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
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
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
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
Support Ecowatch
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
A plastic bag caught in a tree in New Jersey's Palisades Park. James Leynse / Stone / Getty Images
New Jersey is one step closer to passing what environmental advocates say is the strongest anti-plastic legislation in the nation.
<p>The state Legislature passed a sweeping measure Thursday that would ban <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-bags" target="_self">plastic bags</a> from stores and restaurants and single-use food and drink containers made from polystyrene foam, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/nyregion/nj-paper-plastic-bag-ban.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. The ban is noteworthy for being the first in the country to include supermarket paper bags as well as plastic ones.</p>
<p>"This is the single most comprehensive plastics and paper reduction bill in the nation," former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator and <a href="https://beyondplastics.org/" target="_blank">Beyond Plastics</a> President Judith Enck said in a <a href="https://www.insidernj.com/press-release/environmental-leaders-cheer-nj-legislative-votes-pass-single-use-waste-ban-bill-legislation-now-strongest-country/" target="_blank">statement published by Insider NJ</a>. "Building on the success of local laws adopted throughout New Jersey to reduce plastic pollution, the NJ State Legislature listened to the people and not the polluters and embraced a sensible environmental strategy."</p><p>The bill now passes to Gov. Philip Murphy, who intends to sign it, a spokesperson told The New York Times. The bans on bags and containers will go into effect 18 months after he does so, <a href="https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/environment/2020/09/24/nj-plastic-bag-ban-2020-nj-one-step-away-nations-toughest-ban/3506419001/" target="_blank">NorthJersey.com reported</a>.</p>
<p>In addition to banning plastic and paper bags and plastic food containers, the bill will also limit <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-straws" target="_self">plastic straws</a> in restaurants so that they will only be available upon request. There are exemptions for newspaper bags; bags used for loose produce, fish or meat; dry-cleaning bags and prescription drug bags.</p><p>The measure effectively settles a long-running debate about whether plastic or paper bags are worse for the environment by banning both. Plastic bags account for about 12 percent of U.S. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-pollution" target="_self">plastic pollution</a>, according to The New York Times. But paper bags need more energy, and therefore more <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate</a> pollution, to make. <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/new-jersey" target="_blank">New Jersey Sierra Club</a> Director Jeff Tittle said the new legislation would encourage people to use more sustainable, reusable shopping bags.</p>
<p>However, the ban on paper bags was also the key to getting an important supermarket trade group to support the bill, NorthJersey.com reported. The organization argued that it would cost stores too much to supply customers with only paper bags.</p><p>"The ban on paper bags is critically important to the success of this legislation," New Jersey Food Council President Linda Doherty said ahead of Thursday's vote. "Without a ban, consumers will simply move to paper single-use bags and we will not address the underlying goal of reducing our reliance on single-use products."</p><p>However, the food council originally opposed any sort of statewide bag ban, <a href="https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/09/sweeping-nj-bag-ban-plastic-paper-restricting-polystyrene-foam-food-containers/" target="_blank">NJ Spotlight News reported</a>. It changed its position after as many as 57 communities passed their own separate bans and it decided it would be easier to deal with a single, statewide law than a patchwork of local ones.</p>
<p>Not everyone has been persuaded, however. American Forest and Paper Association President and Chief Executive Heidi Brock said the bill unfairly targeted her industry.</p><p>"The New Jersey Legislature has undermined an environmentally responsible option for consumers," she said in a statement reported by The New York Times. "Furthermore, the ban on paper bags sends an alarming message in devaluing family wage jobs, which are often union labor, in addition to the indirect jobs supported by the paper and wood products industry in the state."</p>
<p>Republican Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi, meanwhile, argued that the bill would put an additional burden on a restaurant industry already struggling because of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a> pandemic.</p><p>"We're essentially kicking them in the head,'' she said, as NJ Spotlight News reported.</p><p>On the other hand, environmental advocates argued that plastic has long polluted New Jersey waterways. In recent years, more than 80 percent of the litter gathered on beaches by <a href="https://www.cleanoceanaction.org/index.php?id=334" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Clean Ocean Action</a> from Cape May to Sandy Hook has been plastic, NorthJersey.com reported. The material has even been found in some of the state's most pristine rivers and creeks.</p><p>"Now, we can all look forward to picking up less trash on our beaches," Clean Ocean Action executive director Cindy Zipf told NorthJersey.com. "There will be less plastics in the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ocean" target="_self">ocean</a> to cause harm and death to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/marine-life" target="_self">marine life</a>."</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A "trash tsunami" has washed ashore on the beaches of Honduras, endangering both wildlife and the local economy.
<p>The trash is mostly <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic" target="_self">plastic</a> waste, <a href="https://www.voanews.com/episode/trash-tsunami-blights-honduras-beach-4427746" target="_blank">Voice of America reported</a> Tuesday, and it is polluting the typically pristine tropical beaches of Omoa in the country's north. Honduran officials said Saturday that the refuse was coming from the mouth of the Motagua River in neighboring Guatemala. It poses a problem for the local economy because it depends on the tourism the beaches attract.</p><p>"This wave of trash which came from the Motagua River really surprised us, and even though it caused problems, it has not stopped our activities," Honduran environment official Lilian Rivera said, as <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/trash-tsunami-blights-honduras-beach-111435040.html" target="_blank">Yahoo News reported</a>. "We are committed to cleaning our beaches and keeping them clean, but today we are demanding that authorities in Tegucigalpa take strong actions, actions to find a permanent solution to this problem."</p><p>Tegucigalpa is the capital of Honduras.</p><p>The Hondoran government, meanwhile, has demanded action from Guatemala to stem the tide of plastic, according to Voice of America.</p>
<p>But the plastic flowing from Guatemala's Motagua River is an ongoing problem for the region, as <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/10/27/plastic-pollution-guatemala/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Intercept reported in 2019</a>. The plastic tide is fed by the fact that Guatemala has few managed landfills or wastewater treatment plants. The plastic then washes out in the Caribbean Sea, home to the biodiverse Mesoamerican reef.</p><p>In 2017, the Guatemalan government installed a "bio-fence" in the river to catch some of the waste after the Honduran government threatened a lawsuit over the pollution that reached its beaches. The fence is made of plastic bottles tied together with plastic netting.</p><p>"When it's full, you can practically walk on it," trash removal worker Marco Dubón told The Intercept.</p>
<p>Worldwide, rivers are a major source of ocean plastic pollution: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10155392528501479" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">90 percent of it</a> comes from just 10 rivers, scientists found in 2017. The problem is only growing. A study <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/ocean-plastic-2040-2646793992.html" target="_self">published in July</a> found that around 11 million metric tons of plastic enter marine environments every year, and that number will increase to 29 million metric tons a year by 2040 if no action is taken. Plastic is then a major problem for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/marine-life" target="_self">marine life</a>. Seabirds, turtles and marine mammals can become entangled in plastic or eat it by mistake, <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/09/24/plastic-pollution-affects-sea-life-throughout-the-ocean#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20United%20Nations,of%20that%20litter%20is%20plastic.&text=Fish%2C%20seabirds%2C%20sea%20turtles%2C,suffocation%2C%20starvation%2C%20and%20drowning." rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">PEW pointed out</a>. This can lead to strangulation, suffocation or death. It is estimated that plastic kills one million seabirds every year and that half of all sea turtles have swallowed plastic.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Plastic waste is bulldozed at a landfill. Needpix
The plastic recycling model was never economically viable, but oil and gas companies still touted it as a magic solution to waste, selling the American public a lie so the companies could keep pushing new plastic.
<p>"The bottle may look empty, yet it's anything but trash," claims a 1990 ad showing a plastic bottle bouncing out of a garbage truck, <a href="https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/energy-environment/2020/09/13/381750/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled/" target="_blank">Houston Public Media</a> reported. It's full of potential.… We've pioneered the country's largest, most comprehensive plastic recycling program to help plastic fill valuable uses and roles."</p><p>While the ad and countless others like it extolling the value of recycling sound environmentalist in nature, they were paid for by the plastics industry and their lobbying and trade organizations, the news report added.</p><p>Americans believed these ads and have been recycling plastic for decades, trusting the discards would be kept out of burgeoning landfills and oceans and reborn as new goods. The reality, however, is that most plastic can't and won't be recycled, reported NPR. According to the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data" target="_blank">EPA</a>, in the last 40 years, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/recycling-plastic-reality-2615116844.html" target="_self">less than 10% of plastic has been recycled</a>.</p><p>Up until 2018, most recyclable plastic was shipped to China to deal with, reported Forbes. When the latter banned imports of 24 kinds of waste, including plastic from the U.S., more plastic ended up in U.S. landfills, the news report said. In 2017, 35,370 tons of plastic were produced and 26,820 tons of that was landfilled, the EPA estimated, reported Forbes.</p>
<p>A series of investigative reports done by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/822597631/plastic-wars-three-takeaways-from-the-fight-over-the-future-of-plastics" target="_blank">NPR</a> and the PBS series <em>Frontline</em> this year found that the oil and gas industries — the makers of plastic — knew all along that plastic recycling would never be realistically feasible on a large scale, yet they spent tens of millions of advertising dollars each year telling the public that plastic can and should be recycled.</p><p>Internal documents from the 1970s and former executives confirmed that the industry knew all along that recycling at a large scale would never be economically viable because the process costs more than making new plastic, NPR reported.</p><p>Larry Thomas, who led the industry's lobbying group for more than a decade, broke his silence about what happened decades ago. The plastic industry never wanted recycling to work, because recycling was in direct competition with their business of selling as much oil as they possibly could, <a href="https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/energy-environment/2020/09/13/381750/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled/" target="_blank">Houston Public Media</a> reported.</p><p>"You know, they were not interested in putting any real money or effort into recycling because they wanted to sell virgin material," Thomas told the news report.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, starting in the late 1980s, the industry misled consumers into believing that recycling could be a magic panacea. Spending $50 million a year, big oil and plastic ran ads, installed collection centers and funded recycling projects and public regulation campaigns to convince the public that recycling works, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled" target="_blank">NPR</a> reported.</p><p>"Selling recycling sold plastic, even if it wasn't true," another former plastic executive told NPR.</p><p>Most of these projects never came to fruition before funding was cut, or have long since ended, reported Houston Public Media.</p><p>The industry also lobbied 40 states to put recycling symbols with numbers on all plastic, even if they weren't recyclable, to bolster the public image that plastic can be a renewable resource, the news report found.</p>
<p>"It's pure manipulation of the consumer," Coy Smith, a frustrated recycler out of San Diego, told Houston Public Media. He witnessed firsthand how the symbols caused consumers to think any plastic with the symbol was recyclable.</p><p>Again, lobbying groups and the plastics industry knew all this. A 1993 industry report said that the codes created "unrealistic expectations" about how much plastic can actually be recycled and were being misused by companies as a "green marketing tool," Houston Public Media reported.</p><p>When plastic bans started to pop up in the '80s and '90s, the industry similarly promoted recycling as an alternative to the bans, NPR reported. The industry again decided to "advertise [its] way out" of cultural and policy shifts that could potentially lead to falling sales of new plastic, NPR reported.</p><p>"The feeling was the plastics industry was under fire, we got to do what it takes to take the heat off, because we want to continue to make plastic products," Thomas told NPR. "If the public thinks the recycling is working, then they're not going to be as concerned about the environment."</p>
<p>The strategy worked, and the companies promoted recycling while selling billions of dollars worth of new plastic. Meanwhile, old plastic continued to get trashed.</p><p>In response to the investigation, industry representative Steve Russell said the industry has never intentionally misled the public about recycling and is committed to ensuring all plastic is recycled, Forbes reported. Still, according to the news report, the oil industry makes $400 billion a year producing plastic and is discussing how to increase investment in plastic production given that demand for oil for cars is down.</p><p>As the truth about recycling comes out, states and environmentalists struggle to see <a href="https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/13/fix-recycling-america/" target="_blank">if the broken system can be fixed at all</a>. While they do that, plastic production is predicted to triple by 2050, NPR reported, and, "once again, the industry is spending money on ads and public relations to promote plastics and recycling."</p>
<p> <br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- U.S. Products Labeled Recyclable Really Aren't, Greenpeace ... ›
- The Recycling Dilemma: Good Plastic, Bad plastic? - EcoWatch ›
- The Complex and Frustrating Reality of Recycling Plastic - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
New Report Reveals How Plastic Polluters Have Avoided Regulation Worldwide for Decades
18 September
Climate
A boy walks through plastic waste on Juhu beach in Mumbai, India on June 2, 2018. Punit Paranjpe / AFP / Getty Images
By Lisa Newcomb
Analysis released Thursday of the world's top 10 biggest plastic polluters in 15 countries reveals how major corporations hide behind the veneer of corporate responsibility while actively working to thwart regulatory legislation around the globe.
<p><br/></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/17/delay-distract-and-derail-new-report-reveals-how-plastic-polluters-have-avoided?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
<p>"This report is a damning exposé of the tactics employed by the plastics industry and shines a welcome light on the shadowy world of corporate lobbying," Natalie Fee, founder of City to Sea, which supported the research conducted by the Changing Markets Foundation, <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Talking-Trash-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement.</p><p>"For too long," said Fee, "the true cost of plastic production has been externalized, meaning plastic producers continue to get away with ecocide while waste management companies, consumers and marginalized communities around the world are left to deal with millions of tonnes of toxic plastic waste."</p>
<div id="5899a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f2af5e24600e9a04a59098846be0795c"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306489782529335296" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Out now! 📢 Our ground-breaking new report reveals the hypocrisy of the world’s biggest #plasticpolluters, who claim… https://t.co/TWutruUlqA</div> — Changing Markets Foundation (@Changing Markets Foundation)<a href="https://twitter.com/ChangingMarkets/statuses/1306489782529335296">1600326412.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The report—titled "<a href="https://talking-trash.com/" target="_blank">Talking Trash: The Corporate Playbook of False Solutions</a>,"—exposes how Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, Danone, Mars Incorporated, Mondelēz International, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Perfetti Van Melle, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Talking-Trash-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">deploy</a> "tactics to undermine legislation in individual countries are in fact part of a global approach by Big Plastic to ensure that the corporations most responsible for the plastic crisis evade true accountability for their pollution."</p><p>According to Changing Markets Foundation Thursday, the investigations <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Talking-Trash-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">found</a>:</p><ul><li>Big Plastic is a well-organized network of organizations that fight against proven solutions to the plastic pollution crisis through similar tactics across the world</li><li>Voluntary commitments and group initiatives from the ten biggest plastic polluters are used to distract consumers and governments, enabling polluters to continue with business as usual</li><li>Corporations work behind the scenes to <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/08/31/there-no-end-big-oils-evil-campaigners-condemn-industry-plan-pour-us-plastics-africa" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">delay and derail</a> legislation and ensure they can continue flooding the world with cheap, disposable plastic packaging</li><li>Plastic producers have co-opted the Covid-19 pandemic and capitalized on people's fear to call for regulatory rollbacks and delays on environmental legislation</li></ul>
<div id="688ca" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3370c14123ff2ac521085479120d1260"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306488205198401536" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">DELAY, DISTRACT and DERAIL: 3 tactics that help Big Plastic fight plastic legislation behind the scenes across the… https://t.co/f29Pc86aMj</div> — GAIA (@GAIA)<a href="https://twitter.com/GAIAnoburn/statuses/1306488205198401536">1600326036.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>"This report exposes the two-faced hypocrisy of plastic polluters, which claim to be committed to solutions, but at the same time use a host of dirty tricks to ensure that they can continue pumping out cheap, disposable plastic, polluting the planet at a devastating rate," <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Talking-Trash-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">said</a> Nusa Urbanic, campaigns director for the Changing Markets.</p><p>"Plastic is now pouring into the natural world at a rate of one garbage truck a minute, creating a crisis for wildlife, the climate and public health," Urbanic continued. "The responsibility for this disaster lies with Big Plastic—including major household brands—which have lobbied against progressive legislation for decades, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/18/greenpeace-finds-labels-plastic-products-mislead-public-and-harm-americas-recycling" target="_blank">greenwashed</a> their environmental credentials, and blamed the public for littering, rather than assuming responsibility for their own actions."</p><p>Big Plastic jumped at the opportunity presented by the Covid-19 pandemic—which has caused a <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/single-use-plastic-covid-180975312/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">surge</a> in single-use plastic consumption—to pressure lawmakers to roll back current regulations and prevent new ones, according to the report. </p><p>Additionally, Changing Markets <a href="http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Talking-Trash-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">noted</a> that plastic pollution has devastating effects on the environment and is a key contributor to the climate crisis.<span></span></p><p>According to the group:</p><blockquote>"The plastic pollution crisis is a deeply interconnected climate crisis, a biodiversity crisis, and a public health crisis all combined... Plastic saturates almost every surface of the planet—from the deepest abysses to the highest mountains and remotest islands—causing an unprecedented crisis for wildlife... Virgin-plastic production is a major contributor to climate change, generating enough emissions—from the moment they leave the ground as fossil fuels, and throughout their entire life cycle—to use up 10 to 15% of our entire carbon budget by 2050 at current rates of growth. Disposal of plastics through incineration and backyard burning also contributes to climate change and creates a toxic fallout undermining human and planetary health."</blockquote><p>The industry's contribution to the global climate emergency is nothing new, but progressive legislators continue to face an uphill battle when it comes to regulating these powerful corporations.</p><p>President Donald Trump, for example, has called climate change a "hoax," and, despite pleas from environmental advocacy groups and progressive lawmakers, many Democratic lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—as well as presidential nominee Joe Biden—still do not <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/08/31/despite-poll-showing-aggressive-climate-action-winning-issue-biden-boasts-i-am-not" target="_blank">support </a>the Green New Deal.</p>
<div id="eaab1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0f6dbe75ec7e7ed4656a767958238c89"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306313773511303169" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Amount of federal government subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry every year: $15 billion. The amount it sh… https://t.co/NRWQWRiw5f</div> — Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders)<a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/statuses/1306313773511303169">1600284448.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Urbanic urged lawmakers to act to protect the planet.</p><p>"The voluntary initiatives and commitments by the industry have failed," she said in a statement. "Policymakers should look past the industry smokescreen and adopt proven, progressive legislation globally to create the systemic change that this crisis so urgently needs."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 22 Facts About Plastic Pollution (And 10 Things We Can Do About It ... ›
- Plastics: The History of an Ecological Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- Atlantic Ocean Holds 10x More Plastic Pollution Than Previously ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Tyre Collective's patent-pending technology captures tire wear right at the wheel. The James Dyson Award
This year, the UK National James Dyson Award went to a team of student designers who want to reduce the environmental impact of car tires.
<p><a href="https://www.jamesdysonaward.org/2020/project/the-tyre-collective/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Tyre Collective</a> designed a simple device that collects microplastics as they fly off a car tire. As the group of designers explains it, their device helps on the path toward zero emissions by using electrostatic and airflow around the tire to capture the microplastics and other small particles that are shed over the lifetime of a tire.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/james-dyson-award-given-device-reduces-tyre-emissions" target="_blank">Autocar</a> in the UK reported, the team says that their design is capable of catching up 60 percent of the particles shed by tires, which is significant considering that tires are one of the largest sources of ocean microplastics, according to a study in <em><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17201-9" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Nature Communications</a></em>. That study found that tiny particles shed by tires and brake pads account for roughly 550,000 tons of microplastics that pollute the oceans annually. From that, over 80,000 tons rain down on remote areas covered in ice and snow, which helps accelerate the rate of melting, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/17/device-to-curb-microplastic-emissions-wins-james-dyson-award" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p>
<p>"Everyone focuses on air pollution being directly from the engines themselves and coming out of the exhaust pipe but what people don't necessarily recognize is that tire wear is a huge contributor to that," said Hugo Richardson, one of the members of The Tyre Collective, as <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/years-dyson-award-winner-car-110041877.html" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported.</p><p>Richardson is one of a team of four students from Imperial College London and the Royal College of Art who make up The Tyre Collective. Richardson and the three other students, Siobhan Anderson, Hanson Cheng and M. Deepak Mallya, say they share a passion to use design in a way that advances environmental causes, according to The Guardian.</p><p>"As a team, our strength lies in our diversity," said Richardson, as The Guardian reported. "We come from all four corners of the globe and bring with us a wealth of knowledge in mechanical engineering, product design, architecture and biomechanics."</p>
<p>As the world moves toward more renewable energy and the technology of electric vehicles improves, a device like this may play an important role in making cars more environmentally friendly. That's due to the fact that electric vehicles do not solve the problem of tire pollution. In fact, they may make it worse since electric vehicles are usually heavier than cars with internal combustion engines, according to Autocar.</p><p>"We were unanimously drawn to The Tyre Collective for their creative innovation around this urgent issue of microplastic shedding from tires," said Sophie Thomas, one of the judges of the James Dyson award, according to Autocar. "This collaborative, multidisciplinary team questioned and challenged, building an approach that demonstrates the crucial role of design and enquiry when we search for solutions to these global problems."</p><p>The tiny particles that the designers created can be recycled to make new tires, ink or other materials, according to Autocar. Right now, the design is just a prototype, but the team hopes to use its £2,000 (approximately $2600) reward toward finding a way to scale up its product sustainably.</p><p>"In the future it could be integrated into the wheel arch or even into the mud flap behind the wheel," said Siobhan Anderson from the The Tyre Collective team, as Reuters reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Humans Eat More Than 100 Plastic Fibers With Each Meal - EcoWatch ›
- Microplastics Are Raining Down on Cities - EcoWatch ›
- Microplastics Are Wafting in on the Sea Breeze - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
There has been very little focus on the fact that unless paint residuals are collected during surface preparation and the maintenance process, they will largely end up in the ocean as microplastics. DisobeyArt / Getty Images
By Declan McAdams and Tore Angelskår
Until recently, microplastics that enter the ocean from paint have not received a lot of attention. There has been very little focus on the fact that unless paint residuals are collected during surface preparation and the maintenance process, they will largely end up in the ocean as microplastics.
Uncertain Emission Estimates
<p><a href="https://www.iucn.org/content/primary-microplastics-oceans" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The most quoted source of data on how much microplastics from paint enters the ocean each year</a> gives a figure of 60,000 tons per annum. While this is still a big figure – the equivalent of six billion empty plastic bottles being dumped in the ocean every year – it falls short of the real size of the problem. This is because:</p><ul><li>It only includes marine coatings, <a href="https://www.coatingsworld.com/issues/2019-08-01/view_features/asia-pacific-coatings-market/" target="_blank">representing 4% of all paint volume, and does not include Industrial Maintenance (IM) and Protective Coating (PC) which represent another 11% of all global paint volumes sold</a>;</li><li><a href="http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2009)24&doclanguage=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">It works with the 2009 OECD estimate</a> that assumes 1 % of paint applied falls off each year (meaning an average paint life of 100 years), while industry experience shows that, in fact, industrial and marine paints have an average life of approximately 20 years or about 5% of paint falls off each year.</li></ul><p>For these reasons, the real level of paint microplastics entering the environment and ocean each year could be much, much higher than 60,000 tons. <a href="https://www.miljodirektoratet.no/publikasjoner/2015/februar/sources-of-microplastic-pollution-to-the-marine-environment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Other reports also conclude that paint is the second-largest source of microplastics in the ocean</a>.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzc5MzE4OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjY4Mjk3MH0.pULOH7bUGNRCQmRFP159WDrAKdJaBA5vm7Z-I1PH5V0/img.png?width=980" id="e3376" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c8c58d4f862607cd0711a694f359cd78" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
The pathway by which plastic enters the world's oceans. Our World in Data
<p>Let's look at it another way and see what happens to all of the paint on steel assets. It is estimated that more than six million tons of paint are applied to industrial and marine steel structures every year.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzc5MzI0OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjcwMjcxNH0.6ZCAppekuA9BN2iE2lxcIeZDnYkLbxKfzpcEufCgehI/img.png?width=980" id="2ee97" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cc7b259193f9b5a6ff48dbd801bc6d32" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
*Coatings World, **assuming 1-1.2 kg per liter of paint and 40-50% plastic content, ***assuming 50-75% of the paint residuals are not collected.
<p>Therefore, based on the actual level of paint applied to industrial and marine steel assets each year, it is estimated that the real level of paint microplastics emissions to the ocean every year could be as high as 1.5-2.25 million tons. This is based on the assumption that 50-75% of the paint residuals are not collected. Given we know that open blasting without collection holds a higher market share of surface maintenance than this, the actual level of emissions is probably at the higher upper end of the range.</p><p>Putting these new figures in context, they are a very meaningful percentage of the 8 million tons of plastic that enters the oceans each year. In addition, it can also help us better understand where some of the estimated 12-21 million tons of microplastics in the Atlantic Ocean, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17932-9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">as highlighted in a recent study</a>, have come from.</p><p><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-humans-a-microplastic-invasion-may-be-taking-a-toll/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">What are the risks from all of these paint microplastics?</a> Ingested microplastic particles can physically damage organs and leach hazardous chemicals – from the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A (BPA) to pesticides – that can compromise immune function and stymie growth and reproduction. Both microplastics and these chemicals may accumulate further up the food chain, potentially impacting whole ecosystems, including the health of the soils in which we grow our food. Microplastics in the water we drink and the air we breathe can also hit humans directly.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fworldeconomicforum%2Fvideos%2F725096201608820%2F&show_text=0&width=476" width="476" height="476" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe><p>Harmful open sandblasting and water jetting are the predominant methods of surface maintenance. These are used at an industrial scale worldwide with various, but very limited, degrees of waste collection and recycling. There is a certain level of collection inside controlled environments like shipyards. Offshore, however, on oil rigs, ocean wind farms and ships, and in many situations on-shore, such as bridges, there is considerably less waste collection.</p><p>Using innovative solutions in surface maintenance, such as circular sandblasting, can reduce the emissions of microplastics to zero. In addition, the zero-emission, circular solution also recycles the blasting material, reducing grit consumption by 80-90%, which generates significant reductions in CO2 emission.</p>
<iframe src="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/microplastics-in-ocean?year=latest" loading="lazy" style="width: 100%; height: 600px; border: 0px none;"></iframe><p>Microplastics in the surface ocean, 1950-2050. Our World in Data</p>
The Need for Regulatory Awareness and Enforcement
<p>We need greater awareness of this problem on the part of environmental regulators, and a willingness to enforce existing anti-pollution laws. There should be a requirement to collect the used blasting material, with its heavy metals and other toxic components, and most importantly, the rust and paint residuals as they are blasted off the steel assets. Otherwise, they will largely find their way, directly or indirectly, into the ocean.</p><p>Even though there is considerable uncertainty regarding the extent of emissions of microplastics from paint into the ocean, one thing is very clear: it is a significant problem that deserves a lot more research and regulatory and policy-maker attention, so action can be taken to solve it as soon as possible.</p>From Your Site Articles
- People Eat 50,000+ Microplastics Every Year, New Study Finds ... ›
- Microplastics Are Wafting in on the Sea Breeze - EcoWatch ›
- Microplastics Are Increasing in Our Lives, New Research Finds ... ›
- New Study: 15.5 Million Tons of Microplastics Litter Ocean Floor - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less