A team of scientists found microplastics in every snow sample taken from Mount Everest. Mariusz Potocki / National Geographic
Apparently, there ain't no mountain high enough to keep away the twin pressures of plastic pollution and the climate crisis.
<p>A series of newly-published studies based on a National Geographic expedition to Mount Everest in 2019 provide a shocking picture of how human activity is impacting the highest point from sea level on Earth. One of the studies even found <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/microplastics" target="_self">microplastics</a> just below the summit, at 8,440 meters (approximately 27,690 feet).</p><p>"Mt. Everest is somewhere I have always considered remote and pristine," University of Plymouth scientist and National Geographic Explorer Dr. Imogen Napper, who was the lead author on the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastics</a> study, told EcoWatch in an email. "To know we are polluting near the top of the tallest mountain on earth is a real eye opener – we need to protect and care for our planet."</p>
<h3>Microplastics at the Top of the World</h3><p>Napper's study, published in the journal <a href="https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(20)30550-9" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>One Earth</em></a> Friday, found microplastics in every snow sample taken from Mount Everest. The findings join a growing body of research showing the extent of microplastic pollution in even the most remote corners of the planet.</p><p>"These are the highest microplastics currently ever discovered," Napper told EcoWatch. "Although it sounds exciting, this means that microplastics have been discovered from the depths of the ocean all the way to the highest mountain on earth."</p><p>There has been growing awareness in recent years of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/china-mount-everest-trash-2629508814.html?share_id=4408439" target="_self">buildup of trash</a> on Mount Everest left behind by tourists and climbers. In 2019, the Tibet Autonomous Region Sports Bureau said it removed 9.3 tons of waste, and China closed its Everest base camp to tourists to prevent more pollution. Some media outlets have even begun to refer to the mountain as the "world's highest garbage dump."</p><p>However, Napper's study is the first to focus on the accumulation of microplastics on the mountain specifically. Microplastics are plastics less than five millimeters in length that typically slough off of larger plastics as they degrade. Their small size means they are easily ingested by animals by mistake and are also extremely difficult to clean up.</p>
<p>Napper's team found more microplastics collected near the base camp, where climbers tend to congregate. But they still found five microfibers at the mountain's "balcony," the highest point they studied. Those fibers numbered one clear acrylic fiber, one red polyester fiber and three blue polyester fibers.</p><p>In general, many of the microplastics found on Everest were fibers that could have been brought by climbers.</p><p>"Samples collected on the mountain and in the valley below it revealed significant quantities of polyester, acrylic, nylon, and polypropylene fibres," Napper told EcoWatch. "The materials are increasingly being used to make the high performance outdoor clothing commonly used by climbers, as well as the tents and climbing ropes used in attempts to climb the mountain."</p>
<p>However, other studies have shown that microplastics can be carried to remote environments by the atmosphere. A <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-pollution-arctic-snow-ice-2639834233.html" target="_self">2019 study</a> found that plastics were being lifted in the air and deposited as snow in the Arctic and the Alps. Napper said similar mechanisms could be bringing the plastics to Everest.</p><p>"[T]he microplastics may have been transported from lower altitudes by the extreme winds which regularly impact the mountain's higher slopes," Napper said.</p><p>So how can we keep Everest, and other remote environments, plastic free? Napper argued that, while reducing plastic use and improving recycling were both important, it is also crucial to develop new materials. This is particularly the case for the kind of specialized gear used to explore remote areas.</p><p>"There are a lot of promising developments in industry at the moment. We need to keep up the momentum, and ensure that athletic gear is tested and evaluated before use," Napper told EcoWatch. "Solutions need to deliver a positive account, not create future issues."</p>
<h3>Glaciers Melting Into Air</h3><p>Napper's article was just one of at least 16 that came out of the 2019 National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet Everest Expedition. That expedition brought 10 research teams including 34 international and Nepali scientists to Everest from April and June of last year in order to study the impacts of human activity on the mountain.</p><p>In addition to the accumulation of microplastics, studies focused on the impacts of the climate crisis on the mountain. One, <a href="https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(20)30915-9" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">published in iScience</a>, detailed how global warming is actually increasing the oxygen available to human climbers as warmer temperatures have increased air pressure. Another, published in <a href="https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(20)30549-2" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">OneEarth</a>, documented how Everest's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glaciers%5D" target="_self">glaciers</a> have thinned by more than 100 meters (approximately 328 feet) since the 1960s. Not only that, but the ice loss is accelerating, and glaciers are losing mass even at high altitudes.</p><p>Study leader and University of St. Andrews glaciologist Dr. Owen King said the melting of the higher glaciers was the "biggest surprise" from the results. His team measured thinning at the 5,700 meter (approximately 18,702 foot) Khumbu icefall and the 6,000 meter (approximately 19,685 foot) Rongbuk and Rongbuk East glaciers.</p><p>"The conditions found at this altitude are usually considered ideal for snow and ice accumulation, but our data suggest that they have now become more susceptible to ice melt," King said in an email to EcoWatch.</p>
<p>The melting of mountain glaciers is a big deal, because they are an important source of water to surrounding communities.</p><p>"Continued and, as we have shown, accelerating ice loss raises concerns about the sustainability of the supply of glacial meltwater, particularly at times of the year when monsoon rainfall cannot provide a backup, or in times of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drought" target="_self">drought</a>," King said.</p><p>Understanding how climate change will impact mountain glaciers is the ultimate goal of the Perpetual Planet expeditions, of which the Everest trip was the first.</p><p>"The 2019 National Geographic and Rolex Perpetual Planet Everest Expedition was selected as a fantastic opportunity to support ground breaking research that fills a critical data gap in our understanding of how mountain systems are changing," Nicole Alexiev, vice president of science and innovation at the National Geographic Society, told EcoWatch in an email. "High mountain glaciers serve as the world's water towers, storing and providing water resources for 1/5 of the global populations. Despite the importance of high mountain systems, there is very little research conducted above 5,000m [approximately 16,404 feet] – especially interdisciplinary research – so we were excited to support this expedition which aimed to examine the world's highest mountain and its glaciers using expertise from the disciplines of biology, geology, glaciology, meteorology, and mapping."</p><p>Future expeditions will explore the Andes and western Canada, where mountain glaciers supply water to Santiago, Chile and the Columbia and Fraser river watersheds.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Microplastics Found in Antarctica's Food Chain for First Time ... ›
- Microplastics Found in Human Organs for First Time - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A new study finds that glass bottles, particularly ones for carbonated drinks, are worse than plastic for the environment.
bhofack2 / Getty Images
bhofack2 / Getty Images
Glass bottles could have an even bigger impact on the environment than plastic ones, a new study has found.
<p>Researchers at the University of Southampton in England set out to determine which common beverage containers cause the most and least harm to the environment. They found that glass is actually more detrimental than plastic because it is mined from rare materials and requires more <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a> to produce and ship.</p><p>"It might come as a surprise, but glass bottles actually ranked last in our analysis," study coauthors Alice Brock and Ian Williams wrote in <a href="https://theconversation.com/ranked-the-environmental-impact-of-five-different-soft-drink-containers-149642" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. "You might instinctively reach for a glass bottle to avoid buying a plastic alternative, but glass takes more resources and energy to produce."</p><p>In a study published in <a href="https://digital.detritusjournal.com/articles/in-press/life-cycle-assessment-of-beverage-packaging/368" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Detritus</a>, Brock and Williams investigated the most and least impactful container options for three beverage types: milk, fruit juice and pressurized fizzy drinks. In order to determine each container's impact, Brock and Williams conducted life cycle assessments and compared the containers based on several indicators of environmental harm, including their contribution to global warming, depletion of resources and impact on human health and terrestrial and marine environments.</p>
<p>For each type of beverage, Brock and Williams were then able to rank the containers from most to least harmful.</p><ol><li>Fizzy Drinks: Glass bottles were the most harmful and 100 percent recycled aluminum cans were the least. In between, from most to least impactful, came recycled glass bottles, plastic polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles and non-recycled aluminum cans.</li><li>Fruit Juice: Glass bottles were again the most harmful and <a href="https://www.tetrapak.com/solutions/packaging" target="_blank">Tetra Paks</a> were the least. In between came recycled glass bottles and PET bottles.</li><li>Milk: Glass was the most impactful and cartons were the least. In between were recycled glass bottles and high-density polythene (HDPE) plastic bottles.</li></ol><p>While each beverage category had a least impactful option, the researchers noted that even the minimally impactful choices still caused harm. Non-recycled aluminum cans, for example, ranked high for having toxic impacts on marine environments despite being the second-least impactful fizzy drink container type overall.</p>
<p><br>"All beverage packaging that we assessed showed some form of environmental impacts and both the milk carton and Tetra Pak, despite being less impactful than the plastic bottles, still contain plastic elements," Brock said in a University of Southampton press release emailed to EcoWatch. "Based on the evidence, society needs to move away from single-use beverage packaging in order to reduce environmental harm and embrace the regular everyday use of reusable containers as standard practice."</p><p>That said, there is a difference between the most and least impactful options. Glass bottles contributed about 95 percent more to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a> than aluminum cans, the study authors noted in The Conversation. Still, Brock and Williams said the message of their research went beyond individual consumer choice.</p><p>"We hope our study will help inform public and commercial debate over the suitability of some types of packaging that we all use in our daily lives and lead to swift and decisive changes in the drinks industry to find more environmentally friendly alternatives as a matter of some urgency," Williams said in the press release.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A new study finds plastic pollution increases ocean acidification. Placebo365 / Getty Images
A new study finds that plastic water bottles submerged three weeks at sea contained more detrimental bacteria than seawater, creating conditions that lead to ocean acidification.
<p>In the <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201106093018.htm" target="_blank">study</a>, published last week in the journal <em>Marine Pollution Bulletin</em>, international scientists concluded that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_blank">plastic pollution,</a> particularly single-use plastic water bottles, collected harmful bacteria and microorganisms, which flourish in carbon dioxide-rich environments. </p><p>Increased levels of CO2 in the world's oceans are one of the causes of<a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/blog/6119/what-is-coral-what-are-the-causes-impacts-and-solutions-of-coral-bleaching/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> coral bleaching</a>, and rising carbon levels have accelerated the climate crisis. The Great Barrier Reef, the largest system of corals in the world, is now <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/travel/2020/10/14/great-barrier-reef-coral-died-travel-orig-ch.cnn/video/playlists/travel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">50 percent bleached</a>. </p><p>The study also found that beneficial bacteria, an important part of the <a href="https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/156/fast-carbon-cycle/" target="_blank">carbon cycle</a>, were adversely affected.</p>
<p>"Discarded plastic drinking bottles have become a common sight in our oceans and we were expecting to see them being colonized by different types of bacteria," said Dr. Ben Harvey, assistant professor at the University of Tsukuba's Shimoda Marine Research Center, and an author of the study.</p><p>As part of the experiment, the plastic bottles were immersed near Shikine, a Japanese island close to carbon dioxide seeps, where CO2 evaporates into the seawater. This condition is expected to materialize more in subsequent years. </p><p>"It was surprising to see the extent of that change and how the raised levels affected species differently. To see beneficial species dwindling while harmful species thrive is an obvious present and future cause for concern," said Harvey. </p>
<p>In addition to coral bleaching, ocean acidification is often a driver in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/biodiversity" target="_blank">biodiversity</a> loss, with <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ocean-acidification/effects-ocean-and-coastal-acidification-ecosystems" target="_blank">disrupted food webs</a> threatening species.</p><p>"Up to 13 million tons of plastics from land end up in the oceans each year and they have been shown to affect all types and sizes of marine species," said senior author of the study Jason Hall-Spencer, a professor of marine biology at the University of Plymouth.</p><p>Without coral reefs, starfish, sea urchin and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-turtles" target="_self">sea turtle</a> populations shrink, for example. Plus, acidification can cause sharks' scales and teeth to <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-acidification-could-eat-away-at-sharks-teeth-and-scales/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">erode</a>. And deep-sea life such as whales and rays face less prey to find.</p><p>Hall-Spencer, however, remains hopeful.<br></p><p>"It is... within our power to change cultures so that litter created on land does not become an environmental hazard in our oceans, both now and for future generations."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Ocean Acidification Threatens Entire Ecosystems - EcoWatch ›
- Dungeness Crabs' Shells Are Dissolving From the Severity of Pacific ... ›
- Ocean Acidification from Climate Change Could Cost $1 Trillion ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A new study considers the amount plastic the U.S. ships abroad, to places such as Hong Kong. Nick Mallos / Ocean Conservancy
The U.S. is the No. 1 generator of plastic waste in the world and as high as the No. 3 generator of ocean plastic waste.
<p>That's the finding of a new study published in <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/44/eabd0288" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Science Advances last Friday</a> that sought to paint a more accurate picture of the U.S. contribution to the plastic crisis. While previous studies had suggested that Asian countries were responsible for the bulk of ocean plastics, the new study upends this assumption by taking into account the plastic that the U.S. ships abroad.</p>
<p>"For years, so much of the plastic we have put into the blue bin has been exported for recycling to countries that struggle to manage their own waste, let alone the vast amounts delivered from the United States," lead author and Sea Education Association professor of oceanography Dr. Kara Lavender Law said in a press release emailed to EcoWatch. "And when you consider how much of our plastic waste isn't actually <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/recycling" target="_self">recyclable</a> because it is low-value, contaminated or difficult to process, it's not surprising that a lot of it ends up polluting the environment."</p><p>It has long been known that the U.S. produces lots and lots of plastic, but the assumption was that this plastic was being effectively managed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA), for example, reports that 75.4 percent of plastic waste is landfilled, 15.3 percent is incinerated and 9.3 percent is recycled, which suggests that all U.S. plastic is accounted for. But this does not take into account illegal littering or what happens once plastic is collected for recycling, the study authors pointed out. A 2010 study ranked the U.S. 20th in terms of its overall contribution to ocean plastic pollution. But that study also did not consider the plastic that the U.S. exported to developing countries.</p>
<p>The new analysis concluded that the U.S. generated around 42 million metric tons of plastic in 2016. Of the U.S. plastic collected for recycling, more than half of it was shipped abroad, and 88 percent of that was to countries that struggle to adequately recycle. Further, 15 to 25 percent of it was contaminated or poor quality plastic that would be extremely difficult to recycle anyway. These figures mean that the U.S. is polluting coasts in foreign countries with as much as one million tons of plastic.<br></p><p>Further, the paper estimated that between 0.98 and 1.26 million metric tons of plastic were either littered or illegally dumped within the U.S. In total, the authors estimated that the U.S. added as many as 2.25 million metric tons of plastic to the environment in 2016 and up to 1.5 million metric tons of plastic to coastal ecosystems. Using the upper estimates for plastic waste, this would put the U.S. at No. 3 in terms of overall contribution to marine plastic pollution.</p>
<p>"Previous research has provided global values for plastic input into the environment and coastal areas, but detailed analyses like this one are important for individual countries to further assess their contributions," study coauthor and Distinguished Professor at the University of Georgia's College of Engineering Dr. Jenna Jambeck said in the press release. "In the case of the United States, it is critically important that we examine our own backyard and take responsibility for our global plastic footprint."</p><p>The study was based on 2016 plastic waste data from both the World Bank and additional U.S. data and was collected and analyzed by the Sea Education Association, DSM Environmental Services, the University of Georgia and the <a href="https://oceanconservancy.org/" target="_blank">Ocean Conservancy</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://secure.greenpeaceusa.org/protect-2020/?&utm_source=website&utm_medium=takeover&utm_campaign=protect_2020" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Greenpeace</a>, which was not involved in the study, noted in a press release emailed to EcoWatch that many of the same authors had contributed to a <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768" target="_blank">2015 study</a> that also looked at the sources of ocean plastic pollution. That study, Greenpeace argued, had been misinterpreted by corporations and governments to put the blame for the ocean plastic crisis on Asian countries.</p><p>"For years, corporations and governments in the Global North have scapegoated countries in Asia for the plastic pollution crisis," Greenpeace USA Global Plastics project leader Graham Forbes said in the press release. "This comprehensive study now reveals that the United States has generated more plastic waste than any other country, and an enormous amount of that is ending up in our environment. This proves that the recycling infrastructure argument we see from industry is a ruse. Plastic producers and major consumer goods companies have argued that if we just build up recycling infrastructure in Africa and Asia, then we can continue churning out single-use plastic. The U.S. has a relatively robust waste infrastructure, yet an estimated five times as much plastic pollution entered the oceans in 2016 than in 2010. The U.S. needs to stop blaming other countries for its problem and give up its addiction to single-use plastic."</p><p><em>Correction: </em><em>An earlier version of this article mistakenly said that the U.S. was the leading generator of plastic pollution. In fact, the U.S. was the leading generator of plastic waste, defined as the total amount of plastic that needs to be disposed of, but does not necessarily enter the environment. Plastic pollution refers only to mismanaged plastic waste that does enter the environment.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- U.S. Plastics Pact Vows to Make All Plastic Packaging Recyclable by ... ›
- Historic Agreement on Plastic Pollution Reached by 180+ Countries ... ›
- Trump Isolates U.S. on Climate, Ocean Plastics and Trade Following ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
What happened to all that plastic you've put in the recycling bin over the years? Halfpoint / Getty Images
By Dr. Kate Raynes-Goldie
Of all the plastic we've ever produced, only 9% has been recycled. So what happened to all that plastic you've put in the recycling bin over the years?
<p>Hands up if you grew up thinking that recycling plastic waste is key to saving the environment.</p><p>It turns out that for decades <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled" target="_blank">the recyclability of plastics was grossly oversold</a> by the plastics industry.</p><p>The creation of this recycling "myth" is why, despite 30 years of being diligent recyclers, we have things like the <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/" target="_blank">Great Pacific Garbage Patch</a>.</p><blockquote>In fact, we've only recycled 9% of <em>all</em> the plastics we've ever produced. And, our use of plastics is still increasing every year.</blockquote><p>The reality of the situation is that recycling plastics is actually really hard and expensive.</p>
Triangle of Mistruths
<p>The myth created around plastic recycling has been one of simplicity. We look for the familiar triangle arrows, then pop the waste in the recycling bin so it can be reused.</p><p>But the true purpose of those triangles has been misunderstood by the general public ever since their invention in the 1980s.</p><p>These triangles were actually created by the plastics industry and, according to a report provided to them in July 1993, <a href="https://www.npr.org/transcripts/912150085" target="_blank">were creating "unrealistic expectations"</a> about what could be recycled. But they decided to keep using the codes.</p><p>Which is why many people still believe that these triangular symbols (also known as a <a href="https://sustainablepackaging.org/101-resin-identification-codes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">resin identifier code</a> or RIC) means something is recyclable.</p><p>But according to the American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM) – which controls the RIC system – the numbered triangles "<a href="https://www.astm.org/Standards/D7611.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">are not recycle codes</a>." In fact, they weren't created for the general public at all. They were made for the post-consumer plastic industry.</p><p>In other words, the symbols make it easier to sort the different types of plastics, some of which cannot be recycled – <a href="https://www.ecobin.com.au/understand-recycling-codes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">depending on the recycling facility</a>.</p><p>"Unfortunately, just placing your plastic into the recycling bin doesn't mean it will get recycled," says Lara Camilla Pinho. She is an architect and lecturer at the UWA School of Design who is researching novel uses of plastic waste.</p><p>"The recycling system is complicated and often dictated by market demand. Not all plastic is recyclable. We cannot recycle plastic bags or straws for example."</p>Behind the Scenes
<p>So, what makes recycling plastics so difficult?</p><p>"Essentially, there are two types of plastics – thermoplastics and thermosets. While thermoplastics can be re-melted and re-molded, thermosets contain cross-linked polymers that cannot be separated meaning they cannot be recycled," says Lara.</p><p>"Even thermoplastics have a limit to the amount of times we can recycle them, as each time they are recycled they downgrade in quality."</p><p>Even when plastics are recyclable, it is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/13/war-on-plastic-waste-faces-setback-as-cost-of-recycled-material-soars" target="_blank">often more costly</a> than simply making new plastics.</p>Sugar, Seaweed and Mushrooms
<p>If the conventional recycling system isn't working, what else can we do with all the plastic we've created?</p><p>Lara is looking for ways to add value to recycled plastics such as using it in the design and development of architectural products. She hopes to use these architectural products to help underserved communities that are disproportionately affected by plastic waste.</p><p>In addition to recycling, we also need to find ways to reduce our use of virgin petroleum-based plastics.</p><p>Bioplastic is one such product that has been getting a lot of hype over the last few years. And although they're better than petroleum-based plastics, bioplastics also come with their own <a href="https://phys.org/news/2017-12-truth-bioplastics.html" target="_blank">set of challenges</a>.</p><p>"There are already a lot of bio-based alternatives to plastic, such as bagasse – a byproduct of sugar cane processing," says Lara.</p><p><a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-mycelium-revolution-is-upon-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mycelium</a>, a type of fungi we most often associate with mushrooms, are also providing an interesting plastic alternative.</p><p>"In the field of architecture, mycelium is starting to be used as an alternative to plastic insulation, but also as compostable packaging and bricks," says Lara.</p><p>"The bricks take around five days to make and are strong, durable, water resistant and compostable at the end of their use."</p><p><a href="https://www.arup.com/news-and-events/hyfi-reinvents-the-brick" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hy-Fi Tower</a>, created by <a href="http://www.thelivingnewyork.com/living_about.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Living</a>, is an example of a building made from these bricks.</p><p>And finally, there's seaweed.</p><p>"[Seaweed is] cheap and can reproduce itself quickly without fertilizers. In architecture, there is use for seaweed as an alternative to plastic insulation but also as cladding," says Lara.</p>More Money, More Problems
<p>While all these alternatives are great, the main cause of our plastic dilemma is not scientific or technological, but economic.</p><p>As long as it remains <a href="https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/why-is-it-cheaper-to-make-new-plastic-bottles-than-to-recycle-old-ones/" target="_blank">cheaper to create new plastics</a> from fossil fuels rather than from bioplastics or from recycling, we're going to be stuck with plastic garbage islands floating in our oceans.</p><p>The true cost to our health and our environment has yet to be included in the equation. But once it is, maybe that is when the real shift will happen.</p>From Your Site Articles
- The Complex and Frustrating Reality of Recycling Plastic - EcoWatch ›
- The Recycling Dilemma: Good Plastic, Bad plastic? - EcoWatch ›
- The Myth About Recycling Plastic? It Works - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
New research finds baby bottles may release millions of microplastic particles with each feeding. Beeki / Needpix
The process of preparing and mixing a baby bottle formula seems innocuous, but new research finds this common occurrence is actually releasing millions of microplastic particles from the bottle's lining, Wired reported.
<p><br>Microplastics are particles that are smaller than five millimeters long. Sterilizing and mixing formula may also release trillions of nanoplastic particles, which are billionths of a meter long, Wired reported.</p><p>The new <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-00171-y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a> published in <em>Nature Food</em> found that the amount of microplastic babies consume is much larger than previous estimates. "We were absolutely gobsmacked," study co-author John Boland told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/19/bottle-fed-babies-swallow-millions-microplastics-day-study" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "A study last year by the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated adults would consume between 300 and 600 microplastics a day — our average values were on the order of a million or millions."</p><p>"The numbers are, well, frightening," Deonie Allen, who studies microplastics at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, but wasn't involved in the research, told Wired. "They're bigger than any exposure tests that have been done before for human uptake."</p>
<p>The researchers examined the amount of formula that infants up to a year old consumed in 48 global regions. They discovered that, on average, bottle-fed babies were exposed to 1.6 million microplastic particles a day, The Guardian reported.</p><p>"We have to start doing the health studies to understand the implications," Boland told The Guardian. "We're already working with colleagues to look at what buttons in the immune system these particles begin to press."<br></p><p>The researchers explained their methodology and results in <a href="https://theconversation.com/bottle-fed-babies-may-consume-millions-of-microplastic-particles-our-research-suggests-148350" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. They used common polypropylene baby bottles, and followed the WHO's 2007 <a href="https://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/PIF_Bottle_en.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">guidelines</a> for preparing baby formula. This involved cleaning, sterilizing and mixing formula. The results were that bottles released up to 16 million particles per liter of water heated to 158 degrees F. The number of particles jumped to 55 million at 203 degrees F.</p>
<p>Not only does hotter water shed more microplastics, but so does shaking the bottle, which is a common practice for reconstituting formula.</p><p>However, the researchers also created a simple four-step method for reducing microplastic exposure, detailed in The Conversation:</p><ol><li>Rinse sterilized feeding bottles with cool, sterile water.</li><li>Always prepare formula in a non-plastic container.</li><li>After formula has cooled to room temperature, transfer it into the cooled, sterilized feeding bottle.</li><li>Avoid rewarming prepared formula in plastic containers, especially with a microwave oven.</li></ol><p>The last step resonated with Boland. He told Wired, "I think the important learning is never, ever, ever use a microwave oven to heat anything with a plastic container. Because what happens is you get in fact the local heating of the plastic and the water together, which gives enhanced levels of microplastic generation. And so that combination we think is particularly potent."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Microplastics Found in Human Organs for First Time - EcoWatch ›
- Microplastics Are Raining Down on Cities - EcoWatch ›
- People Eat 50,000+ Microplastics Every Year, New Study Finds ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Study Finds Synthetic Clothes Contributed 4,000 Metric Tons of Plastic Microfibers in California
19 October
Climate
These microfibers, smaller than five millimeters, are shed when synthetic clothes are washed. Cris Cantón / Getty Images
A new study from the University of California at Santa Barbara has found that synthetic clothes released about 4,000 metric tons of plastic microfibers into California's environment in 2019.
<p><br/></p>
<p>For context, that's about 80 million plastic rubber ducks in California, or 130,000 times as many stars as there are in the Milky Way galaxy, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/16/plastic-waste-microfibers-california-study" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. The Guardian received exclusive access to this study, although it has not been peer-reviewed or published.</p><p>These microfibers, smaller than five millimeters, are shed when synthetic clothes are washed, including "yoga pants, stretchy jeans and fleece jackets" the Guardian reported.</p><p>To determine how many microfibers are shed in a given year, researchers calculated how many synthetic materials consumers bought with how many loads of laundry people did. The data also calculated how many microfibers were released in each wash. Researchers combined those numbers with public data on sludge and wastewater management in California to reach 4,000 metric tons. These microfibers then make their way into the state's water and land, The Guardian reported.</p>
<p>Those numbers might alarm consumers. According to <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/10/17/study-finds-huge-pollution-from-microfibers-in-californias-oceans/amp/" target="_blank">The New York Post</a>, a recent study in <em><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194970" target="_blank">PLoS One</a></em> found that the average person inadvertently consumes more than 5,800 microfiber particles — every year.</p><p>While wastewater plants have the ability to prevent microfibers from entering waterways, they are ultimately delaying the process. Wastewater treatment facilities tend to combine what they capture with treated sewage, which is eventually spread on agricultural fields. The microfibers then run off back into the waterways, The Guardian reported.</p><p>"So we're changing it from an ocean problem to a land problem," Roland Geyer, an industrial ecologist at UC Santa Barbara who collaborated on the report, told The Guardian. "Rather than removing the fibers, we've just moved their location."</p>
<p>Studies that quantify microplastics in the environment help play a vital role in regulating them. For example, <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/06/16/california-becomes-first-state-to-define-microplastics-in-water-1293744" target="_blank">Politico</a> reported that California's State Water Resources Control Board recently approved a decision to make it the first state to define microplastics. The board will propose testing methods by July 2021; it will require water suppliers to report their microplastic levels for four years once a testing protocol is agreed upon.</p><p>Global production of synthetic fibers around the world is predicted to triple by 2050, The New York Post reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Microfibers: The New Plastic Pollution That Threatens Our Waters ... ›
- What You Can Do to Make Your Clothing Ocean Safe - EcoWatch ›
- Hudson River Dumps 300 Million Microfibers Into Atlantic Ocean Daily ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A man carries a plastic shopping plastic bag as he walks along Times Square in New York City on April 2, 2019. Eduardo MunozAlvarez / VIEWpress / Corbis via Getty Images
New York is finally bagging plastic bags.
The statewide ban on the highly polluting items actually went into effect March 1. But enforcement, which was supposed to start a month later, was delayed by the one-two punch of a lawsuit and the coronavirus pandemic, NY1 reported. Now, more than six months later, enforcement is set to begin Monday.
<p>"New York's bag ban has already improved New York's health by cutting down on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-pollution" target="_self">plastic pollution</a>," <a href="https://eany.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Advocates NY</a> deputy director Kate Kurera told <a href="https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/new-york-begins-enforcing-plastic-bag-ban-on-monday/2675687/" target="_blank">NBC4 New York</a>. "We look forward to the State beginning enforcement and stores complying with this important law."</p><p>The new law prohibits most stores from giving out thin <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastic</a> shopping bags. They can dispense paper bags, for which counties have the option of charging a five cent fee. Any business caught handing out the banned plastic bags will face a fine, according to NY1.</p>
<p>The law offers exceptions for takeout orders and bags used to wrap meat or prepared food, according to NBC4 New York. Families who use food stamps will also not have to pay the fee for paper bags.</p><p>Enforcement of the ban was held back in part by the coronavirus pandemic, as several stores actually banned shoppers from bringing their own reusable bags when the spread of COVID-19 was at its height in the state.</p><p>But the new law has also faced fierce opposition from plastic bag makers and convenience store owners, who brought a lawsuit challenging it.</p>
<p>These groups have argued that the ban will bankrupt them. American Recyclable Plastic Bag Alliance director Zachary Taylor told <a href="https://apnews.com/article/d16e172627519780ced6767937ee0954" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a> that the law was "unworkable" and it would be harder for smaller stores to acquire paper bags during the pandemic.</p><p>However, a judge upheld most of the new regulation in August. The only part he struck down was a piece of the regulation allowing stores to provide customers reusable plastic bags if they were at least 10 millimeters thick, because he argued that exception was not part of the language of the original law as passed by the legislature. Some environmentalists had worried this part of the regulation would allow stores to get away with offering thicker bags.</p>
<p><br>"The Court's decision is a victory and a vindication of New York State's efforts to end the scourge of single-use plastic bags and a direct rebuke to the plastic bag manufacturers who tried to stop the law and DEC's regulations to implement it," Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner Basil Seggos told <a href="https://abc7ny.com/plastic-bags-ny-ban-new-york-coronavirus-pandemic/7136479/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ABC7</a>. "As we have for many months, DEC is encouraging New Yorkers to make the switch to reusable bags whenever and wherever they shop and to use common-sense precautions to keep reusable bags clean."</p><p>Some bag makers and store owners are still trying to delay the ban in court, but not all retailers are against the new law.</p><p>"Supporting the no plastic bag ban is one way for us to support a positive change in our world," Bronx Bodega owner Badr Alsaidi told NY1. "Plastic in general is one huge cause of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate change</a>. This is one way for us to step in with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/recycling" target="_self">recycling</a>."</p><p>New Yorkers currently use around 23 billion plastic bags a year, but only use each bag for an average of 12 minutes, according to DEC figures reported by ABC7. Around 85 percent of those bags end up in landfills, recycling machines, streets or <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rivers" target="_self">rivers</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oceans" target="_self">oceans</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Plastic Bag Bans Put on Hold Amid Coronavirus Fears - EcoWatch ›
- New York's Plastic Bag Ban Begins - EcoWatch ›
- New York Becomes Second State to Ban Plastic Bags ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
3 Major UK Retailers Are Banning Glitter This Christmas Over Environmental Concerns
16 October
Business
The UK retailer John Lewis store in Sloane Square, London during Christmas of 2009. William Hook / CC BY-SA 2.0
Glitter may add sparkle to the holiday season, but its afterlife is decidedly less shiny.
<p>The festive coating and arts-and-crafts staple is actually another type of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/microplastics" target="_self">microplastic</a> — those pesky <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastics</a> five millimeters or less in diameter that end up everywhere from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-pollution-arctic-snow-ice-2639834233.html" target="_self">Arctic ice</a> to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/shark-plastic-stomach-2646956951.html" target="_self">bellies of sharks</a>.</p><p>"Glitter might look lovely but, because it's plastic, it sticks around long after the sparkle has gone – often in the stomachs of fish and birds," campaigner David Innes told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/24/glitter-sales-ban-supermarkets-microplastics?CMP=fb_gu" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> in 2019.</p><p>That's why three major UK retailers have decided to eliminate glitter from their Christmas merchandise this year. Morrisons, Waitrose and John Lewis have all announced that their store brand holiday products will be glitter free for 2020, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54545428" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">BBC News reported</a>.</p>
<p>Morrisons <a href="https://www.morrisons-corporate.com/media-centre/corporate-news/morrisons-goes-completely-glitter-free/" target="_blank">said in a statement</a> it had gotten rid of glitter on all of its greeting cards, wrapping paper, florist items and all other seasonal products. The policy will remain in place through the new year for store brand cards and gift bags. In addition, the store also pledged to remove single-use plastic toys from its Christmas crackers and reduce plastic wrap on cards and other decorations.</p><p>"Every time a cracker is pulled, or a card is opened, plastics have been used ... but just the once. So, we've taken glitter and plastic out of our festive range this year – so that our customers can enjoy their festivities without worrying about the environmental impact," Morrisons home director Christine Bryce said in a statement. "This means that we're now 100 percent glitter free across all our own brand ranges which is an important step in the fight against <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-pollution" target="_self">plastic pollution</a>."</p>
<p>John Lewis and Waitrose are also excising glitter from their seasonal products.</p><p>"All own-brand cards, crackers, wrapping paper, gift bags are now 100% glitter-free," the stores said in a statement reported by BBC News.</p><p>The movement against glitter has been growing alongside awareness of the dangers of microplastics. Waitrose is <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/glitter-ban-2623422922.html" target="_self">following up on a pledge</a> it first made two years ago to phase out holiday glitter by 2020. At the time, it was the first major UK retailer to set this goal.</p><p>Other UK stores are working to reduce glitter and other plastics this holiday season, BBC News reported. The pharmacy chain Boots will stop wrapping Christmas presents in single-use plastic packaging; supermarket Tesco will only use edible glitter; and supermarket Sainsbury's is eliminating glitter from cards, wrapping paper and gift bags and reducing it for decorations, crackers and festive bouquets.</p>
<p>The retailers' moves follow public demand. Boots said searches for ecologically-friendly products on its website had increased by nearly a third in a year. And Innes was part of a group behind a March 2019 petition asking the UK government to ban glitter altogether, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/glitter-waitrose-morrissons-john-lewis-christmas-b1041490.html" target="_blank">The Independent reported</a>.</p><p>The anti-glitter campaign has not caught on across the pond, however, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/business/glitter-ban-christmas.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. Major U.S. companies like Walmart, Target, Walgreens, CVS and Costco did not return requests for comment on whether they were working to reduce the glitter on their holiday merchandise this year. The <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a> also did not respond to a request for comment on whether there was any momentum for a U.S. glitter ban or what impact such a ban would have.</p><p>Independent scientists said the answer was unclear. On the one hand, it is possible that glitter's sparkle comes from metal or other harmful additives above and beyond what is contained in the average microplastic, Robert C. Hale, a professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at the College of William & Mary, told The New York Times. On the other hand, glitter accounts for much less than one percent of the microplastics in the environment, which usually slough off larger plastics or synthetic fabrics.</p>
<p>National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Debris Division chief scientist Amy V. Uhrin said that glitter was only one of many microplastic pollutants, but did say that certain studies had found large concentrations of glitter in soils or in wastewater sludge.</p><p>"It is difficult to say what impact a glitter ban would have," she told The New York Times.</p><p>Back in the UK, environmentalists said the Christmas glitter bans were a step in the right direction, but that the UK government ultimately needed to eliminate single-use plastic altogether.</p>"[W]e must go much further to end the scourge of plastic pollution," <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.uk/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth</a> campaigner Tony Bosworth told BBC News.
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A new study has found that the ocean floor contains nearly 15.5 tons of microplastics. Tunatura / Getty Images
Microplastics can be found everywhere from Antarctica to the Pyrenees. A significant amount of plastic waste ends up in the ocean, but very little has been known about how much ends up on the ocean floor — until now.
<p>A new study has found that the ocean floor contains nearly 15.5 tons of microplastics, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/world/microplastics-oceans-14-million-metric-tons-intl-hnk/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>Researchers from Australia's government science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), examined microplastics on the ocean floor near the Great Australian Bight, a large expanse that comprises the bulk of the country's southwest coastline.</p><p>The researchers used a robotic submarine to gather and analyze samples taken from six locations up to 236 miles off the coast, and up to almost 10,000 feet deep, reported CNN.</p>
<p>The results, which were published Monday in <em><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.576170/full#B54" target="_blank">Frontiers in Marine Science</a></em>, revealed about 35 times more plastic at the bottom of the ocean than floating at the surface. In 51 samples taken between March and April 2017, researchers found an average of 1.26 microplastic pieces per gram of sediment, a concentration that's up to 25 times greater than any previous deep-sea study, CNN reported.</p><p>"Plastic pollution that ends up in the ocean deteriorates and breaks down, ending up as microplastics," Justine Barrett from CSIRO's Oceans and Atmosphere, who led the study, said in a statement in CNN. "The results show microplastics are indeed sinking to the ocean floor."</p><p>Dr. Denise Hardesty, a principal research scientist at CSIRO and a co-author of the research, told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/06/more-than-14m-tonnes-of-plastic-believed-to-be-at-the-bottom-of-the-ocean" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> that finding microplastics in such remote locations and depths reveals the extent of global plastic pollution.</p>
<p>"This means it's throughout the water column. This gives us pause for thought about the world we live in and the impact of our consumer habits on what's considered a most pristine place," Dr. Hardesty told The Guardian. "We need to make sure the big blue is not a big trash pit. This is more evidence that we need to stop this at the source."</p><p>The World Economic Forum has estimated that an<a href="http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_New_Plastics_Economy.pdf" target="_blank"> entire garbage truck full of plastic</a> is dumped into the ocean every minute, every day, <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/10/05/micro-plastics-ocean-floor/" target="_blank">The New Daily</a> reported.</p>
<p><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Microplastics Found in Human Organs for First Time - EcoWatch ›
- Microplastics in Oceans Outnumber Stars in Our Galaxy by 500 Times ›
- Paint: The Big Source of Ocean Microplastics You Didn't Know About ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Biodegradable, Carbon-Negative Straws and Cutlery Could Help Stop Plastic Pollution
03 October
Business
Newlight's Air Carbon cutlery is made of methane and degrades in the ocean the way cellulose would. Newlight
Newlight Technologies, a California biotech company, has set its sights on curbing greenhouse gas emissions and marine plastic pollution simultaneously. The startup uses ocean bacteria to create a new material that is made of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and that can replace many single-use plastics and leathers.
<p>Newlight has been exploring ways to make use of greenhouse gas emissions for more than a decade. "AirCarbon," its latest creation, is made with ocean microbes, air and waste greenhouse gases. The new biomaterial, which can be shaped into anything from straws to office chairs to frames for glasses, is durable, completely biodegradable in the ocean and carbon-negative, the company's <a href="https://www.newlight.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">website</a> explained.</p><p>"We asked the question, how can we take carbon that would otherwise go into the air, and turn it into useful materials," Mark Herrema, CEO of Newlight, told <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90551498/these-carbon-negative-ocean-degradable-straws-and-forks-are-made-from-greenhouse-gasses" target="_blank">Fast Company</a>. "As we looked around nature, we discovered pretty quickly that nature uses greenhouse gas to make materials every day."</p>
<p>Herrema's team found inspiration in nature-based processes that take in methane and carbon dioxide. Researchers honed in on a certain strain of ocean microbes that consume methane as food and produce AirCarbon as a byproduct.</p><p>"After they eat that gas, [the microbes] then convert that into a really special material inside themselves," he told Fast Company. "It's a meltable energy storage material, which you can purify and then form into various parts and shapes and pieces."</p><p>Newlight replicated the process in land-based production tanks by combining saltwater containing the ocean microorganisms with air and methane from an abandoned coal mine, to create AirCarbon within the bacteria, <a href="https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a34127608/newlight-covalent-restore-straws-leather-goods-review/" target="_blank">Esquire</a> reported. Researchers extracted the resultant substance and processed the material into a fine white powder which could be melted and molded into different shapes.</p>
<p>The methane used would otherwise have been emitted into the atmosphere, so the products are helping to sequester the greenhouse gas, <a href="https://www.optimistdaily.com/2020/09/these-eco-friendly-biodegradable-straws-are-made-out-of-methane-by-bacteria/" target="_blank">Optimist Daily</a> noted. That makes them "carbon-negative," Esquire pointed out, and "every product they create is pollution that didn't end up in the air and water." The products are actually "regenerative" because the production process for AirCarbon captures or destroys more greenhouse gases than it emits, the magazine added. A Newlight <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/newlight-technologies-aircarbon-material-has-been-certified-carbon-negative-by-the-carbon-trust-301138193.html" target="_blank">press release</a> stated that "for every one kilogram of AirCarbon produced in Newlight's production process using methane seeping from abandoned coal mines, 88 kilograms of CO2e are sequestered."</p><p>Because AirCarbon is produced naturally by the microbes, it also decomposes completely and naturally, the way a leaf would on the forest floor, reported <a href="https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/biodegradable-carbon-negative-straws-and-forks-made-from-methane/" target="_blank">Good News Network</a>. Luckily, it won't decompose unless faced with the same type of ocean microorganisms that created it, which means that AirCarbon products are durable, washable and reusable, Esquire noted.</p>
<p>Now, after a decade of refining their research, Newlight's first AirCarbon products are coming to market, Fast Company reported. The company is launching with single-use straws and cutlery, which look and feel like plastic but degrade like paper in ocean water.</p><p>In a separate offering, Newlight has also created carbon-negative "leather" made from AirCarbon, which it is turning into wallets and handbags. Unlike natural leather, the material won't peel or crack and doesn't require lots of greenhouse gases in its production; unlike synthetic leather, it can be easily recycled, reported Fast Company. Finally, Newlight will also offer carbon-negative eyewear.</p><p>All products will be stamped with a "Carbon Date" that consumers can plug into a website to view how the greenhouse gases in that item moved through the production process, Esquire described. The innovative blockchain technology tracking will also allow consumers to know exactly how much carbon impact their purchase had and which independent third party calculated and certified it, Newlight's website said.</p><p>According to the company press release, AirCarbon was named "Biomaterial of the Year" by the Nova Institute and "Innovation of the Year" by Popular Science. The World Economic Forum called Newlight a "Technology Pioneer" and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded Newlight the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award.</p><p>According to Esquire, "As you hold each [AirCarbon] product, what you're holding is a chunk of pollution that could have gone into the atmosphere but is instead a fashionable and/or functional product."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 4 Eco-Friendly Drinking Straw Alternatives So You Can Skip Plastic ... ›
- 5 Sustainable Alternatives to Plastics - EcoWatch ›
- Straws Made of Seaweed Could Replace Their Plastic Nemesis ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
On Thursday, Maryland will become the first state in the nation to implement a ban on foam takeout containers. guruXOOX / iStock / Getty Images Plus
Maryland will become the first state in the nation Thursday to implement a ban on foam takeout containers.
<p>The law, which was passed in 2019, prohibits restaurants and other institutions that serve food, such as schools, from using polystyrene containers, <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/environment/bs-md-stryrofoam-ban-takes-effect-20200925-dc57ytrblbdqrmbvsk4lddyw5a-story.html" target="_blank">The Baltimore Sun reported</a>.</p><p>"Single-use <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastics</a> are overrunning our <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ocean" target="_self">oceans</a> and bays and neighborhoods," chief bill sponsor Democratic Delegate Brooke Lierman <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/health/maryland-plastic-foam-ban-legislation-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">told CNN when it passed.</a> "We need to take dramatic steps to start stemming our use and reliance on them ... to leave future generations a planet full of wildlife and green space."</p><p>Lierman said she had tried twice before to pass the bill, but a shift in public opinion against plastic pollution finally pushed it over the finish line.</p>
<p>The law was originally scheduled to go into effect July 1, but officials delayed it by three months because of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a> pandemic, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/27/us/maryland-foam-container-ban-trnd/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">CNN reported further</a>. Dining has shifted from table service to takeout, and the government wanted to give impacted businesses more time to use up their extra foam, The Baltimore Sun explained.</p><p>Some restaurant owners still oppose the ban, arguing that foam containers are cheaper and longer-lasting than alternatives.</p><p>"We don't like increased costs," Dan Schuman of Captain Dan's Crabhouse in Eldersburg told The Baltimore Sun. "No restaurant does. Because we have to pass that onto the customer."</p><p>He said he was raising prices to cover the cost of new plastic containers, as well as an upcoming minimum wage increase.</p>
<p>However, other restaurants have already made the change on their own and were pleased with the results. Victoria Gastro Pub bar manager Megan Purcell said the Victoria Restaurant Group switched to compostable takeaway containers two years ago.</p><p>"It's just the right thing to do and it was time," Purcell told <a href="https://www.wmar2news.com/news/state/md-foam-container-ban-goes-into-effect-thursday" target="_blank">WMAR</a>.</p><p>Environmentalists, meanwhile, say the ban will help fight the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>, because foam containers are made from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a>, The Baltimore Sun reported. It will also keep the containers out of waterways.</p><p>This has already been the case for Maryland localities and cities that have banned foam containers ahead of the state, including Baltimore City, Anne Arundel, Montgomery and Prince George's counties.</p><p>In Baltimore, the trash wheels that prevent rubbish from entering the Inner Harbor reported a 40 percent reduction in polystyrene containers caught in their spokes.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/maine-bans-styrofoam-2636014775.html" target="_self">Maine</a>, New York and Vermont have passed similar bans, but they have not yet taken effect. Maryland regulators hope that their ban can be a model for these states and others considering phasing out the use of foam containers.</p><p>"We will learn how best to implement it," Maryland environment secretary Ben Grumbles told The Baltimore Sun, "and other states will watch us closely."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- New Jersey Legislature Passes 'Most Comprehensive' Plastics Ban ... ›
- Canada to Announce Ban on Single-Use Plastics - EcoWatch ›
- The Complex and Frustrating Reality of Recycling Plastic - EcoWatch ›
- Dunkin' Says Bye to Foam Cups (But Bring Your Own Thermos ... ›
- Maine and Vermont Pass Plastic Bag Bans on the Same Day ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less