Melting Arctic Ice Could Unlock Massive Amounts of Frozen Microplastics
Out of the nearly 300 million tons of plastic created in 2012, 10 percent of it ended up in oceans, according to Phys.org. That trash has to go somewhere—washing onto coastlines and estuaries, or floating in the vast ocean. You may have heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an area within the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre where an enormous amount of trash circulates. Now, however, it looks like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has an unassuming competitor in trapping marine debris: the Arctic.
A recently published study in Earth’s Future found that a significant amount of microplastics, sub-millimeter broken down pieces of plastic, sit frozen in Arctic sea ice—enough to designate the Arctic as a major global sink for these tiny plastic particles. If melting trends continue at their current rate, explain the authors, the sea ice could unlock over one trillion pieces of microplastics over the next decade alone.
“The abundance of microplastics was substantial, ranging from 38 to 234 particles per cubic meter of ice,” the report said. “Although litter has been reported in northern Europe including the Arctic, this is the first report of microplastic in the Arctic and the microplastic concentrations we found are at least two orders of magnitude greater than those reported in Atlantic waters north of Scotland or in waters of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre.”
The authors hypothesized that the particles entered the Arctic from the Pacific Ocean, where both marine debris and microplastics are common. Microplastics accumulate in the oceans from three main sources: microbeads in cosmetics, breaking down of plastic debris and fibers from washing machines, according to the paper.
Ironically, the authors did not intend to study microplastics; instead, they set out to search for sediments and diatoms in sea ice cores from two different National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA studies, and unintentionally discovered these synthetic particles in varying locations throughout the Arctic Ocean. Their prevalence encouraged the researchers to examine the remaining ice cores, adhering to strict sampling and handling protocols as to not introduce their own plastic particles into the samples. The pieces observed were mostly blue, black, green and red in color, with rayon being the most prevalent material (which the authors point out is technically not a plastic, but a manmade semi-synthetic material used in cigarette filters and hygiene products). Other materials included polyester, nylon, polypropylene, polystyrene, acrylic and polyethylene, according to the study.
So, how do these particulates impact marine life?
Marine organisms ingest these particulates, and there’s evidence that the chemicals in these plastics build-up in the organism. A 2013 study found that a species of marine worm, for example, became affected by the toxins, and some even died. Another study, published that same year, found that these plastics and toxins accumulate in the food chain.
And larger marine debris poses additional threats: Fishing nets, plastic bags and tires can sink to the ocean floor and smother coral reefs, while fishing gear can entangle marine mammals and other animals, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Other marine life, like sea turtles and birds, can forsake plastics for food, which can lead to malnutrition or starvation.
Sea ice melt already has a range of consequences, including rising sea levels, disruption to food chains, and habitat loss for many species, but this study points out that climate change has unexpected consequences for the oceans—like Arctic ice unlocking these plastics. The authors suggest that their findings indicate a need to sample Antarctic ice to determine the presence of microplastics there too, and that further studies need to be undertaken to fully understand the environmental impacts of these particulates in the marine environment.
This article was originally published on Oceana's blog.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Eleven peaceful activists from the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise have taken to the water in inflatable boats with handheld banners to oppose the Statoil Songa Enabler oil rig, 275 km North off the Norwegian coast, in the Arctic Barents sea.
The banners say: "People Vs. Arctic Oil" and are directed at Statoil and the Norwegian government, which has opened a new, aggressive search for oil in the waters of the Barents Sea.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) paved the way Friday for the 600-mile, 42-inch fracked gas Atlantic Coast Pipeline to proceed when it issued the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). A joint project of utility giants Duke Energy and Dominion Energy, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would move fracked gas from West Virginia into Virginia and North Carolina.
In April, the Sierra Club submitted more than 500 pages of legal and technical comments on FERC's draft EIS, which were joined by more than 18,000 individual comments detailing opposition to the project. The pipeline has been met with widespread opposition, with more than 1,000 people participating in public hearings across the three affected states. The Sierra Club recently requested that FERC issue a new environmental review document analyzing information that came in after or late in, the public comment process.
By Jessica Corbett
"It's time Rex Tillerson step down or be removed," said Gigi Kellett of Corporate Accountability International, following an announcement on Thursday that ExxonMobil will pay $2 million for violating U.S. sanctions against Russian officials while the now-secretary of state was the company's CEO.
"ExxonMobil demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanction requirements," according to enforcement filing released by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which issued the penalty. Though the fine is reportedly the maximum penalty allowed, it's pittance to one of the world's most profitable and powerful corporations, which last year reported a profit of $7.8 billion.
New analysis from Amory B. Lovins debunks the notion that highly unprofitable, economically distressed nuclear plants should be further subsidized to meet financial, security, reliability and climate goals. The analysis, which will appear shortly in The Electricity Journal, shows that closing costly-to-run nuclear plants and reinvesting their saved operating costs in energy efficiency provides cheaper electricity, increases grid reliability and security, reduces more carbon, and preserves (not distorts) market integrity—all without subsidies.
By Christian Detisch and Seth Gladstone
In the wake of Senate Republicans' ever-deepening debacle over their flailing attempts to strip health insurance from 22 million people, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is desperate to do something—anything—to show that he can get legislation passed. To this end, he's bypassing the standard committee review process to push a complex 850+ page energy bill straight to the full Senate floor. Perhaps not surprisingly, this legislation, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, would be a disaster for public health and our climate.
A new law passed this week in South Miami will require all new homes built in the city to install solar panels. The measure, which was inspired by a proposal from a teenage climate activist, will go into effect in September.
The text of the ordinance details the climate impacts facing South Miami.
By Ben Jervey
Just last week, we fact-checked and debunked every line of The Dirty Secrets of Electric Cars, a video produced by Fueling U.S. Forward, a Koch-funded campaign to push fossil fuels. That video represents the group's first public pivot from fossil fuel boosterism to electric vehicle (EV) attacks. More electric vehicle experts are also picking the video apart.
One effort is this video highlighting many of the same falsehoods we wrote about, and which adds key context about some of the video footage. Like, for instance, the fact that the photo that Fueling U.S. Forward claims is a lithium, cobalt or cerium mining operation is actually a copper mine.
By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
A recent series of articles by a Washington Post reporter could have some consumers questioning the value of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) organic seal. But are a few bad eggs representative of an entire industry?
Consumers are all for cracking down on the fraudulent few who, with the help of Big Food, big retail chains and questionable certifiers give organics a bad name. But they also want stronger standards, and better enforcement—not a plan to weaken standards to accommodate "Factory Farm Organic."