Category: Environmental Issues

Have you ever littered on the beach and thought about the negative impacts it will cause? A majority of humans do not think about the lives of others who are non-human-like sea creatures, whales, organisms, and fundamentally marine animals. We as humans do what is best for us and our kind and tend to see the ocean as a bin. Trash is a big issue that is affecting the world of biodiversity, and with every year, the amount is building up to a point where it is becoming difficult to clean. Although the ocean is big enough to withhold human rubbish, we are eradicating the lives of marine animals. We humans are the cause of trash pollution in the Ocean, the ones affecting marine animals by entanglements, their food source, the ocean water, and creating dead zones, which are suffering the consequences of our actions and soon we will be following in the footsteps of suffrage.

The trash in our ocean has always been an issue, and the first discovery was made in 1997 by Charles Moore, an environmentalist, boat captain, and oceanographer. He first noticed an island, and upon closer inspection, he saw that there was a prevalence of plastic junk. Junk that was bundled up, making it seem like an isolated island. “The floating trash heap, ” which Charles refers to it as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” spans from the West Coast of North America to Japan and is between Japan, Hawaii, and California State. It is a parcel that is claimed to be ”twice the size of Texas” and “brimming with microscopic plastic particles,” which still exists in the 21st century (The Politics of the Ocean, page 95). But, who are the ones who caused the patch? They are the ones who created the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in the first place, for example, corporations, throw waste more than the average person because they tend to dispose of rubbish into the ocean instead of throwing it the proper way. Then there are us human beings who are another cause as to why there is much waste because of how we litter, and some are trying to fix the problem, but something tremendous will take years. What is ascertained to be mainly in the spot are plastic bottles, glass, bottle caps, bottles, fishing nets, and according to Denchak, Melissa “single-use grocery bags, water bottles, drinking straws, and yogurt containers, among eight million metric tons of plastic items we toss (instead of recycling), that won’t biodegrade” (nrdc.org). It means that plastic tends to float in the ocean for more than a year because plastic does not dissolve like cardboard and paper. The more rubbish that is manufactured, the harder it will get to have the Great Pacific Garbage Patch cleaned. Even though trash is thrown far from the Paracel, current waves drag trash towards it. That is due to the circular currents of the ocean that is formed by the planet’s pattern. Although the patch is big enough to separate into two parts or smaller groups and float somewhere else, that is not possible. The reason why is that the center of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is stable and calm while the circular it draws debris into the center. This affects the lives of the world of biodiversity because it is putting them in danger.  

Since mankind existed, humans have taken advantage of many landscapes such as the ocean, killing animals and resources produced for survival. Humans have made the costly mistake of taking the earth for granted as they believe the earth also needs humans. Humans are altering Earth’s natural landscapes so radically that as many plant and animal species are now at risk of extinction. According to Brad Pulmer, writer for the New York Times, overdoing agriculture activities such as farming, logging, poaching, fishing, and mining are affecting the abundance of native plant and animal life and landscapes such as the savannas of Africa and the rain forests of South America (Pulmer). As vehicles, factories, planes, and power plants are run by burning fossil fuels, when they’re being used, they contaminate the air by damaging greenhouse gases. Pulmer also related that the population has increased dramatically in the last 20 years, as a result, more resources have to be produced, therefore, more animals have to be killed (Pulmer). Humans’ actions are being rebound adversely on them with global warming. Global warming has caused wildlife decline, ocean pollution, and extreme weather temperatures. Global Warming is an issue reasonable people address by stopping chemicals and trash disposal into the ocean as more plastic is recycled, less endangered aquatic creatures and cleaner landscapes justify it.

There are many solutions how to solve global warming, but the most powerful solution to reverse this catastrophe comes from cleaning the ocean. As stated by Andrew Dilevics in his article, the ocean plays a big role in humans’ survival as seventy percent of the oxygen that is breathed comes from marine plants, it provides humans food, jobs, life, and sailing and its sea creatures protect humans from many natural disasters. The sea provides not only marine life but also regulates our climate. It absorbs the heat and transports warm water from the equator to the poles, and cold water from the poles to the tropics (Dilevics). Unfortunately, chemicals and trash are always flowing naturally in rivers or entering the ocean on purpose from industrial sources. With the sea being contaminated, it affects the sea absorbing the heat and as a result, the weather could be extreme in some regions, and fewer places would be habitable. As reported by Dr. Brown Lee, an example is the melting glaciers which are reducing the distribution, thickness, and permanency of ice sheets and driving the thinning and retreat of many mountain glaciers (Lee). The toxic chemicals are a threat to humans if they are exposed to them for a long time and also a danger to animals as they could inherit them. Animals such as sea turtles, inherit plastic bags as they look very similar to jellyfish. It was thought that the effects of endless trash and chemical disposal into the ocean and marine life were trivial as the ocean is greatly massive and deep. Small changes could have a bigger impact in the long run such as not throwing trash into the ocean or simply recycling plastic, most of the landfills, chemicals, and greenhouse gases would be avoided.

Plastic is the material that affects the ocean the most as it decomposes after a thousand years, is not biodegradable, and is never completely absorbed by the environment. Plastic is mainly used for containers, bottles, drums, trays, boxes, cups, vending and protection packaging, and baby products. Unfortunately, Charles Grosenick, an environmentalist, related that around fifty percent of the plastic produced yearly is only used once before being disposed of and about thirty tons end up in the ocean every year (Grosenick). Plastic bags are the most harmful plastic objects as they’re fabricated with nonylphenol, a chemical that can lead to diseases such as obesity, and breast cancer, and affects pregnant women and fetuses. When plastic is not fully absorbed, they are turned into microbeads and they’re most likely to be everywhere in the air and the ocean. The only way to get rid of plastics is to downcycle them into other plastic products. Grosenick also mentioned that burning plastic bags releases harmful gases, including carbon dioxide, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and dioxins (Grosenick).

There’s always trash and chemicals such as oil, mercury, and pesticides flowing through the ocean and are inherited by animals which could die from toxins accumulation. According to the online newspaper Seattle Post-Intelligencer writer, Flora Richards-Gustafson, when pollution is lethal or toxic to animals, the deaths of those animals impact the diversity of an ecosystem. The death of even the smallest organisms in an environment can make a big impact (Gustafson). Some rapidly break down into harmless substances in the environment but heavy metals such as mercury, lead, and silver are lasting and stay in the environment and do not break down.

When a small fish inherits mercury, it stays concentrated inside until a larger fish comes and eats it and is later caught by humans and damages their nervous and reproductive systems. Gustafson maintained that when an animal species dies because of exposure to a pollutant, food may become scarce for another species. When biomagnifications affect a food web, the animals on the upper tiers tend to eat and store more pollutants (Gustafson). Unluckily, sea animals are more likely to die first from toxin accumulation and suffocation than getting caught by humans.

Sea turtles are the animals who seem to be the most affected by ocean pollution but more specifically from plastic. As stated sea turtles often mistake floating plastic garbage for food. They can choke, sustain internal injury and die or starve. Plastic can also create pockets of air in their gut, making diving difficult.

That’s because plastic can cause blockages in their intestines and even pierce the intestinal wall causing internal bleeding. When the plastic in the turtle’s stomach imitates the sensation of being full. Turtles then neglect to seek out other food sources and ultimately die from starvation. Unfortunately, sea turtles are not the only sea creatures at risk from ocean pollution

Coral reefs are in decline in the United States and around the world. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, as most coral reefs occur in shallow water near shore, they are particularly vulnerable to the effects of human activities, both through direct exploitation of reef resources, and through indirect impacts from adjacent human activities on land and in the coastal zone (EPA). When coral reefs disappear or are dissolved by ocean pollution, the lack of this natural barrier will enlarge the danger to coastal bodies from normal waves to violent floods and storms. Heavy metals such as mercury and lead are damaging coral reproduction, growth rate, feeding, and defensive responses against natural disasters.   

Introduction

Attention Getter: This year, on January 1st, the ban on plastic straws in restaurants and other service businesses began. The anti-straw movement started after a video of a turtle with straws stuck in its nostrils went viral on social media.

Background: However, plastic straws are a tiny percent of the plastic waste left in the ocean. Globally 8 million tons of plastic enter the ocean per year. The matter of fact is that ocean pollution is a complex issue that cannot be solved by not using one thing.

Audience Relevance: Why is this relevant to you though? Well, the ocean is vital for our existence. It makes up 97% of the water in our earth, generates a large portion of the oxygen we breathe, gives us a sixth of the animal protein we eat, and even helps reduce climate change.

Speaker Credibility: I have done extensive research on this topic.

Thesis: The purpose of this speech is for you to have a better understanding of the core problems of ocean pollution.

Preview of Main Points: So today I will talk about the problem, then I will discuss the causes and finally I will talk about the effects.

Transition to 1st Main Point: I’ll begin by talking about the problems with ocean pollution.

Main Point 1: 

While there are several problems because of this issue, I will focus on two.

Sub-point A: One of the more obvious problems caused by ocean pollution is the harm to sea life. Whether it’s by consumption, entanglement, suffocation, starvation, or drowning, ocean debris is a main offender to these sea animals. According to PEW’s news article, Plastic Pollution Affects Sea Life Throughout the Ocean, released on September 24, 2018, by Simon Reddy, he explains that at least 800 species worldwide are affected by marine debris, and as much as 80 percent of that litter is plastic. These high numbers are very concerning and are likely to increase.

Sub-point B: Another problem with this issue is the garbage patches created through marine debris and gyres. In the ocean there are five major gyres; the North and South Atlantic, the North and South Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. In essence, these gyres are huge whirlpools that pull objects in. Because of this, they’ve created these enormous patches of litter. The most known patch is called the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” It’s estimated to be two times larger than Texas. Overall, these garbage patches have an immense amount of negative impact on the environment and human health.

Transition to 2nd Main Point: I just discussed two problems from ocean pollution now I’ll talk about some causes of it.

Main Point 2: 

As I mentioned earlier, ocean pollution is complex, so while there are many causes, I will focus on two.

Sub-point A: One of the major causes of ocean pollution is derived through the commercial fish industry. The fish industry is famously known for abandoning an enormous amount of ghost gear. Ghost gear is essentially fishing nets– that are “ghost” to the public because they sink down below the ocean’s surface. According to NBC News article, ‘Banning plastic straws will not be enough’: the flight to clean the ocean, released on December 30, 2018, by James Rainey; the author points out that 46 percent of plastic waste in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch — came from fishing nets. While this cause is not remarkably known, it is the main cause of ocean pollution.

Sub-point B: Another prominent cause is chemical pollution; which is as well caused by humans. Chemical pollutants are man-made contaminants that include; pesticides, fertilizers, industrial chemicals, sewage, and oil. These pollutants reach the ocean through runoff and far upstream. Their toxicity has proven to create dead zones with no oxygen and is said to end up in the aquatic food webs.

Transition to 3rd Main Point: I just talked about two causes of ocean pollution, so now I’ll talk about its effects of it.

Main Point 3: 

The effects of ocean pollution are just as complex and drastic– while again there is plenty to be aware of, I will discuss a couple.

Sub-point A: One effect of ocean pollution continuing is the fact that eventually the amount of plastics in the ocean will outweigh fish in the ocean. This is for various reasons including; the increase in plastic use continuing to rise, and recycling and reusing not being practiced enough. Because of the data collected, experts are able to estimate that this outcome is likely to happen by the year 2050.

Sub-point B: Another negative effect ocean pollution causes is making bacteria produce less oxygen. According to the Science Daily article, “Plastic pollution harms the bacteria that help produce the oxygen we breathe,” released on May 14th, 2019 by Macquarie University explains that a sea-dwelling, photosynthetic bacteria called Prochlorococcus generates ten percent of the earth’s oxygen. **refer to graph** This is a study done that showed plastic present, and not present with this bacteria. There is a negative correlation when present, meaning less oxygen, and a positive correlation when not present, meaning more oxygen. This effect could have dire consequences for the entire ecosystem.

Signal the Conclusion: I just finished talking about two effects of ocean pollution, I will now conclude my speech.

Conclusion

Review Main Points: I first talked about the problems of ocean pollution, then the causes, and lastly the effects.

Restate Thesis: The purpose of this speech is for you to have a better understanding of the core information about ocean pollution.

Memorable Closer: While this speech was very informative, and may have introduced new information– there is plenty more to learn in regard to this complex issue. This issue goes beyond two problems, two causes, and two effects. Luckily, if you would like to learn more, google is a good start.

References

1. Harrington, Rebecca. “By 2050, the Oceans Could Have More Plastic than Fish.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 26 Jan. 2017, www.businessinsider.com/plastic-in-ocean-outweighs-fish-evidence-report-2017-1.
2. Howard, Jenny. “Marine Pollution, Explained.” Marine Pollution Facts and Information, 2 Aug. 2019, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-marine-pollution/.
3. National Geographic Society. “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” National Geographic Society, 9 Oct. 2012, www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/.
4. Rainey, James. “’Banning Plastic Straws Will Not Be Enough’: The Fight to Clean the Oceans.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 1 May 2019, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/banning-plastic-straws-will-not-be-enough-fight-clean-oceans-n951141.
5. Reddy, Simon. “Plastic Pollution Affects Sea Life Throughout the Ocean.” The Pew Charitable Trusts, 24 Sept. 2018, www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/09/24/plastic-pollution-affects-sea-life-throughout-the-ocean.
6. Macquarie University. ‘Plastic pollution harms the bacteria that help produce the oxygen we breathe.’ ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 May 2019. 

We live in a world that is full of plastic. Plastic shopping bags, water bottles, toothbrushes, and even parts of your clothes are among the everyday items that are made from plastic. But plastic isn’t always the answer to everything, and the current state of our environment is rapidly going downhill.

People have been mass-producing plastic items since the 1950s. We produce hundreds of millions of tonnes of plastic items every year and production numbers are only increasing unfortunately. Disappointingly, most of these plastic items are only used once and then thrown away.

Only a small portion of plastic is actually recycled and turned into other plastic things. We have been drilled our whole lives to recycle and some think that is actually happening, but really it’s not especially in big cities. The majority of plastic ends up in landfill or, in the worst-case scenario possible, our oceans. That’s why A Plastic Ocean documentary was filmed. Directed by the Australian journalist Craig Leeson, it explores plastic and investigates the devastating impacts that plastic has caused on our environment, especially our marine life.

What started as an adventure to film a blue whale, the biggest and heaviest animal on the planet, leads to the discovery of a shockingly thick layer of plastic debris floating in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Craig, alongside Tanya Streeter, a world record-breaking free diver and environmental enthusiast, then travels across the world to report on the devastation caused by years of plastic use. One of the comments made by Craig Leeson is “I could see plastic everywhere”, this is when they are going out on the boat and they find rubbish slick in the ocean. The film presents panning and zoomed-out shots of the marine animals and the clean environment around them, these shots were used because they wanted to show the extent of the damage by plastic. This contrasts with real-life footage of extremely polluted cities and dumps full of plastic rubbish. Some beaches even look like dumps from the amount of washed-up rubbish. The juxtaposition between these images sends the message that our actions and choices can severely impact the planet and the animals living on it. Some use of diegetic sound is when they are filming the birds, they are squawking and the city noise of cars, and pollution is in the background. The language that the narrator uses is trying to disgust the viewers with what they are seeing and contribute to this world with all the plastic they are using. Another member on the boat comments saying “Where could have it come from”. This would make the viewers feel guilty that they have contributed to this bad situation. The narrator uses phrases like “I started to wonder what was happening in other oceans elsewhere on the planet”, this puts doubt and fear into the viewer’s head that there could be a crisis on our hands and we are making it worse every day.

Throughout the film, quite a few experts are interviewed to provide further information about some of the problems that come from plastic. Craig Leeson uses multiple different structures to portray his message about plastic in oceans. One of these is the use of cinematic film techniques which enhance the viewer’s experience. An example of this is when they use a close-up camera shot of the dead bird as Tanya Streeter is dissecting it because it has died from consuming plastic. The use of long shots was also utilized in the film when they are trying to emphasize the suffering that happens with the bird’s family. This is also known as mise en scene and the example is when Tanya is sitting on the ground and dissecting the bird and there is another bird of the same kind watching on in the background, this shows how cruel it is to have birds suffer with a gut full of plastic. In the film, there are a lot more background voiceovers of facts and commentating on what is happening in the world with plastics today. This is the use of non-diegetic sound and shows that while the film was taking place they didn’t really expect to see what they saw with so much plastic damage in the world and they wanted to have a proper script to address the problems in full detail. There are a few times in the dissecting scene when she adds comments like “ew” or “look at that” and just cringes at the smell and sight but others don’t actually say much.

The response that the creators are trying to get from the audience is to clean up their ecological footprint and hope that they will be aware of what they are doing every time they use something made of plastic. 

Trash is one of the world’s biggest unsolvable problems, there is just too much garbage and it’s slowly killing our planet. In Edward Humes’ book Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash, he states “Americans make more trash than anyone else on the planet, throwing away about 7.1 pounds per person per day, 365 days a year.” (Humes 5). People in America are the biggest contributors to the Earth’s overflowing amount of garbage. Without solution, trash will take over the Earth and there will be severe causes of concern that future generations will have to deal with. These concerns include: our oceans being polluted with trash, no safe way to get rid of our garbage entirely, and producing any type of waste is unacceptable.

So much trash is being produced that it’s ending up in our Earth’s oceans, this is a cause of concern for marine life and future generations. Humes states “And here’s why: Half the oxygen we breathe emanates from microscopic phytoplankton sloshing around the surface of the ocean.” (Humes 131). If we humans receive about 50% of our oxygen from the ocean’s surface then we must try to cut down on the amount of trash we make. With time, our oceans may soon be entirely covered in trash; killing marine life and decreasing our amount of oxygen. Leaving this issue for future generations to take care of, will be detrimental to the health of our planet.

Once produced, garbage (specifically plastic) can remain on the earth for up to 1000 years till it decomposes; meaning our future generations will have to deal with it. There is no way to make garbage disappear without harming our environment. Some may think that burning their garbage at home will get rid of it immediately, but it’s actually quite dangerous to one’s health. Humes states “Emits dangerous levels of dioxins, poisonous and cancer-causing compounds formed by low-temperature, smoky, inefficient combustion. Dioxins have no human uses or value, and are not made intentionally.” (Humes 53). If people who burn their garbage to make it disappear continue their ways, we may ruin Earth’s atmosphere with dangerous toxins. This would cause irreversible damage and an unsafe way of living for future generations.

Any type of waste is unacceptable, but because recycling exists many fail to notice the amount of waste they are producing. Humes states “Recycling in particular has long served as a balm and a penance- a way of making it okay to waste, the assumption being that if someone recycled, then the energy and materials are not being lost, and our disposable economy of abundance doesn’t really seem wasteful after all.’ (Humes 154). People overlook the amount of waste they produce, because of recycling. Most items that are recycled, just end up in landfills with the rest of the waste that we produce. All this waste adds up and the issue is unfairly going to be left for future generations to solve.

Overall trash is a concern for our generation and future generations as it is fatal not only to us humans but to all living things and our planet. Garbage is a major concern because it is slowly taking over the Earth’s oceans, killing marine life and cutting down our amount of oxygen; it’s adding up to massive amounts that people are burning to get rid of, which releases harmful toxins into the Earth’s atmosphere; and people are disregarding the amount of waste they produce because of methods like recycling, that promote a healthier environment but are actually doing little to nothing to improve the issue of waste. 

Stop ocean pollution!!! On a yearly basis, thousands of tonnes of plastic and other harmful pollutants end up in the ocean. Where do these pollutants first originate? Where do these pollutants…eventually end up? And why is it remotely tolerated? the pollution in the oceans is killing animals and killing the plants and killing the microorganisms that we need to breathe. Different pollutants that harm the wellness of the ocean include runoff from fertilizers, sewage plants, and oil spills, and yet, if the pollution did not go into the ocean where would it go? Would it be scattered across our national parks or buried underground left to biodegrade over thousands of years so, is the sea the right place to dump it?

A massive percentage of the plastic waste in the ocean comes from rivers. A small amount of plastic comes from a land-based source and rivers are potentially a highway system for all shapes and sizes of plastic pollution to hitch a ride on and float out into the ocean. Plastic waste being thrown into rivers is directly related to the lackluster organization of plastic waste not having a place to go causing rivers to put the most plastic into the ocean. large rivers in lower economically developed countries with a dense population of people surrounding them (e.g., the Ganges River in India and the Meghan River in Bangladesh) pollute a higher amount of waste into the sea than regular dumping. The 10 most polluted rivers carry ’88-95%’ of the world’s plastic pollution into the sea. More than 4 tonnes of plastic are transported into the sea every day by people dumping it into rivers making rivers the main source of ocean pollution. Many marine animals are used as food sources for humans such as sushi where fish like tuna and salmon are consumed however the pollution of the ocean results in these animals having defects and them becoming toxic. Which in turn can cause illness in humans if consumed too much which is ironic as it was caused by humans.

Stop ocean pollution!!! Human pollution is damaging and potentially fatal to marine life in many ways. It is known that animals can not only get trapped in plastic but also choke or consume it, with animals mistaking plastic for food. Unfortunately, many animals starve because of swallowing plastic because it clogs their digestive system. ‘100,000 marine mammals and turtles’ as well as ‘1 million sea birds’ are killed due to plastic pollution every single year. It is estimated that 56% of the planet’s whale, dolphin, and porpoise species have been exposed to toxic plastic. This can cause many species of marine animals to become extinct which could also be detrimental to other species in the ecosystem as they have no food source causing even more animals to perish. This has been shown as marine biologists have seen a decrease in a variety of species in marine life over the past 50 years. This means unequivocally that ocean pollution is not good for the environment.

The most common pollutants that end up in the ocean environment due to people include pesticides, weed killers, fertilizers, oil spills, sewage, and industrial chemicals. Most of these pollutants are released into the ocean from rivers. fertilizers full of nutrients are used on farms to help the plants grow bigger and faster but eventually, they reach the ocean. They first come from local streams from the run of due to excessive rainfall and eventually, leach into estuaries. The nutrients in the fertilizers result in unbelievably huge algae blooms that can be seen from space (such as the ocean surrounding some parts of Florida). These algae blooms use all the oxygen in the ocean surrounding the nearby land, leaving dead zones where large marine animals cannot live. Some chemicals and metals climb high into the food webs like mercury, found in old fungicides responsible for making fish toxic and fatal to consume and also making drinking water unsafe to drink. Scientists have begun to understand how pollutants that reach the ocean affect the ocean environment. chemicals in many household products such as bleach, accumulate in human and marine animal bodies. Even medicines consumed by humans, but not fully processed by our livers, end up in food webs from sewage run off making the animals toxic and eventually making us toxic from the food we eat.

The main reason people and big businesses dump waste at sea is the pure convenience of it being easy and a very cost-efficient solution to discarding humans waste materials and as it is known that there is more area to dump this waste in the oceans rather than on land. Individuals can easily pollute because there is very little to regulate them and they will not have to pay to have their waste to get taken to a landfill site. However, something like dumping waste at sea is better for businesses but not better for the ocean’s environment does not always stop people from doing it, and the oceans are a difficult place to be regulated by governments due to their sheer scale. You might notice somebody dropping chemical barrels in a pristine local lake, but somebody doing the same thing in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean is unlikely to be spotted. Chances are high that anybody violating local, national, or international regulations simply will not get caught and will continue to do it until they get caught or an easier way presents itself.

Introduction

Plastic pollution in the waters has been a massive environmental issue affecting the entire ecosystem. A recent study estimated that a minimum of 5.25 trillion plastic particles are floating within the water bodies, weighing 268,940 tons (Eriksen et al., 2014). Plastic particles are hazardous objects to marine organisms that either become entangled or ingest plastic (Stefatos, Charalampakis, Papatheodorou, & Ferentinos, 1999). Plastics are synthetic polymers that are durable, strong, anti-corrosion, not biodegradable, and cheap. Although plastics can be degraded when exposed to UV radiation, it is unknown how long it takes to completely degrade in marine environments (Andrady, 2005; Moore, 2008). It was estimated that 50% of the plastic products produced are meant to be disposable, which had significantly increased over the past few decades (Hopewell, Dvorak, & Kosior, 2009). Plastic particles can be categorized into macroplastics and microplastics. Macroplastics can cause marine organisms to be entangled whereas microplastics (50% of the plastic debris in the water bodies (Tibbetts, 2015). Another study observed that a bulk of the beached and floating plastic debris originally came from the coastal activities in the northern South China Sea (Lee et al., 2013). Accidental spillage of raw manufacturing materials during the handling process also contributes to large amounts of plastic debris that were directed to beaches (Redford, Trulli, & Trulli, 1997). Other land-based sources include sewage waste and refuse site leachate (Browne, Galloway, & Thompson, 2010). This plastic debris is transported to the marine environment by wastewater treatment and river systems (Browne et al., 2010; Cole, Lindeque, Halsband, & Galloway, 2011). In addition, natural disasters such as flooding and hurricane increase of transport of land-based debris to the water bodies. (Barnes, Galgani, Thompson, & Barlaz, 2009)

The majority of ocean-based debris is linked to commercial fishing activity. Every year, an estimated 640,000 t of discarded fishing gear were lost in the marine environment, which accounts for 10% of the total debris in the water bodies (Good, June, Etnier, & Broadhurst, 2010). Sinking fishing boats and fleets were also a huge contributor to the source of ocean-based debris (Cawthorn, 1989). These discarded fishing equipment may cause entanglement of marine organisms which was termed as ghost fishing. There were multiple studies that showed a significant positive correlation between commercial fishing activity and the amount of ocean-based debris (Cunningham & Wilson, 2003; Edyvane, Dalgetty, Hone, Higham, & Wace, 2004; Ribic, Sheavly, Rugg, & Erdmann, 2010). This suggests that commercial fishing does indeed play a large role in contributing to plastic pollution.

Types of plastics

Primary microplastics are plastics produced to have a microscopic size. They are mainly used in cosmetics and facial cleansers, as drug vectors in medicine, and as air-blasting media. Although the current technology for wastewater filtration can remove 99% of microplastics, they are still significant due to their absolute amount. Hence, it is easy for microplastics to entire the water bodies and steadily accumulate within the marine environment. A study had shown that washing clothes were one of the most significant sources of microplastics in the environment due to the sewage contaminated by fibers (Browne et al., 2011). The ratio of acrylic (22%) and polyester fibers (78%) found on the shores from washing were similar to the microplastics found in the marine environment (Engelhardt, 2009). There was also a positive correlation between human population density and the amount of microplastics (Engelhardt, 2009).

Secondary microplastics are when the larger pieces of plastics start breaking down and fragmentizing into smaller debris (Ryan, Moore, van Franeker, & Moloney, 2009). Plastics are estimated to last from months to thousands of years, but research has shown that the fragmentation of plastics can be due to several processes such as chemical, physical and biological that can affect the structural integrity of the plastic detritus (Browne, Galloway, & Thompson, 2007; Zheng, Yanful, & Bassi, 2005). One of the main causes of plastic fragmentation is weathering (Arthur, Baker, & Bamford, 2009). Mechanical and chemical weathering can lead to the fragmentation of plastic on beaches due to its favorable environment (Corcoran, Biesinger, & Grifi, 2009). Sunlight can also cause photodegradation from the ultraviolet radiation that can cause the chemical bonds to break in the polymer (Barnes et al., 2009). As such, plastic debris on beaches has much higher direct exposure to sunlight as compared to those in the water bodies (Browne et al., 2007). Lastly, mechanical forces such as abrasion and wave action can also cause plastic debris to fragmentize (Barnes et al., 2009). Current researchers are trying to create biodegradable plastics that have the integration of vegetable oils and starch that can reduce the degradation period (Derraik, 2002). However, the synthetic polymer will still accumulate in the water bodies if not properly disposed of as shown in Figure 1.

Macroplastics are generalized as being an object >25mm in size, and have been a major environmental issue in terms of pollution in the water bodies (Romeo et al., 2015). It has been a huge issue since the 1990s and recently, it has attracted more public attention as well as government intervention (Li, Tse, & Fok, 2016; Shomura & Godfrey, 1990). It is difficult to analyze potential trends in pollution as the clean-up campaigns normally focus on plastic items found on the shoreline and beaches. Despite being bigger, larger marine organisms still ingest them and smaller organisms can get entangled (Derraik, 2002).

Effects on marine life

Microplastics and macroplastics can harm marine organisms when ingested as plastic debris can affect the body’s function to maintain homeostasis (Fendall & Sewell, 2009; Wright, Rowe, Thompson, & Galloway, 2013). It leads to chronic effects that can be fatal in the long run (Wright et al., 2013). Seabirds are one of the main victims of ingesting plastic debris as they tend to forage for food in the marine environment. Although some species of marine wildlife are able to regurgitate or excrete ingested plastic particles, seabirds, unfortunately, do not have such capabilities (Li et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2004). The accumulation of plastic particles in their bodies can lead to physiological damages such as a reduction in food consumption, activity levels, and feeding stimuli (Derraik, 2002). This issue has been persistent since the 1960s whereby it was reported that plastic fragments were found in the guts of seabirds (Ryan et al., 2009). Other marine organisms are also vulnerable to plastic ingestion as the plastic particles were mistaken for food and difficult to distinguish between the two (Avery-Gomm, Provencher, Morgan, & Bertram, 2013). Fishes are also susceptible to macroplastic and microplastic ingestion that could cause gastrointestinal blockage, which can result in malnutrition and weakening of the body. One study reported that 36.5% of the 504 fishes they studied had plastic particles in the intestinal tract (Lusher, Mchugh, & Thompson, 2013). Plastic ingestion by fish is mainly caused by predation activities, especially while chasing their prey into shallow water (Li et al., 2016; Romeo et al., 2015). Also, secondary ingestion of plastic through smaller fishes while hunting can also accumulate plastic fragments within the body (Battaglia et al., 2013).

Recommendation

From a global perspective, governments have to work together to control the accumulation of plastic debris in water bodies as there is a lack of legislation and regulation (Arthur et al., 2009). This is to prevent the future accumulation of plastic debris produced by industrial activities that would exacerbate this issue. As such, stricter and regular inspections of the industries involved should be implemented. In addition, harsher penalties should be given to those who significantly contribute to plastic pollution. Other regulations that could be implemented would be to ban disposable plastic items such as plastic bags, straws, and cups. An example would be Australia’s two biggest supermarkets, Coles and Woolworths, which phased out single-use plastic bags in 2018 (Slezak, 2017). This act was a small stepping stone to encourage people to reduce the usage of plastic goods.

In addition to government intervention in prevention, there is a crucial need to invest in developing technologies that can remove plastics from water bodies. Although it is unlikely to clean up all microplastics in the waters due to their ubiquity, many companies have begun to spread awareness by removing them. Several organizations include The Ocean Clean-up, Seabin Project, and 4Ocean. All of them have the same objective which is to remove as much debris floating in the marine environment as they could. The Ocean Clean-up estimates that they can clean up 50% of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in 5 years with their new technology (TheOceanClean-up, 2017). Since 2017, 4Ocean had removed 4.7m pounds of trash from the waters (CBS, 2019). There are also 1,500 Seabins deployed around the world that each collects half a ton of debris annually (Myers, 2019).

Lastly, spreading awareness of the consequences of plastic pollution to consumers and producers can help decrease the demand for disposable plastic. By doing so, producers can find substitutes and alternatives to synthetic polymers. When there is a lack of demand from both consumers, producers naturally reduce the supply. This will naturally lead to lesser plastic pollution as there will be fewer disposable plastic items produced.

Conclusion

In conclusion, plastic pollution is ubiquitous throughout the entire water bodies that originate from land-based sources and ocean-based sources. Commercialized fishing and industrial activities are the two main contributors to plastic pollution. Plastic debris will last for a long time due to it being corrosive-resistant and non-biodegradable when it reaches the marine environment. As such, it has a negative effect on marine organisms such as seabirds, fishes, and turtles that can ingest or get entangled in plastic debris. This could cause lethal harm to these marine organisms and damage the ecosystem. Certain species could potentially become extinct through the fatality of plastic pollution. Lastly, government legislative intervention was recommended to control the plastic wastage of industries. In addition, many companies have been recently active in cleaning up the oceans and spreading awareness.

References

1. Andrady, A. (2005). Plastics in the marine environment: a technical perspective. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Plastic Debris Rivers to Sea Conference.
2. Arthur, C., Baker, J. E., & Bamford, H. A. (2009). Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris, September 9-11, 2008, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA.
3. Avery-Gomm, S., Provencher, J., Morgan, K., & Bertram, D. (2013). Plastic ingestion in marine-associated bird species from the eastern North Pacific. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 72(1), 257-259.
4. Barnes, D. K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., & Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 1985-1998.
5. Battaglia, P., Andaloro, F., Consoli, P., Esposito, V., Malara, D., Musolino, S., . . . Romeo, T. (2013). Feeding habits of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus (L. 1758), in the central Mediterranean Sea (Strait of Messina). Helgoland Marine Research, 67(1), 97.
6. Browne, M. A., Crump, P., Niven, S. J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T., & Thompson, R. (2011). Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Worldwide: Sources and Sinks. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(21), 9175.
7. Browne, M. A., Galloway, T., & Thompson, R. (2007). Microplastic—an emerging contaminant of potential concern? Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management: An International Journal, 3(4), 559-561.
8. Browne, M. A., Galloway, T. S., & Thompson, R. C. (2010). Spatial patterns of plastic debris along estuarine shorelines. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(9), 3404-3409.
9. Cawthorn, M. (1989). Impacts of marine debris on wildlife in New Zealand coastal waters. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Marine Debris in New Zealand’s Coastal Waters Workshop.
10. CBS. (2019). Meet the ocean cleanup company that’s removed 4.7 million pounds of trash. CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/4ocean-meet-cleanup-company-that-removed-millions-of-pounds-of-trash-2019-06-15/
11. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., & Galloway, T. S. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(12), 2588-2597.
12. Corcoran, P. L., Biesinger, M. C., & Grifi, M. (2009). Plastics and beaches: a degrading relationship. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(1), 80-84.
13. Cunningham, D., & Wilson, S. P. (2003). Marine debris on beaches of the Greater Sydney Region. Journal of Coastal Research, 421-430.
14. Derraik, J. G. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44(9), 842-852.
15. Edyvane, K., Dalgetty, A., Hone, P., Higham, J., & Wace, N. (2004). Long-term marine litter monitoring in the remote Great Australian Bight, South Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48(11-12), 1060-1075.
16. Engelhardt, A. (2009). The Fiber Year 2008/09: A World Survey on Textile and Nonwovens Industry. Oerlikon Textiles, Pfäffikon, Switzerland.
17. Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., . . . Reisser, J. (2014). Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PloS one, 9(12), e111913.
18. Fendall, L. S., & Sewell, M. A. (2009). Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(8), 1225-1228.
19. Good, T. P., June, J. A., Etnier, M. A., & Broadhurst, G. (2010). Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits: patterns and threats to marine fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(1), 39-50.
20. Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., & Kosior, E. (2009). Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2115-2126.
21. Lee, J., Hong, S., Song, Y. K., Hong, S. H., Jang, Y. C., Jang, M., . . . Kang, D. (2013). Relationships among the abundance of plastic debris in different size classes on beaches in South Korea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 77(1-2), 349-354.
22. Li, W. C., Tse, H. F., & Fok, L. (2016). Plastic waste in the marine environment: A review of sources, occurrence, and effects. The Science of the total environment, 566-567, 333-349. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.084
23. Lusher, A., Mchugh, M., & Thompson, R. (2013). Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 67(1-2), 94-99.
24. Moore, C. J. (2008). Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environmental Research, 108(2), 131-139.
25. Myers, M. (2019). Seabins want to be the garbage cans of the ocean. CNET. Retrieved from https://www.cnet.com/news/seabins-want-to-be-the-garbage-cans-of-the-ocean/
26. Redford, D. P., Trulli, H. K., & Trulli, W. R. (1997). Sources of plastic pellets in the aquatic environment. In Marine Debris (pp. 335-343): Springer.
27. Ribic, C. A., Sheavly, S. B., Rugg, D. J., & Erdmann, E. S. (2010). Trends and drivers of marine debris on the Atlantic coast of the United States 1997–2007. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(8), 1231-1242.
28. Romeo, T., Pietro, B., Pedà, C., Consoli, P., Andaloro, F., & Fossi, M. C. (2015). The first evidence of the presence of plastic debris in the stomach of large pelagic fish in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 95(1), 358-361.
29. Ryan, P. G., Moore, C. J., van Franeker, J. A., & Moloney, C. L. (2009). Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 1999-2012.
30. Shomura, R. S., & Godfrey, M. L. (1990). Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii.
31. Slezak, M. (2017). Woolworths and Coles to phase out single-use plastic bags. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/14/woolworths-to-phase-out-single-use-plastic-bags-over-12-months
32. Stefatos, A., Charalampakis, M., Papatheodorou, G., & Ferentinos, G. (1999). Marine debris on the seafloor of the Mediterranean Sea: examples from two enclosed gulfs in Western Greece. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 38(5), 389-393.
33. Teuten, E. L., Saquing, J. M., Knappe, D. R., Barlaz, M. A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A., . . . Yamashita, R. (2009). Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2027-2045.
34. TheOceanClean-up. (2017). The Ocean Cleanup Announces Pacific Cleanup To Start In 2018. Retrieved from https://theoceancleanup.com/press/press-releases/the-ocean-cleanup-announces-pacific-cleanup-to-start-in-2018/
35. Thompson, R. C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R. P., Davis, A., Rowland, S. J., John, A. W., . . . Russell, A. E. (2004). Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science, 304(5672), 838-838.
36. Tibbetts, J. H. (2015). Managing marine plastic pollution: policy initiatives to address wayward waste. In: NLM-Export.
37. Wright, S. L., Rowe, D., Thompson, R. C., & Galloway, T. S. (2013). Microplastic ingestion decreases energy reserves in marine worms. Current Biology, 23(23), R1031-R1033.
38. Zheng, Y., Yanful, E. K., & Bassi, A. S. (2005). A review of plastic waste biodegradation. Critical reviews in biotechnology, 25(4), 243-250.

Ocean Trash

It is sad that marine animals are suffering because of all the trash humans are putting in our oceans. As a matter of fact, endless flows of trash are entering our oceans. This human-made trash is being released into lakes, oceans, and waterways. Trash enters our oceans when humans litter, industrial leakages, and plastics escape into the environment. Approximately 1 million marine animals are killed each year due to plastic bags or other plastic garbage thrown into the ocean. Animals are dying because the plastics that enter our ocean take a very long time to disintegrate. In one particular case, a sea lion was tangled in plastic around its neck. He assumed the trash was something to eat or play with. The plastic had cut deeply into his neck causing scarring and a hole through his windpipe. Luckily, the animal was able to get surgery in time. Making him one of the few that actually survive. According to the organization Ocean Crusaders, 46,000 pieces of plastic are in every square mile of the ocean. If you were to line up all the plastic bags in the ocean end on end, it would circumnavigate the globe 4,200 times. Further research from Jared Huffman states that Americans generate 10.5 million tons of trash each year but only recycle about 1-2% of it. Around 14 billion pounds of that trash are being dumped in the world’s oceans each year. Due to the large amounts of plastic bags entering our oceans each year, marine life is suffering and even dying.

One of the biggest questions asked by people is why plastics are entering our oceans and becoming a problem. One major reason is because of people using single-use plastics and littering. Surprisingly, humans are only using plastic bags once. The bags then find ways to escape into the environment. They get blown away and end up in the ocean. In addition, a plastic bag takes around 20-100 years to break up. The bag doesn’t completely break down it just breaks up into smaller pieces. Even if it did, it would turn into polymers and toxic chemicals. The second cause of ocean pollution is sewage waste being poured into our oceans. According to Conserve Energy Future, we are releasing chemicals into the ocean’s ecosystem leading to reductions in oxygen levels, a severe decline in the quality of seawater, and the decay of plant life. Further information from Conserve Energy Future states, Each year about 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage, stormwater, and industrial waste are dumped into U.S. waters. Truly, the causes of trash getting into our oceans are becoming a bigger problem every single day.

Considering the reasons why ocean trash is entering our oceans, it’s important to know some of the significant effects. One major effect of ocean trash is marine life being killed or harmed. Sadly, marine animals mistake the plastic in the ocean for food and ingest it making them very sick or even killing them. Approximately 1 million marine animals die each year due to plastic bags or other plastic garbage thrown into the ocean and at least two-thirds of the world’s fish are suffering from plastic ingestion. Another critical effect is the health of the environment and the ecosystem within it. According to Ocean Crusaders, the ecosystem is greatly affected by the accumulation of trash and plastic in our oceans. All ecosystems in the water, like fish, are being harmed/affected when they drink the polluted water. More research from Ocean Crusaders states, overflowing garbage is air pollution, which causes various respiratory diseases and other advertise health effects. The toxic substances in the air contaminated by waste, include carbon dioxide and methane. Without a doubt, the causes and effects of ocean trash are impacting the health of our environment, marine animals, and sea life.

Enacting Container Deposit Laws

Ocean scientists are on a mission to make a more practical approach to protecting the oceans from trash. They want to persuade the world to stop littering. Their solution to the problem is to enact container deposit laws, making them common in all states. Dr. Tony Haymet and his group of scientists are working on providing incentives for people not to throw stuff away. Haymet is working on this project because about 80 percent of trash washes out in the sea from beach litter or from being carried downstream in rivers according to a CSIRO study. “When you think about climate change, it’s hard to reduce our carbon footprint, because we have to go through a fundamental shift in our economies,” Wilcox says. “With plastic, when you’re throwing a bottle cap on the ground, that should be an easy impact to get rid of.”

Undoubtedly, this solution is the cheapest, simplest, and far most efficient solution to the problem. However, creating incentives to help reduce littering can be a political challenge. Only 11 states in the US have enacted container deposit laws. These states include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. Beverage manufacturers oppose to creating these laws because they claim bottle deposits are more expensive than other forms of recycling. This would increase the cost of beverages because this constitutes a tax. However, the 11 states that enacted container deposit laws have benefits. These laws encourage recycling and minimize waste in landfills. So far, this solution has been successful in preventing litter, helping the environment, producing high-quality recycled materials, and much more. Since California has enacted these laws, more than 80% of the containers used have been prevented from being landfilled or littered. Compared to states without bottle bills, preventing less than 25%. Overall, creating more container deposit laws throughout the U.S. is the most effective and simplest solution. Creating these laws will lower the number of waste, littering, and trash overflowing in landfills.

Boyan Slat’s Floating Barrier

Another positive solution was created by Boyan Slat. Slat came up with a device that can collect ocean trash without harming marine life. This will help get rid of all the toxic plastic and trash currently overflowing our oceans. With this solution, Slats’ idea might lead to the removal of nearly half of the plastic debris floating in the ocean. Slat has a company called Ocean Cleanup in order to place this 6,561-foot-long float in the ocean. In 2012, this solution became global. According to Slat, “… the 62-mile long model can remove 42% of the plastics in the Pacific Ocean trash-laden gyre in less than 10 years.” The floating Barrier, nearly 2,000 feet long, is solid instead of using a net to prevent sea life from becoming ensnared. The system collects the plastic and gets collected by boats to be brought to recycling. According to the U.N., “over 8 million tons of plastic still enter the oceans each year.” Slats’ goal is to turn the plastic into something that is not single-use. This will reduce the chances of the plastic ending up back in the ocean.

As a matter of fact, Slat has done many tests and has so far, been a success. The solution was tested by him and his organization and the barrier can hold at least a millimeter of trash all around. The design uses the Pacific’s currents, pushing the trash into the barrier. The Ocean Cleanup Foundation is working on a 0.6-mile prototype. Later this year, the solution will be put out into the ocean to start working. Unquestionably, this floating barrier will greatly impact the amount of trash in our oceans. This solution can really help our ocean and its environment.

Argument Towards Successful Solution

Every day, trash is being released into the environment and ending up in our oceans. This problem needs to be prevented because this can affect the future of our Earth. Millions of marine animals are dying each year because of people wasting plastic and littering. Boyan Slat’s floating barrier can help prevent this problem. Slat’s organization/invention works on removing all trash in our oceans by catching it in a barrier. Later, the trash is picked up by boats to be recycled. This solution is capable of removing nearly 42% of trash in the ocean in less than 10 years, making this the most effective way of getting rid of the trash currently roaming the ocean. In fact, Slat is planning to take all the plastic that he collects from the ocean and turn it into something that is not single-use. In addition, this will reduce the chances of the plastics ending up back in the ocean. In fact, it is predicted that by 2040, this floating barrier will have removed 90% of the plastic in the great pacific garbage patch. In addition, Boyan Slat’s idea has been tested by him and his crew and so far has been a success. The barrier has the ability to hold at least a millimeter of trash all around the 1,200-mile wall. Furthermore, the design works by using plastic currents in order to push the trash into the barrier. Overall, Boyan Slat’s idea is capable of getting rid of a little less than half the trash in our ocean in less than 10 years. This barrier is clearly the better solution and can greatly impact the amount of trash in our ocean.

While it is true that Boyan Slats’ floating barrier is the most effective way of getting rid of the trash in our oceans, some people prefer Tony Haymet’s idea. Haymet’s idea is to create incentives to help reduce littering. He wants to enact container deposit laws, making them common in all states. The benefits of this are that some states prevented more than 80% of trash from being landfilled or littered with the laws in place. The most important thing to remember is that there is still trash in our oceans. Yes, this may help get rid of trash entering our oceans in the future, but we also need to worry about what is also currently a problem. Although Haymet’s idea helps prevent more trash from entering our oceans, Boyan Slat’s invention gets rid of trash which is already a major problem. We need to find a way to get rid of a current problem before we can focus on how to stop it in the future. The trash doesn’t disappear on its own. Alternatively, container deposit laws are believed to minimize littering and increase public safety. According to a 1996 study in the American Journal of Public Health, the Massachusetts container deposit law was credited with a 60% decline in childhood glass lacerations. In addition, Haymet’s solution is a cheaper way to solve this problem. When buying a plastic container, prices could vary from 2-15 cents more. To add, so far, this solution has been very successful in preventing litter, helping the environment, and producing high-quality recycled material. For example, since California has enacted these laws, 80% of the containers used have been prevented from being littered or landfilled. This is compared to the 25% that is prevented by states without these bottle bills. Although creating more container deposit laws can reduce the amount of trash continuing to enter our oceans, the floating barrier helps get rid of trash that is already affecting our oceans every single day and becoming a bigger problem.

When looking at the high numbers of marine animals dying because of ocean trash, more than half of the animals that die are caused by them consuming the trash in the ocean. In researching the severity of this issue, it is obvious that the floating barrier is a stronger solution to address the seriousness of this issue. As a matter of fact, if we do not control the number of plastics we are using/putting in our oceans, then we place all marine animals and the health of our planet at risk of dying. For example, In Saint Louis Missouri, a red-eared slider turtle was trapped in a plastic ring used for soda cans. This caused the turtle’s shell to form into a figure 8. The turtle had attempted to eat the plastic, mistaking it for food, and ended up getting entangled in it making it very hard to survive. Due to the devastating numbers of marine life deaths because of waste and pollution in our waters caused by people littering and not conserving plastics, it is crucial that we take responsibility and start recycling and using less plastic/reusing. Although creating more container deposit laws can reduce the amount of trash continuing to enter our oceans, the floating barrier helps get rid of trash that is already affecting our oceans every single day and becoming a bigger problem. 

Our ocean is flooded with two main types of pollution: chemicals and trash. Chemical contamination occurs when human activities, notably the use of fertilizer on farms, lead to the runoff of chemicals into waterways that ultimately flow into the ocean. The increased concentration of chemicals, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, promotes the growth of algal blooms, which can be toxic to wildlife and harmful to humans. Marine trash encompasses all manufactured products (most of them plastic) that end up in the ocean. Littering and poor waste management all contribute to the accumulation of debris, 80% of which comes from sources on land. 

Plastic waste is particularly problematic as a pollutant because it is so long-lasting and can take hundreds of years to decompose. The trash poses dangers to both humans and animals. Fish become tangled and injured, some mistake items for food, and small organisms feed on tiny bits of broken-down plastic, and microplastics, and absorb the chemicals from the plastic into their tissues. Microplastics are less than five millimeters (0.2 inches) in diameter and have been detected in various marine species, including plankton and whales. When tiny organisms that consume microplastics are eaten by larger animals, the toxic chemicals then become part of their tissues. In this way, microplastic pollution migrates up the food chain, eventually becoming part of the food that humans eat.

Solutions for marine pollution include prevention and cleanup. Disposable and single-use plastic is abundantly used in today’s society, from shopping bags to shipping packaging to plastic bottles. Changing society’s approach to plastic use will be a long and economically challenging process. Cleanup, in contrast, may be impossible for some items. Many types of debris (including some plastics) do not float, so they are lost deep in the ocean. Plastics that do float tend to collect in large “patches” in ocean gyres. 

The Pacific Garbage Patch is one example of such a collection, with plastics and microplastics floating on and below the surface of swirling ocean currents between California and Hawaii in an area of about 1.6 million square kilometers (617,763 square miles), although its size is not fixed. These patches are less like islands of trash and, as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says, more like flecks of microplastic pepper swirling around an ocean soup. Even some promising solutions are inadequate for combating marine pollution. So-called “biodegradable” plastics often break down only at temperatures higher than will ever be reached in the ocean. 

Recycling is the process of making waste materials from industries useful through re-using. Recycling in the refinery industry; helps to conserve the environment as these industries produce wastes like gases which if not properly managed, pollute the environment and human existence in particular. The wastes from refinery industries form a problem because when inappropriately disposed of; they can explode, corrode, react to or act like toxins, posing a threat to the environment and causing damage to the ecosystem supporting life that includes; water, land, and the air. These wastes kill marine life in the rivers and other water bodies when released into them. The gases produced destroy the ozone layer resulting in climate change thus droughts and famine in the world due to the lack of rainfall (Porter, 2002) (Tierney, 2006) (Guilan, 2008).

The nature of the wastes to be recycled varies from more to less hazardous forms. For instance, in some refinery industries, the amount of hazardous solid waste produced is estimated to be 55units out of a total of 4061 units of waste produced. Most of the hazardous waste is generated from gas extraction; while the less hazardous or non-hazardous waste is produced from the activities involved in oil production. The waste materials produced; should be characterized according to their origins of supply, classes, categories, industrial activities, and weather; they are in solid, gaseous, or liquid form (Lavee, 2007).

Different methods are used in the recycling of waste materials from refinery industries; among them being, where waste containing sludge is separated into oil and water content through heating or subjection of the two contents to heat; in order to come up with coke and cooking liquid. The main purpose of water is to satisfy the coking cycle; sludge that is denser settles at the bottom of the storage tank, leaving the less dense compounds above. This method is helpful in generating a less volatile coke compound. During this process, the fumes produced are polluting the environment; and are also capable of harming individuals exposed to them. This process is expensive, as a lot of heat energy is required to separate the different compounds. On the other hand, this method prevents waste oil from contaminating water; which directly pollutes the water bodies to which they are channeled. This process is also helpful; in the formation of less volatile coke; and still producing big amounts of sludge (Gunter, 2007) (Harlow & Morgan, 2002).

Large volumes of wastes are produced by refinery industries making it difficult to recycle them. As a result, their recycling process is expensive; thus the industries may result in inappropriate waste management that results in pollution. These expenses are associated with the extensive coking machines and large furnaces required; making the overall process costly. On the other hand, recycling creates job opportunities for the persons who are employed in running these recycling plants; as well as delaying the losses that would result from the exhaustion of these resources, due to their overuse. The other advantage of recycling is that; it consumes less energy compared to that used in producing fresh resources. As a result, the overall expense and costs incurred on energy provision are reduced (Bonnie, 2006).

The reason for the failure of recycling mechanisms; results from the polluting effect of gases produced during this process; the high costs involved; and the unfelt reduction in improper waste management. Due to this phenomenon; it is evident that a way forward needs to be implemented to realize the full potential of waste recycling. As a corrective measure; environmentally friendly and resource-saving technologies, need to be employed in helping reduce the far-reaching effects of disposing of useful waste. Attempts to achieve full recycling of hazardous waste; should be made to reduce the instances of pollution that result from their release. However, environmentally friendly recycling methods should be sought; in ensuring that only those methods that consume less energy while producing less smoke should be adopted. Finally, refinery industries should come up with strategies to recycle and properly manage all the recyclable wastes (Vigso, 2004).