chemical industry.” The authors estimate that the production and incineration of plastic over the past year alone will add more than 850 million metric tons of GHG to the atmosphere, equal to the emissions from 189 500-megawatt coal power plants.

Given the industry’s plans for expansion, the report estimates that by 2050, GHG emissions from the plastic lifecycle could reach over 56 gigatons. This is equivalent to 10 to 13 percent of the entire remaining carbon budget available if we are to maintain global warming below the below 1.5°C degrees threshold.

The International Energy Agency’s 2018 report, The Future of Petrochemicals, calls this expansion “one of the key ‘blind spots’ in the global energy debate… Petrochemicals are rapidly becoming the largest driver of global oil consumption. They are set to account for more than a third of the growth in oil demand to 2030, and nearly half to 2050. Petrochemicals are also poised to consume an additional 56 billion cubic meters of natural gas by 2030, equivalent to about half of Canada’s total gas consumption today.”

Facing a decline in the use of oil and natural gas for energy generation and transportation because of progress with renewables and electric vehicles, the industry is looking to petrochemicals to perpetuate their profits, and they’ve invested more than $200 billion in the sector over the past decade, according to the American Chemistry Council.

Ethane, a by-product of natural gas, is a plastics feedstock that the industry is particularly keen to exploit, given its plenitude because of the fracking boom. Long centered in Texas and Louisiana, the industry is moving aggressively into the Ohio River corridor to create a plastics hub that will exploit the Marcellus Shale; it’s being hailed as “the new coal.” Royal Dutch Shell’s new polymers plant, under construction near Pittsburgh, is the first of several ethane crackers planned for Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.

These multi-billion dollar facilities will turn ethane into ethylene and polyethylene pellets, the raw material for most plastics and, according to climate experts, they could also wipe out much of the GHG reduction gains we have achieved in recent years. The US Department of Energy is spearheading $1.9 billion in loan guarantees to develop underground storage of ethane, and Pennsylvania provided roughly $1.65 billion in tax incentives for the Shell facility.

That is the bigger picture. Despite admirable local and state efforts, we are going down the wrong road with plastic production:

1. We need to eliminate single-use plastics and all non-essential plastics throughout the economy.

2. We need to make producers fully responsible for the full life cycle of the material.

3. We should stop making virgin plastic altogether, and invest in innovative recycling technologies to make essential items like medical devices.

4. We should ban incineration of all plastic waste, including waste to energy, because the GHG impact and toxic exposures for host neighborhoods are just too damaging.

5. We should include workers’ health risks in our cost/benefit analyses before awarding giant subsidies to the plastic industry.

We grew up with plastic, but we need to face the environmental damage that comes with throwaway convenience.

#############################

See also: How Is Plastic Totally Ruining The Oceans In The Worst Way Possible? From Marine Insight, January 3, 2020

As is commonly known, plastic isn’t biodegradable, which accentuates the threat of lingering waste plastic for years and for generations to come. According to estimates, people around the world throw away almost four million tons of trash every day, of which 12.8% is plastic, polluting land, air and water. While plastic thrown into landfills contaminates the soil and groundwater with harmful chemicals and microorganisms, the effects of marine pollution caused by plastic are immeasurable.

Just like on land, even in the oceanic areas, the effects of plastic on marine life has started to be felt. The studies reveal that around 12.7 million tonnes of plastic waste are washed into the ocean every year. The United Nations Environment Programme estimates there could be as many as 51 trillion microplastic particles in the oceans already.

Plastic waste in ocean plankton an extreme problem

From an Article by Julia Conley, Common Dreams, April 17, 2019

The equipment was towed across millions of miles of ocean for six decades by marine scientists, meant to collect plankton — but its journeys have also given researchers a treasure trove of data on plastic pollution.

The continuous plankton reporter (CPR) was first deployed in 1931 to analyze the presence of plankton near the surface of the world’s oceans. In recent decades, however, its travels have increasingly been disrupted by entanglements with plastic, according to a study published in Nature Communications on Tuesday.

“The message is that marine plastic has increased significantly and we are seeing it all over the world, even in places where you would not want to, like the Northwest Passage and other parts of the Arctic,” Clare Ostle, a researcher at the Marine Biological Association in Plymouth, England, told The Guardian.

The CPR originated in northern England and has been continuously towed by boats across more than 6.5 million miles of ocean for more than 60 years.

It was first disrupted by plastic entanglement in 1957, when a fishing line got in its way. Eight years later the CPR ran into a plastic bag. The disruptions became increasingly common in the following years.

By the 1990s, two percent of the CPR’s missions were disrupted by plastic pollution — mainly discarded nets and other fishing equipment, as well as other plastic products.

The rate of disruption is now between three and four percent, according to scientists at the Marine Biological Association and the University of Plymouth, who compiled the research.

The CPR is pulled by boats at a depth of about 22 feet (7 meters) below the ocean surface, where many marine creatures live — confirming earlier studies which have found that marine life has been increasingly threatened by plastic pollution.

“The realization that plastics are ubiquitous, and that the consequent health impacts are yet to be fully understood, has increased the awareness surrounding plastics,” the report reads. “There is a need for re-education, continued research, and awareness campaigns, in order to drive action from the individual as well as large-scale decisions on waste-management and product design.”

“The dataset presented here,” the authors said, “is an important historical record for the continued monitoring of plastics in the ocean, and confirms the importance of actions to reduce and improve plastic waste.”

Single Use Plastics are dominating our lives

From an Article by Olivia Rosane, EcoWatch.com, February 22, 2019

With eight million metric tons of plastic entering the world’s oceans every year, there is growing concern about the proliferation of plastics in the environment. Despite this, surprisingly little is known about the full impact of plastic pollution on human health.

But a first-of-its-kind study released February 19, 2019 sets out to change that. The study, Plastic & Health: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet, is especially groundbreaking because it looks at the health impacts of every stage in the life cycle of plastics, from the extraction of the fossil fuels that make them to their permanence in the environment. While previous studies have focused on particular products, manufacturing processes or moments in the creation and use of plastics, this study shows that plastics pose serious health risks at every stage in their production, use and disposal.

“The heavy toxic burdens associated with plastic—at every stage of its life cycle—offers another convincing argument why reducing and not increasing production of plastics is the only way forward,” report co-author and Break Free From Plastic Movement (BFFP) Global Coordinator Von Hernandez said in a press release. “It is shocking how the existing regulatory regime continues to give the whole plastic industrial complex the license to play Russian roulette with our lives and our health. Plastic is lethal, and this report shows us why.”

The report was a joint effort by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Earthworks, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF), IPEN, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (t.e.j.a.s.), University of Exeter, UPSTREAM and BFFP. It explains in depth how each stage in the plastics life cycle puts human health at risk.

1. “Extraction and Transport of Fossil Feedstocks for Plastic“: The extraction of the oil and gas needed to make plastic releases toxic chemicals into the air and water. The chemicals used to produce plastic feedstock via fracking are particularly dangerous: More than 170 of them can cause documented health problems including cancer and damage to the nervous and immune systems.

2. “Refining and Production of Plastic Resins and Additives“: The process of refining fossil fuels into plastic resin releases toxic chemicals into the air that can cause cancer and damage the nervous system, among other issues. Industrial workers and communities near refineries are especially at risk.

3. “Consumer Products and Packaging“: Plastic products themselves can harm their users both in the form of microplastics that break off from the larger product and chemicals contained in the product that can cause cancer and developmental problems, as well as disrupt the hormone system.

4. “Toxic Releases from Plastic Waste Management“: Every method for eliminating plastic waste, such as incineration and gasification, releases acid gases, organic substances like dioxins and furans and toxic metals like lead and mercury into the air, soil and water. This is also particularly dangerous for plant workers and surrounding communities.

5. “Fragmenting and Microplastics“: As plastics break down, they release tiny fragments into the environment that humans can swallow or inhale. Doing so can cause problems like inflammation, genotoxicity, oxidative stress, apoptosis and necrosis, which can lead to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other potentially deadly or chronic ailments.

6. “Cascading Exposure as Plastic Degrades“: The chemicals added to plastics easily spread into the surrounding environment as the plastic breaks down, posing an ever-increasing risk to water, soil or body tissue where plastic is present.

7. “Ongoing Environmental Exposure“: Plastic degrading in the ocean or on land builds up in the food chain as it is ingested by larger and larger animals. The plastic both leaches the chemicals it already contained into the environment and accumulates other toxic chemicals present in the environment as it works its way up the food chain.

In order to combat the problem, the report recommends treating plastic exposure as a human rights issue, making sure every stage in the plastic life cycle is addressed, drafting laws that require accurate information about what goes into plastics during all stages of production, ensuring transparency in the development of solutions and making sure that solutions take into account the global reach of plastic production and proliferation.

Other organizations who work on plastic pollution have praised the report for its in-depth investigation of the crisis.

“This new report provides further evidence of plastic’s detrimental effects on a global scale — and it’s more personal than ever,” Oceana chief policy officer Jacqueline Savitz said in a statement. “Plastic is impacting human health through every single stage of its life cycle, from extraction and production to consumer use, and it is entering our food chain. The risks to human health begin long before plastic even makes it onto store shelves, providing yet another reason why waste-management efforts alone can’t reverse this crisis. We need companies to take responsibility for plastic’s effects on our health and the environment, stop wasting time with false solutions and turn to sustainable alternatives to plastic before it’s too late.”

Plastics have become worse than bad and ugly

Queen Elizabeth seeks to stop spread of plastics

From an Article via Lazer Tecnologia, February 12, 2018

Queen Elizabeth has long expressed admiration for David Attenborough, an environmentalist with a track record of creating handsome, compelling movies about our planet.

Julian Kirby, campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “Blue Planet’s reach now extends to the Royal households which shows how much momentum is building behind the war on plastic pollution”. But it also explored the disastrous effects of waste on the world’s waters.

Queen Elizabeth II wants to live in a cleaner and greener environment.

After watching Attenborough’s BBC documentary “Blue Planet II” a year ago, Queen Elizabeth II spearheaded a campaign that requires the guests and organizers of royal events to not use straws and bottles. According to The Telegraph, straws will also be phased out of all public cafes inside the royal residences.

Water will be served from glass bottles in all meetings at the palaces. At all levels, there’s a strong desire to tackle this issue’.

‘Across the organisation, the Royal Household is committed to reducing its environmental impact, ‘ a Palace spokesman told the Telegraph.

Plastics and other detritus line the shore of the Thames Estuary on January 2, 2018 in Cliffe, Kent. Plastic pieces, including microplastics, also end up swallowed by fish – which then causes them to die. Prince Charles has delivered several speeches about damage to the oceans. In one recent talk, he warned of an “escalating ecological and human disaster” from refuse in the seas. Charles and Dame Ellen MacArthur teamed up to offer a million-dollar cash prize to anyone with a great idea for keeping garbage out of the ocean. Ten per cent of that ends up in the sea. There are also some predictions suggesting that plastic waste in the sea will outweigh the fishes by 2050.

Plastic debris is clogging the oceans

Pollution is now as dense in the northernmost ocean as it is in the Atlantic and Pacific.

From an Article by Robinson Meyer, The Atlantic Monthly, April 20, 2017

The Arctic Ocean is small, shallow, and—most importantly—shrouded. Unlike the other large oceans of the world, it is closely hemmed in by Asia, Europe, and North America, with very few watery entrances in and out. Some oceanographers call it the “Arctic Mediterranean Sea,” a nod both to its between-the-terra-ness and its similarity to that smaller ocean.

Often, that remoteness has played to its ecological advantage. Very few ships pass through the area (with all their attendant pollution and environmental disruption), at least compared to nearby waterways like the Bering Sea. It also helps that much of the Arctic freezes over every winter.

But a paper released this week in Science Advances argues that its location is now harming it. The first survey of the region has found that roughly 300 billion pieces of floating plastic, most of them tiny but visible to the unaided eye, have clogged the planet’s northernmost sea. The plastic, having been carried to the pole over decades, now has very few ways out.

In other words, the Arctic Ocean has become the Northern Hemisphere’s “dead end” for floating plastic.

“Our data demonstrate that the marine plastic pollution has reached a global scale after only a few decades using plastic materials,” said Andrés Cózar Cabañas, a biologist at the University of Cádiz. It is, he said, “a clear evidence of the human capacity to change our planet. This plastic accumulation is likely to grow further.”

The survey was carried out while the research vessel Tara circumnavigated the pole in late 2013. The same Tara cruise also surveilled local plankton populations and observed the aurora.

It found a couple key differences in how plastic pollution works in the Arctic. To the south, in the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, plastic tends to accumulate in enormous subtropical “trash patches.” While these are not the dense and churning gyres of garbage that many people imagine, they can be accurately described as parts of the ocean with a lot of garbage in them. In a way, they’re like the asteroid belt, an otherwise void place in the world-ocean where plastic is much more likely to accumulate.

The Arctic does not so much have trash patches inside it; it is giant trash patch. The Arctic Ocean has about the same median density of plastic as the Atlantic and Pacific do. But unlike in the southern oceans, where plastic has unevenly congregated in certain areas, it has spread itself throughout the entirety of the Arctic.

Sometimes, though, it is quite dense: In the seas north of Iceland and western Russia, there are hundreds of thousands of pieces of plastic per square kilometer.

Martha Buckley, an oceanographer at George Mason University, agrees with the authors that plastic is not coming from the Arctic itself. This is “intuitive,” she writes: Few people live around that ocean’s coast, there is little ship traffic there, and most of the plastic is tiny enough that it seems to have spent several years in the ocean. (The paper’s authors estimate that it takes one to three years for plastic from the North Atlantic to make it to the Arctic.)

“It is pretty clear that this plastic has been transported by ocean currents. How the plastics are entering the Arctic is not as clear,” she told me in an email. The paper, for instance, doesn’t discuss transport through the ocean’s vertical currents. Over the last few years, research has suggested that gyres in the subtropics and subpolar regions are linked by deeper currents.

Ocean currents matter because they’ll help researchers learn if the plastic is trapped in the Arctic permanently or whether it will eventually work its way out. Other scientists are still trying to come up with solutions to the world’s long-term plastic problem. In the meantime, says Cabañas, the only way to fix the problem is to mitigate its scale. Countries and coastal communities should work harder to keep plastic from winding up in the ocean.

“We should properly manage the plastic waste at its source,” he told me. “Once the plastic enters the ocean, its destination and impacts are uncontrollable.”

Ethylene Capacity Worldwide to 2020

From a Report by Petrochemical Update, June 4, 2016 

The US petrochemical market will see a sharp increase in investment in ethylene production and derivatives capacity from foreign chemical and petrochemical manufacturers, totalling at least 10 million tons of new production per year by 2025, according to Petrochemical Update’s US Ethylene Plant Construction Costs Report 2015 released on June 4, 2016.

To date, about 25 companies, some at multiple locations, have announced they plan to build new crackers or to expand existing ones, 12 of which are foreign players, according to the report.

At least 10 other companies from South Korea, Japan, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia are also studying ethylene investments in North America, many of which will service the export market.

The shale gas boom in North America has transformed petrochemical manufacturers in the US, Canada and Mexico from high-cost producers of key petrochemicals and resins to some of the lowest-cost producers globally, second only to the Middle East, ushering in a wave of new ethylene capacity construction.

The Petrochemical Update study tracks comprehensive cost data for 50 line items for ethylene plants in the US Northeast and Gulf Coast through 2020.

In the United States, 14 new world-scale ethane crackers with capacities above 1,000 KTA (2.2 billion pounds per year) have been announced or are planned with a combined capacity of almost 22 million tons per year (47 billion pounds per year), according to the report.

Debottlenecking will add another 2 million tons (4.4 billion pounds) per year of ethylene capacity, bringing the total to 24 million tons (50 billion pounds) per year.

An additional 1,750 KTA (3.86 billion pounds per year) of ethylene production has been announced for Canada and Mexico.

With traditional large players, new market entrants – such as Braskem and Sasol – and other manufacturers (SABIC, Lotte, Appalachian Resins, among others) looking to invest, overall capital expenditures in new ethylene crackers, expansions and associated derivative units could exceed $40 billion over the next five years. 

Source: Petrochemical Update Construction Costs Report 2015.

First wave
The first wave of projects (2015-2020) in the US includes six new ethylene crackers, five expansions and supporting derivatives units where work is already underway, worth a total investment of $18.4 billion and adding 10.2 million tons (8.3 million tons from new ethane crackers and 1.9 million tons from expansion units) of new capacity.

The US currently produces about 34 million tons of ethylene per year (75 billion pounds per year).

The capital expenditures for these investments range from around $250 million to $8 billion per project.

Of the six new ethane crackers under construction, three are being developed by foreign manufacturers. Formosa Plastics is building a 1,750 KTA cracker in Texas and is likely to build a 1,000 KTA facility in Louisiana.

In March this year, Sasol broke ground on its 1,500 KTA ethane cracker and derivatives mega project near Westlake, a facility that will roughly triple Sasol’s chemical production capacity in the US when it comes on stream in 2018.

In the second quarter of 2014, OxyChem and Mexichem’s 50-50 JV, Ingleside Ethylene, began construction of its 540 KTA, $1.5 million ethane cracker at OxyChem’s Ingleside, Texas, complex.

Second wave
Besides the first wave of units expected to come on stream around 2018, there is likely to be a second wave of plants that have not yet started construction, assuming that the oil to gas price ratio remains competitive.

Some 13 companies, including nine foreign ones, have announced they plan to build new crackers or expand existing units.

In addition, there are at least 10 other petrochemical manufacturers (three from South Korea, four from Japan, one from the Middle East and two more from elsewhere in Asia) that are known to be studying an ethylene investment in North America.

While not all of these new crackers may be built, the level of project activity underscores the interest from foreign companies in the abundant supply of low-cost ethane from shale gas.

“The key driver for Asian companies is the high cost of their own naphtha-based olefins capacity versus olefins produced from shale gas in North America,” said Petrochemical Update Business Research Manager Louis Vye.

“Even at the current oil-to-gas (naphtha-to-ethane) ratio, North American olefins are competitive in the export market compared to naphtha-based olefins. These plants would be built largely for export by Asian companies.”

Controlling construction costs will be of paramount importance to Asian players as they will be exporting much of their production and need to offer very competitive prices. Margins are occasionally very tight and companies need to ensure construction costs remain under control if they are to recoup their capex investment, the report says.

The second wave of projects will likely be different in a number of ways. At least one new cracker will be built in the Northeast. Two companies, Braskem Americas and Shell, are considering projects based on ethane from the nearby Marcellus shale formation, and one plant is being considered for Ohio (PTT/Marubeni). 

There are some distinct benefits to locating in the Northeast despite the relatively higher plant construction costs compared to the US Gulf Coast. The cost of ethane should be lower than on the Gulf Coast due to lower demand for ethane in the North East and the significant reserves in the region.

The proximity to the end user market is another advantage, since 50 to 60 percent of the polyethylene market is in the Northeast and North Central United States. 

Also, by the time either of these projects move to construction, there will also be a large pool of trained, skilled workers in the Gulf Coast from the seven crackers and multiple expansions currently underway in North America.

Crackers built in the second wave will have a much higher export sales component, especially if one or both investors are specifically targeting the export market, according to the report. The US domestic market will likely be saturated with capacity from the first wave of projects, making international markets the major outlet for the second wave of projects.

This will be true for polyethylene, polypropylene and PVC, assuming that at least two, if not three, major PVC investments move forward.

The exception could be for crackers built in the Northeast, due to their lower operating costs, which could give them an advantage with customers in the Northeast and North Central US.  However, these firms would likely face stiff competition from existing producers supplying the region as they look to retain market share.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Lethal debris from inside sea turtle

Another Whale Dead From Ingesting a Plastic Bag

NOAA Marine Debris Program | October 30, 2015

From an Article of the NOAA Marine Debris Program, October 30, 2015

[EcoWatch Editor’s note: Yesterday EcoWatch reported that a mature sperm whale was found dead in Taiwan. Local marine biologists said plastic bags and fishing nets filling its stomach.]

Marine debris can be a dangerous problem for the animals that inhabit the marine environment. Unfortunately, we recently saw this first-hand on a Florida beach. A melon-headed whale that was recovered along Florida’s east coast died due to a large plastic bag in its digestive system. NOAA Fisheries’ stranding network staff, partnering with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute responded to the call about a stranding on Riviera Beach.

A decision was made to euthanize the whale after vets at the Palm Beach Zoo determined that the animal was in very poor condition and extremely thin. A necropsy (a non-human autopsy) was performed by a veterinarian to discover the cause of the animal’s poor health and subsequent death, during which a large plastic bag was found to be blocking the whale’s intestinal tract. The whale had suffered from starvation due to the blockage.

This is a sad reminder of the impact of marine debris. Every piece of debris matters. Animals can mistake trash for food or accidentally ingest it when consuming actual food items. However, we can help! By properly disposing of our trash, following the three R’s (reduce, reuse, recycle), helping to educate others, and by cleaning up our shorelines and waterways by getting involved in cleanup events, we can fight the marine debris problem and work to avoid outcomes like this in the future. To learn more about how you can help, visit our website.

#  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #

Shocking Photos of Green Sea Turtle Killed by Ingesting Plastics and Other Marine Litter

From an Article by Lorraine Chow, EcoWatch.com, November 2, 2015

A green sea turtle was found dead on a beach in Sai Kung, Hong Kong, with its stomach and intestines filled with plastic and other marine debris, underscoring the growing crisis of ocean pollution.

The greatest threat to green sea turtles, which are endangered, is the commercial harvesting of their eggs, poaching and bycatch (unintentional capture from fishing).

However, this recent incident in Hong Kong highlights the disturbing fact that human-caused trash is a growing threat to aquatic life. As the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) told the Hong Kong Free Press, this is the first time that a green sea turtle in Hong Kong has been found dead from ingesting marine litter.

According to Hong Kong newspaper Stand News, the turtle was found by a local woman named Mandy Wong, who immediately notified the Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department upon discovery. When she returned to the site the next day, she was surprised to find that the turtle’s body had been torn apart (perhaps by a dog) with the turtle’s stomach and intestines filled with trash.

Dee Hwa Chong, senior fish researcher at the Ichthyological Society of Hong Kong, told Chinese newspaper Ming Pao that the turtle had died from ingesting plastic litter that can tear apart its digestive tract and block its intestines, preventing the turtle from taking in food.

The WWF’s Coastal Watch conducted a comprehensive survey on marine litter on coastal habitats in Hong Kong from July 2014 and May 2015, and concluded that plastic trash is a severe threat to all marine ecosystems.

“During all of the surveys, we observed various organisms entangled in debris which caused injury or death, like ‘ghost nets’ (fishing nets which have been cast adrift). We also found fish bite marks on pieces of plastic litter,” said Patrick Yeung, Coastal Watch project manager. “The pollutants absorbed by marine animals will potentially bioaccumulate along the food chain, which will eventually damage the marine ecosystem, affect fishery resources and human health. It is imperative that we tackle the marine litter problem at its source immediately.”

Green turtles are a protected species in Hong Kong and listed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. According to Conserveturtles.org, the current population of nesting females is estimated to be between 85,000 and 90,000.

It’s clear that we must reduce our plastic footprint as this pollution chokes the entire marine food chain, from plankton to much larger creatures.

Roughly 8 million tons of plastic is dumped into the world’s oceans every year, and according to a recent study, 60 percent of this waste comes from just five countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. As these economies continue to grow and demand more plastic goods, it’s projected that plastic consumption in Asia will increase by an astonishing 80 percent to surpass 200 million tons by 2025.

#  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #

Ten Ways Ocean Pollution Makes Us Sick

By Cole Mellino, EcoWatch.com, November 7, 2015

Our oceans are very polluted and full of plastic. Roughly 8 million tons of plastic is dumped into the world’s oceans every year, and according to a new study, the majority of this waste comes from just five countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Regardless of its source, plastic pollution has a devastating impact on marine life.

At EcoWatch, we’ve highlighted photos of sea turtles killed by ingesting plastic and other debris. And just recently, two whales have been killed from ingesting plastic bags and fishing gear. But ocean pollution affects humans too.

Check out this infographic from DIVE.in, an online scuba diving magazine, to learn how ocean pollution hurts us, too:

http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/07/ocean-pollution-makes-us-sick/

#  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #  #

Why We Must Ban Plastic Bags and Support a Circular Economy

From an Article by Marcus Eriksen, EcoWatch.com, November 11, 2015

“There’s your product. It’s all plastic bags,” I said to Phil Rozenski, director of sustainability and marketing for Novalex, a plastic bag manufacturer. We were on stage debating the efficacy of plastic bags at the Sustainable Packaging Coalition annual conference in Charlotte, North Carolina in early October.

The object I was referring to was a 45-pound mass of tangled plastic bags found in the stomach of a dead camel in the desert of Dubai. The intention was to point out that in a circular economy products and packaging that escape the best recovery systems on the planet and cost taxpayers unfairly to clean up the mess, must be replaced with a design that is a benefit rather than a cost once you include the inconvenient externalities.

For half an hour we went back and forth about statistics that we each use to defend our positions, pointing to the other’s faulty arguments, but I wanted to get to the bottom of it, so I said, “You know, we could go back and forth all day with our convenient statistics, knowing we’re just gonna dig in our heels on where we stand. Can we get beyond it all?”

My point was very simple. Plastic bags by design are really good at escaping our recovery systems and knowing now how dangerous plastics are to the environment, the logical next step is a design overhaul. Out with the old and in with the new. Rozenski nodded his head, then responded, “Would you be willing to support our How2Recycle program?” Two weeks later I was on a call with How2Recycle representatives.

How2Recycle was born out of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition and their work to create a circular economy around plastic products and packaging in order to keep materials out of the dump or incinerator and instead keep them moving in a circular system from production and manufacturing to consumption and recovery.

See also: Plastic Bags and Fishing Nets Found in Stomach of Dead Whale