HELPING TO STOP PLASTIC AND PAPER BAGS
A number of people have asked about the implications of using plastic bags on the personal carbon footprint as well as on the environment in general. There are some comparisons between paper bags and plastic bags available which clearly show that it all depends on how many times these plastic or paper bags are being used.
Littering is probably the severest problem related to plastic bags. Nevertheless let’s now have a look at the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for the production and incineration of plastic bags.
The carbon footprint of plastic (LDPE or PET, poyethylene) is about 6 kg CO2 per kg of plastic. If you know the weight of your plastic bags, you can multiply it with the number of plastic bag you are using per year. Then you can easily calculate the carbon dioxide emitted by your own usage of plastic bags. See below for some background information.
Of course you’ll find different figures on the Internet. The main factors are the weight of the plastic bag and whether the grey energy (energy used for production and disposal) is taken into account.
Source: http://timeforchange.org/
PET or PETE (polyethylene terephthalate)
Found in: Soft drink, water and beer bottles; mouthwash bottles; peanut butter containers; salad dressing and vegetable oil containers; ovenable food trays.
Recycling: Picked up through most curbside recycling programs.
Recycled into: Polar fleece, fiber, tote bags, furniture, carpet, paneling, straps, (occasionally) new containers
PET plastic is the most common for single-use bottled beverages, because it is inexpensive, lightweight and easy to recycle. It poses low risk of leaching breakdown products. Recycling rates remain relatively low (around 20%), though the material is in high demand by remanufacturers.
Oh shit! My dog just pooped. What should I use instead of plastic bags?
Why put 100% biodegradable dog waste into a plastic bag that will take hundreds of years to photodegrade? Plastic bags are not the only way to pick up your little friends mess. Here are some green alternatives.
There are many different versions of the pooper scooper rake, but essentially it is a tool that helps you scoop up doggie droppings and place in the trash can. You even can buy a collapsible version which can be stuffed away in your eco-friendly bag after each use.
The best solution for disposal of pet waste has always been to separate it from the bag or paper and flush it down the toilet. Now you can. Using BioBag Dog Waste Bags in place of plastic bags makes sense: They are the first biodegradable and compostable pooper bag in the world. The waste and the bag can be thrown in your compost, where both items will decompose naturally.
Or, the waste and bag can be buried, where micro-organisms will quickly eat both; the waste and bag can be set at curbside with other yard waste where communities collect biodegradable waste for composting.
BioBags are a smart alternative to polyethylene/polypropylene based plastic bags. They’re designed to help people reduce the usage of new and recycled polyethylene-based plastic. Regular usage will help rid plastic bags from our environment. BioBags are made primarily from cornstarch and are certified to be 100% biodegradable and 100% compostable. Regular plastic bags do not biodegrade – they photodegrade whereby the elements break them down into smaller and toxic bits.
Some manufacturers are blending additives to polyethylene to produce bags marketed as “biodegradable” or “degradable”; these merely accelerate the photodegredation process. By rapidly breaking plastic into tiny bits – it gets rid of the eyesore but the plastic remains! Of course these do not meet the ASTM D6400-99 standard for biodegradable and compostable plastic. The claim of biodegradability offered by these products is misleading and should be avoided since we believe they represent the worst possible alternative.
Remember, our goal is to help divert all naturally biodegradable waste from entering our landfills. This includes food waste, yard waste, paper waste and pet waste. If any of these items are placed in an anaerobic (air-locked) landfill, their natural ability to biodegrade can be severely diminished.
Click here to purchase BioBag for Dogs
Some people believe that making plastic shopping bags biodegradable is one way to try to allow plastic pollution to degrade. However biodegradable bags pose many environmental problems. Problems which are similar to plastic bags themselves!
Bioplastics need to be kept away from the usual recycling stream to prevent contamination. They can take up to two years to degrade which means they still have a lot of time to potentially harm marine life.
Polythene film cannot biodegrade naturally. There are two methods the industry has tried to resolve this problem. One is to modify the carbon chain of polyethylene to improve its degradability and at some point its biodegradability; the other is to make a film with similar properties to polyethylene from a biodegradable substance such as starch.
These are made from corn, potatoes or wheat. This form of biodegradable film meets the the American Standard for Testing Materials and European norm EN13432 for compostability. It degrades at least 90% within 180 days or less under specified conditions. Heat, moisture and aeration in a compost pile is required for this type of biodegradable bag to biodegrade.
These films are made by blending an additive to provide a UV oxidative and/or biological mechanism to degrade them. This typically takes 6 months to 2 years in a landfill site if adequate exposure to oxygen and heat over 140°F/60°C.
If put in a compost, the oxo degradables which remain after decomposition could be considered a form of pollution even though it may contribute to improved soil fertility.
BBC News: “All Tesco bags ‘to be degradable dt. 10th May’06″ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4758419.stm
BBC News: “Degradable carrier bags launched dt. 2nd Sep’02″ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2229698.stm
Of course, the goal is to not using plastic bags in the first place. However nobody is perfect and even the most eco-friendly minded can get caught in the situation of not having a reusable handy.
The confusion over what we can and cannot recycle continues to confound consumers. Plastics are especially troublesome, as different types of plastic require different processing to be reformulated and re-used as raw material. Some municipalities accept all types of plastic for recycling, while others only accept jugs, containers and bottles with certain numbers stamped on their bottoms.
Plastic grocery bags come in two types: Type 2: High-density polyethylene film – HDPE. Type 4: Low density or linear-low density polyethylene film – LDPE/LLDPE
The symbol code we’re familiar with—a single digit ranging from 1 to 7 and surrounded by a triangle of arrows—was designed by The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) in 1988 to allow consumers and recyclers to differentiate types of plastics while providing a uniform coding system for manufacturers.
The numbers, which 39 U.S. states now require to be molded or imprinted on all eight-ounce to five-gallon containers that can accept the half-inch minimum-size symbol, identify the type of plastic. According to the American Plastics Council, an industry trade group, the symbols also help recyclers do their jobs more effectively.
The easiest and most common plastics to recycle are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PETE) and are assigned the number 1. Examples include soda and water bottles, medicine containers, and many other common consumer product containers. Once it has been processed by a recycling facility, PETE can become fiberfill for winter coats, sleeping bags and life jackets. It can also be used to make bean bags, rope, car bumpers, tennis ball felt, combs, cassette tapes, sails for boats, furniture and, of course, other plastic bottles.
Number 2 is reserved for high-density polyethylene plastics. These include heavier containers that hold laundry detergents and bleaches as well as milk, shampoo and motor oil. Plastic labeled with the number 2 is often recycled into toys, piping, plastic lumber and rope. Like plastic designated number 1, it is widely accepted at recycling centers.
Polyvinyl chloride, commonly used in plastic pipes, shower curtains, medical tubing, vinyl dashboards, and even some baby bottle nipples, gets number 3. Like numbers 4 (wrapping films, grocery and sandwich bags, and other containers made of low-density polyethylene) and 5 (polypropylene containers used in Tupperware, among other products), few municipal recycling centers will accept it due to its very low rate of recyclability.
Number 6 goes on polystyrene (Styrofoam) items such as coffee cups, disposable cutlery, meat trays, packing “peanuts” and insulation. It is widely accepted because it can be reprocessed into many items, including cassette tapes and rigid foam insulation.
Last, but far from least, are items crafted from various combinations of the aforementioned plastics or from unique plastic formulations not commonly used. Usually imprinted with a number 7 or nothing at all, these plastics are the most difficult to recycle and, as such, are seldom collected or recycled. More ambitious consumers can feel free to return such items to the product manufacturers to avoid contributing to the local waste stream, and instead put the burden on the makers to recycle or dispose of the items properly.
- Drop off plastic grocery bags Type 2 and Type 4 at your local grocery store, if you cannot recycle them through your curbside program. Most grocery stores will accept plastic bags and have recycling bins inside the store.
- Exclude any plastic bags that are dark in color or bags that have handles or drawstrings. Plastic food packaging and plastic food wrap (Saran wrap) are also non-recyclable.
- Clean and dry bags thoroughly before recycling, making sure they are empty of any debris. This is important, since foreign objects will contaminate the plastic as it is being recycled.
Source: http://www.ehow.com/ http://www.about.com/
Bisphenol A, commonly abbreviated as BPA, is an organic compound with two phenol functional groups. It is a difunctional building block of several important plastics and plastic additives, 2–3 million metric ton are produced every year.
Suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s, concerns about the use of bisphenol A in consumer products were regularly reported in the news media in 2008 after several governments issued reports questioning its safety, and some retailers have removed products made of it from their shelves.
Bisphenol A is used primarily to make plastics, and products containing bisphenol A-based plastics have been in commerce for more than 50 years. Polycarbonate plastic, which is clear and nearly shatter-proof, is used to make a variety of common products including baby and water bottles, sports equipment, medical and dental devices, dental fillings and sealants, eyeglass lenses, CDs and DVDs, and household electronics.
Epoxy resins containing bisphenol A are used as coatings on the inside of almost all food and beverage cans. BPA is used to produce paper such as thermal paper and carbonless copy paper. Bisphenol A is also a precursor to the flame retardant, tetrabromobisphenol A, and was formerly used as a fungicide.
Global production of bisphenol A in 2003 was estimated to be over 2 million metric tonnes (t). In the U.S., it is manufactured by Bayer MaterialScience, Dow Chemical Company, SABIC Innovative Plastics (formerly GE Plastics), Hexion Specialty Chemicals, and Sunoco Chemicals. In 2004, these companies produced just over 1 million t of bisphenol A, up from just 7,260 t in 1991. In 2003, annual U.S. consumption was 856,000 t, 72% of which was used to make polycarbonate plastic and 21% going into epoxy resins. The amount of BPA used in the US is equivalent to six pounds per habitant per year.
Bisphenol A is an endocrine disruptor, which can mimic the body’s own hormones and may lead to negative health effects. Early development appears to be the period of greatest sensitivity to its effects. Regulatory bodies have determined safety levels for humans, but those safety levels are currently being questioned as a result of new scientific studies. In 2009 the The Endocrine Society released a scientific statement expressing concern over current human exposure to BPA. In 2007, a consensus statement by 38 experts on bisphenol A concluded that average levels in people are above those that cause harm to animals in laboratory experiments. A panel convened by the U.S. National Institutes of Health determined that there was “some concern” about BPA’s effects on fetal and infant brain development and behavior. A 2008 report by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) later agreed with the panel, expressing “some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A,” and “minimal concern for effects on the mammary gland and an earlier age for puberty for females in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A.” The NTP had “negligible concern that exposure of pregnant women to bisphenol A will result in fetal or neonatal mortality, birth defects, or reduced birth weight and growth in their offspring.”
A 2008 review has concluded that obesity may be increased as a function of BPA exposure, which “merits concern among scientists and public health officials”. A 2009 review of available studies has concluded that “perinatal BPA exposure acts to exert persistent effects on body weight and adiposity”. Another 2009 review has concluded that “Eliminating exposures to (BPA) and improving nutrition during development offer the potential for reducing obesity and associated diseases”. Other reviews have come with similar conclusions. A later study on mice has shown that perinatal exposure to drinking water containing 1 mg/L of BPA increased adipogenesis in females at weaning.
A 2008 review has concluded that “perinatal exposure to low doses of BPA, alters breast development and increases breast cancer risk”. Another 2008 review concluded that ” animal experiments and epidemiological data strengthen the hypothesis that foetal exposure to xenoestrogens may be an underlying cause of the increased incidence of breast cancer observed over the last 50 years”. A 2009 review, funded by the “Breast Cancer Fund”, has recommended “a federal ban on the manufacture, distribution and sale of consumer products containing bisphenol A”. Neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor the International Agency for Research on Cancer have evaluated bisphenol A for possible carcinogenic activity.
A panel convened by the U.S. National Institutes of Health determined that there was “some concern” about BPA’s effects on fetal and infant brain development and behavior. A 2008 report by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) later agreed with the panel, expressing “some concern for effects on the brain”. A 2007 review has concluded that BPA, like other xenoestrogens, should be considered as a player within the nervous system that can regulate or alter its functions through multiple pathways. A 2007 review has concluded that low doses of BPA during development have persistent effects on brain structure, function and behavior in rats and mice. A 2008 review concluded that low-dose BPA maternal exposure causes long-term consequences at the level of neurobehavioral development in mice. A 2008 review has concluded that neonatal exposure to Bisphenol-A (BPA) can affect sexually dimorphic brain morphology and neuronal phenotypes in adulthood. A 2008 review has concluded that BPA altered long-term potentiation in the hippocampus and even nanomolar dosage could induce significant effects on memory processes. A 2009 review raised concerns about BPA effect on anteroventral periventricular nucleus. A 2008 study by the Yale School of Medicine demonstrated that adverse neurological effects occur in non-human primates regularly exposed to bisphenol A at levels equal to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) maximum safe dose of 50 µg/kg/day. This research found a connection between BPA and interference with brain cell connections vital to memory, learning and mood.
A 2005 review concluded that prenatal and neonatal exposure to BPA can potentiate the central dopaminergic systems, resulting in the supersensitivity of the drugs of abuse-induced rewarding effects and hyperlocomotion in the mouse. A 2009 study on rats has concluded that prenatal and neonatal exposure to low-dose BPA causes deficits in development at dorsolateral striatum via altering the function of dopaminergic receptors.
A 2007 review has concluded that bisphenol-A have been shown to bind to thyroid hormone receptor and perhaps have selective effects on its functions. A 2009 review about environmental chemicals and thyroid function, raised concerns about BPA effects on triiodothyronine and concluded that “available evidence suggests that governing agencies need to regulate the use of thyroid-disrupting chemicals, particularly as such uses relate exposures of pregnant women, neonates and small children to the agents”. A 2009 review summarized BPA adverse effects on thyroid hormone action.
A study in mice in 2009, which found ovary anomalies from exposition as low as 1 µg/kg, concluded that BPA exposure causes long-term adverse reproductive and carcinogenic effects if exposure occurs during prenatal critical periods of differentiation. Another study in 2009 suggested that neonatal exposure of as low as 50 µg/kg disrupts ovarian development in mice. Yet another study on mice in 2009 has concluded that neonatal BPA exposition of as low as 50 µg/kg permanently alters the hypothalamic estrogen-dependent mechanisms that govern sexual behavior in the adult female rat. A 2009 study has found that prenatal exposure to BPA at levels of (10 μg/kg/day) affects behavioral sexual differentiation in male monkeys. A 2009 in vitro study on placental JEG3 cells concluded that BPA potentially reduced estrogen synthesis. A 2009 study has found that BPA exposure disrupted the blood-testis barrier when administered to immature, but not to adult, rats.
A 1997 study in mice has found that neonatal BPA exposure of 2 μg/kg increased adult prostate weight. A 2005 study in mice has found that neonatal BPA exposure at 10 μg/kg disrupted the development of the fetal mouse prostate. A 2006 study in rats has shown that neonatal bisphenol A exposure at 10 μg/kg levels increases prostate gland susceptibility to adult-onset precancerous lesions and hormonal carcinogenesis. A 2007 in vitro study has found that BPA within the range of concentrations currently measured in human serum is associated with permanently increase in prostate size. A 2009 study has found that newborns rats exposed to a low-dose of BPA (10 µg/kg) increased prostate cancer susceptibility when adults.
In 2009, at an Endocrine Society meeting new research reported data from animals experimentally treated with BPA. Studies presented at the group’s annual meeting show BPA can affect the hearts of women, can permanently damage the DNA of mice, and appear to be entering the human body from a variety of unknown sources.
The first major study of health effects on humans associated with bisphenol A exposure was published in September 2008 by Iain Lang and colleagues in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The cross-sectional study of almost 1,500 people assessed exposure to bisphenol A by looking at levels of the chemical in urine. The authors found that higher bisphenol A levels were significantly associated with heart disease, diabetes, and abnormally high levels of certain liver enzymes. An editorial in the same issue notes that while this preliminary study needs to be confirmed and cannot prove causality, there is precedent for analogous effects in animal studies, which “add[s] biological plausibility to the results reported by Lang et al.”
A 2009 study on Chinese workers in BPA factories found that workers were four times more likely to report erectile dysfunction, reduced sexual desire and overall dissatisfaction with their sex life than workers with no heightened BPA exposure. BPA workers were also seven times more likely to have ejaculation difficulties. They were also more likely to report reduced sexual function within one year of beginning employment at the factory, and the higher the exposure, the more likely they were to have sexual difficulties.
Studies have associated recurrent miscarriage with BPA serum concentrations, oxidative stress and inflammation in postmenopausal women with urinary concentrations, and externalizing behaviors in two-year old children, especially among female children, with urinary concentrations.
The first evidence of the estrogenicity of bisphenol A came from experiments on rats conducted in the 1930s, but it was not until 1997 that adverse effects of low-dose exposure on laboratory animals were first reported.
| Dose (µg/kg/day) | Effects (measured in studies of mice or rats, descriptions (in quotes) are from Environmental Working Group) | Study Year |
|---|---|---|
| 0.025 | “Permanent changes to genital tract” | 2005 |
| 0.025 | “Changes in breast tissue that predispose cells to hormones and carcinogens” | 2005 |
| 1 | long-term adverse reproductive and carcinogenic effects | 2009 |
| 2 | “increased prostate weight 30%” | 1997 |
| 2 | “lower bodyweight, increase of anogenital distance in both genders, signs of early puberty and longer estrus.” | 2002 |
| 2.4 | “Decline in testicular testosterone” | 2004 |
| 2.5 | “Breast cells predisposed to cancer” | 2007 |
| 10 | “Prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer” | 2006 |
| 10 | “Decreased maternal behaviors” | 2002 |
| 30 | “Reversed the normal sex differences in brain structure and behavior” | 2003 |
| 50 | Adverse neurological effects occur in non-human primates | 2008 |
| 50 | Disrupts ovarian development | 2009 |
| 50 | Current U.S. human exposure limit (a guideline set by EPA) | 1998 |
Inventing a material used in nearly every imaginable industry in the early to mid 1900s, Leo Baekeland never gave up his dream of creating a moldable polymer that would keep its form after it cooled. His invention was the first time plastic or Bakelite, as it was known, would be used, mass marketed, and used to make the outer casings of such objects as radios, seats, and even toys.
Born in Belgium to a lower, middle-class family, Leo Baekeland would study at the University of Ghent in 1882 and eventually graduate with a doctorate in natural science at the age of 21. He taught there for several years before he traveled on a scholarship to the United States. Once in the United States, he decided he wanted to reside there, so he obtained a job as a scientist for a company and began his work in American industry.
Leo started working on better photographic paper. He wanted to find something more durable, less flammable, and a paper where the pictures developed on them were sharper. He did so well in the beginning that he started a company called Nepera Chemical Company while creating a special paper called Velox. Within two years, Kodak, which was known as Eastman Kodak, purchased the rights to Baekeland’s discovery for over one million dollars.
Being the inventor at heart that he was, Baekeland opened up his own research laboratory in his backyard in New York. He worked day and night at creating a material that would perform like shellac, which was a natural residue that was used as a plastic. By mixing formaldehyde and phenolic solutions, he came up with Bakelite. The secret was that at a high temperature and pressure, the resulting material would hold its form, even under high heat.
Leo Baekeland soon patented his material, formed Baekeland Industries, and began marketing it in various industrial fields. Through Baekeland’s work, industry now knew that science could work together to better the materials used, no matter what the industry. Baekeland’s work created lighter, safer, and better materials that we still use today. Whether we are listing to a radio, driving down the road, or drinking from our plastic bottles, we can thank a man who had the foresight and forthright to pursue what he dreamed was possible….
Source: http://www.biographyshelf.com/
Once upon a time the earth was without plastic. But then came the great invention by Belgian chemist Leo H. Baekeland. In the years 1905 to 1907 he developed Bakelite, the first fully synthetic product derived from petroleum. Since then, the progress of plastic began. From the Stone Age, the Bronze and Iron Age, we now have “The Plastic Period”. “We are children of the Plastic Age.
Source: http://www.plastic-planet.at/
West Lafayette resident Esther Hodge said it has been nearly six months since she has used a plastic bag to take home her groceries.
“I’m trying to go green like everyone says now,” she said while loading items into her reusable grocery bag Tuesday at Pay Less Super Market. “I used to have a cabinet in my house full of plastic bags that I would never use and throw out. Now all I need is this.”
As a way to motivate more shoppers to stop using plastic bags, CVS and Target Stores in Greater Lafayette and across the nation have launched campaigns that pay people for bringing their own bags.
Target on Nov. 1 started offering customers a nickel off for every reusable bag they use.
Azrielle Albrecht, a manager at Super Target in Lafayette, said decreasing the use of plastic bags from the store helps cut costs and reduces litter. So far, Albrecht said the promotion is working.
“A lot of people have been bringing them in. A ton of people have them,” she said. “And you can use any (reusable) bag.”
The CVS program is only available to shoppers who are members of the store’s ExtraCare loyalty program, and it requires members to buy a “Green Bag Tag” for 99 cents. Members attach the tag to any reusable bag and have it scanned whenever they shop.
For every four scans, customers will receive a coupon printed on the bottom of their receipt for a dollar off.
Sheryl Hodson of Oxford has used reusable bags when shopping for about a year. She saved 15 cents on her trip to Target Thursday, and she was happy to avoid the plastic bags.
“I hate plastic bags. They just multiply and are everywhere,” said Hodson, who was excited to learn about earning 5 cents for every reusable bag she brings in to Target.
To help residents take advantage of the new campaigns and reduce the number of plastic bags being used, the West Lafayette Go Greener Commission is giving away reusable shopping bags on Nov. 21.
“Traditional plastic shopping bags are petroleum-based and take years to degrade,” said Go Greener Commission member Heather Gall. “By using the reusable bags, you are lowering your carbon footprint.”
Gall said thanks to a grant received through the Purdue University Boiler Green Initiative, the commission will hand out 1,000 cotton shopping bags that feature the Purdue logo.
Linda Anderson, chairwoman of the Go Greener Eliminate Plastic Bags Committee, said it is important that people get into the habit of bringing their own bag when they head to the store.
“The number one reason I hear from people who don’t use them is that they forget them,” she said. “I always say just keep it in your car. That way they will always have it available.”
Anderson said people should use high-quality bags that can be washed and used for longer periods of time.
Brian Hall, a fifth-grade teacher at Mintonye Elementary School, believes it is never too early to learn about the downside of plastic bags.
Hall, who is charge of recycling at the school, started a competition that will give students an opportunity to design their own reusable totes.
“There are roughly 20 classrooms that will compete, and there will be a schoolwide vote to determine the winner,” Hall said. “The winning design will be printed on a bag and become the official school tote.”
“It’s just a good way to inform them about the issue early.”
Source: http://www.jconline.com/
eu·phe·mism \ˈyü-fə-ˌmi-zəm\ noun: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant.
Language matters. In fact, it’s a matter of life and death sometimes.
Captain Charlie Moore of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation recounts the meeting when acceptance of the “marine debris” euphemism took hold among agencies and organizations, on the urging and support of the plastics industry.
By not fully appreciating the power of language, ocean advocates have since adopted and propagated the term.
Now, due to our inability and slowness to adequately describe and respond to the threat, certain areas of our coasts and oceans have become overwhelmed by plastic. The stomachs of some of the most spectacular ocean animals are increasingly full of plastic. Chemicals in plastic are making their way through the food chain, back to us. Some, like BPA, move directly from plastic into our bodies.
As the problems associated with plastic pollution, ranging from dead wildlife, despoiled beaches and human health concerns, continue to expand it makes good sense to get a grip on the language we use to describe both causes and solutions.
The most well-known plasticized area on Earth is called the North Pacific Garbage Patch, a continent-size region of the North Pacific Gyre (massive ocean-size currents) far away from most human activities. To call the area merely a “patch” is yet another misuse of language, in plastic’s favor! Oceanographers now report similar mega-eddies of swirling plastic in each of the ocean’s five major gyres. This past year a half dozen expeditions have gathered valuable data on these slowly thickening, enormous “plastic soup bowls”. Countless coastal cleanup efforts have collected and cataloged thousands of tons of plastic washing up on our shores. Countless news, magazine and TV reports have described the mess.
Here’s what we know: what’s in our ocean, on our beaches and in our trash cans is almost entirely made of plastic. Plastic ropes and nets, plastic army men, plastic lighters, plastic lids and caps, plastic bags, plastic bottles, plastic cigarette filters, plastic syringes, broken plastic toys, endless plastic packaging and billions upon billions of unidentifiable plastic bits smaller than your fingernail. Samples of just about everything ever made of plastic can now be found in the ocean.
Yet, one term we often hear used for all this ocean plastic is, somehow, “marine debris”.
Geologists refer to “debris flows” made of moving wet soil and rock. Ecologists study “forest debris,” naturally occurring accumulation of wood, leaves, sticks, insects and seeds. According to recycling centers, “yard debris” includes “leaves, weeds, pruning, grass clippings, brush and woody material”. Yard debris does not include “food wastes, household or hazardous wastes, animal waste, plastic or plastic bags…” Debris in nature “just happens,” it’s not the result of human activity and, as such, is a value neutral word.
So, one would expect “marine debris” to encompass natural, biodegradable material such as driftwood, kelp, seagrass, leaves and coconuts. Right? Wrong.
In fact, NOAA defines marine debris as, “any persistent solid material that is manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment or the Great Lakes.” As stated earlier, the vast majority of that human-made solid material in the marine environment is plastic.
Some organizations and researchers continue to favor the term “marine debris,” as do the American Chemistry Council and plastic industry lobbyists. From a scientific point of view, the term is inadequately generic and vague in reference to a very specific, egregious environmental reality.
How did we end up with that definition? How did a common word, debris, most often associated with biodegradable and compostable material become so closely associated with plastic pollution in the ocean? Could it have been chosen to soften the blame on plastic production? Was an innocuous sounding term chosen instead of an accurate one? What’s a better, more accurate term that we could use instead?
The Plastic Pollution Coalition suggests simply calling the stuff what it is, “plastic pollution”. Since as much as ninety percent of the items removed by volunteers from our beaches and nearly all material found in the gyres is human-made plastic, this is a clean, clear and useful improvement to our vernacular.
Some people prefer to use the phrase “plastic pollution and other solid waste” to reflect and include the small amounts of non-plastic, human-made contributions such as glass, wood, metal and paper. The phrase “plastic pollution and ocean refuse” also gets at the core of the problem: all types of trash pollute our ocean.
But there’s no doubt that the phrase “marine debris” is both intentionally and unintentionally misleading.
My recommendation is to jettison the term “marine debris” unless you’re referring to natural, biodegradable materials that have been part of the ocean environment for hundreds of millions of years (logs, sticks, kelp, leaves, coconuts). Instead, choose the term that does the best, most accurate job of describing the situation at hand. If plastic is your concern, call it “plastic pollution”. If it’s a combination of trash items, add “and ocean refuse”. If your concern is a derelict, sinking vessel, call it a “derelict, sinking vessel”. If coconut husks and driftwood are wreaking havoc on your beach or waterway, call it “marine debris”.
Language matters. Don’t allow the plastics industry’s chosen language to cover up this growing insult to our planet.
Call plastic pollution, plastic pollution.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
