Discussion in 'Present & Current Events' started by nivek, Oct 20, 2017.
Burn baby burn.
90 per cent of global plastic waste comes from just 10 rivers in Asia and Africa
Study reveals 90 per cent of plastic waste comes from rivers in Asia and Africa
Researchers suggest the best way of reducing plastic is by targeting these
Bag ban skeptics meanwhile claim that shopping bags mostly end up in landfill
University of Sydney professor calls the bag ban a 'low-hanging fruit' issue
The river systems that carry the most waste into the ocean include the Amur, Ganges, Hai, Indus, Mekong, Pearl, Yangtze and Yellow Delta in Asia, as well as the Niger and Nile in Africa, a research paper has revealed.
The study, carried out by Germany's Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, suggests that the most effective way of reducing the amount of plastic in the world's oceans is by addressing the sources of pollution along such waterways as these.
The bag issue is virtue signaling by progressives.
I find that signaling my virtue to progressives is much simpler and just takes one finger.
They ever heard you ? You might use the wrong media format to reach them.
Hearing isn't relevant to a progressive. Their mouth is always open.
That is why I address this issue with the right media format - good old American Ash.
I have a 36 inch Louisville Slugger I call "The Great Communicator".
So you either use your top 10 % I.Q or the Louisville Slugger thingy. Interesting. Are you a typical east coaster ?
Not typical and not a native east coaster.
Plastic Pollution Coalition is a growing global alliance of individuals, organizations, businesses, and policymakers working toward a world free of plastic pollution and its toxic impacts on humans, animals, waterways and oceans, and the environment.
Plastic is a substance the earth cannot digest.
Plastic recycling is NOT a sustainable solution.
REFUSE - SINGLE-USE - PLASTIC
Plastic pollution is toxic to human health. Even babies are born pre-polluted.
This I totally agree with, recycling is not the answer any longer in dealing with Plastic pollution, we are too far beyond that fix now, recycling should have been strong from the very beginning of Plastic production...It's a long read but detailed...
More Recycling Won't Solve Plastic Pollution
It’s a lie that wasteful consumers cause the problem and that changing our individual habits can fix it.
The only thing worse than being lied to is not knowing you’re being lied to. It’s true that plastic pollution is a huge problem, of planetary proportions. And it’s true we could all do more to reduce our plastic footprint. The lie is that blame for the plastic problem is wasteful consumers and that changing our individual habits will fix it.
Recycling plastic is to saving the Earth what hammering a nail is to halting a falling skyscraper. You struggle to find a place to do it and feel pleased when you succeed. But your effort is wholly inadequate and distracts from the real problem of why the building is collapsing in the first place. The real problem is that single-use plastic—the very idea of producing plastic items like grocery bags, which we use for an average of 12 minutes but can persist in the environment for half a millennium—is an incredibly reckless abuse of technology. Encouraging individuals to recycle more will never solve the problem of a massive production of single-use plastic that should have been avoided in the first place.
As an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, I have had a disturbing window into the accumulating literature on the hazards of plastic pollution. Scientists have long recognized that plastics biodegrade slowly, if at all, and pose multiple threats to wildlife through entanglement and consumption. More recent reports highlight dangers posed by absorption of toxic chemicals in the water and by plastic odors that mimic some species’ natural food.
Plastics also accumulate up the food chain, and studies now show that we are likely ingesting it ourselves in seafood. If we consumers are to blame, how is it possible that we fail to react when a study reports that there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans by 2050? I would argue the simple answer is that it is hard. And the reason why it is hard has an interesting history.
Beginning in the 1950s, big beverage companies like Coca-Cola and Anheuser-Busch, along with Phillip Morris and others, formed a non-profit called Keep America Beautiful. Its mission is/was to educate and encourage environmental stewardship in the public. Joining forces with the Ad Council (the public service announcement geniuses behind Smokey the Bear and McGruff the Crime Dog), one of their first and most lasting impacts was bringing “litterbug” into the American lexicon through their marketing campaigns against thoughtless individuals.
Two decades later, their “Crying Indian” PSA, would become hugely influential for the U.S. environmental movement. In the ad, a Native American man canoes up to a highway, where a motorist tosses a bag of trash. The camera pans up to show a tear rolling down the man’s cheek. By tapping into a shared national guilt for the history of mistreatment of Native Americans and the sins of a throwaway society, the PSA became a powerful symbol to motivate behavioral change. More recently, the Ad Council and Keep America Beautiful teams produced the “I Want to Be Recycled” campaign, which urges consumers to imagine the reincarnation of shampoo bottles and boxes, following the collection and processing of materials to the remolding of the next generation of products.
At face value, these efforts seem benevolent, but they obscure the real problem, which is the role that corporate polluters play in the plastic problem. This clever misdirection has led journalist and author Heather Rogers to describe Keep America Beautiful as the first corporate greenwashing front, as it has helped shift the public focus to consumer recycling behavior and actively thwarted legislation that would increase extended producer responsibility for waste management.
Beverage Container Law, which outlawed the sale of beverages in non-refillable containers. Single-use packaging was just being developed, and manufacturers were excited about the much higher profit margins associated with selling containers along with their products, rather than having to be in charge of recycling or cleaning and reusing them. Keep America Beautiful was founded that year and began working to thwart such legislation. Vermont lawmakers allowed the measure to lapse after four years, and the single-use container industry expanded, unfettered, for almost 20 years.
In 1971 Oregon reacted to a growing trash problem by becoming the first U.S. state to pass a “bottle bill,” requiring a five-cent deposit on beverage containers that would be refunded upon the container’s return. Bottle bills provide a strong incentive for container reuse and recycling, and the 10 states with bottle deposit laws have around 60 percent container recovery rates compared to 24 percent in states without them. Yet Keep America Beautiful and other industrial lobbying groups have publicly opposed or marketed against bottle deposit legislation for decades, as it threatens their bottom line. Between 1989 and 1994 the beverage industry spent $14 million to defeat the National Bottle Bill.
In fact, the greatest success of Keep America Beautiful has been to shift the onus of environmental responsibility onto the public while simultaneously becoming a trusted name in the environmental movement. This psychological misdirect has built public support for a legal framework that punishes individual litterers with hefty fines or jail time, while imposing almost no responsibility on plastic manufacturers for the numerous environmental, economic and health hazards imposed by their products.
Because of a legal system that favors corporate generation of plastic, plus public acceptance of single-use items as part of the modern economy, consumers who want to reduce their plastic footprint are faced with a host of challenges. We should carry around reusable beverage and takeout containers. We should avoid bottled water or sodas at all costs. When we have to accept a single-use plastic container, we should inform ourselves about the complex nuances of which types of plastic are acceptable (No. 1–3, but not No. 5?), which forms are acceptable (bottles and jugs, but not bags?) and where they can be deposited (curbside or at a special location?).
In the case of most restaurants and gas stations, which almost never have customer-facing recycling facilities even where required by law, we should transport recyclables to another location that does recycle. Even then, we must live with the knowledge that plastics generally degrade with recycling, such that plastic bottles are more often turned into non-recyclable carpets and synthetic clothes than more bottles. Effectively, we have accepted individual responsibility for a problem we have little control over. We can swim against this plastic stream with all our might and fail to make much headway. At some point we need to address the source.
According to a 2016 Pew Research poll, 74 percent of Americans think the government should do “whatever it takes to protect the environment.” So what would swift, informed and effective governmental action to stop the pollution of our water, food and bodies look like?
Legislators could make laws that incentivize and facilitate recycling, like the national bottle deposit and bag tax bills that were proposed in 2009. These bills would have created a nationwide five-cent deposit on plastic bottles and other containers, and a nonrefundable five-cent charge on plastic bags at checkout. The U.K. launched a similar charge on all single-use grocery bags in 2015 and announced a nationwide bottle deposit requirement in March of this year. Within six months of the plastic bag charge being in place, usage dropped over 80 percent. Similarly, in Germany, where a nationwide bottle bill was put in place in 2003, recycling rates have exceeded 98 percent. In the U.S. these actions would go a long way toward recovering the estimated $8 billion yearly economic opportunity cost of plastic waste.
Other actions could include a ban or “opt-in” policy on single-use items like plastic straws. That is, single-use plastic items would not be available or only upon request. A small tweak like this can lead to huge changes in consumer behavior, by making wastefulness an active choice rather than the status quo. Such measures were recently adopted by several U.S. cities, and are under consideration in California and the U.K.
And yet, some plastic producers continue to oppose legislation that would eat into their profit margins. Though California and Hawaii have banned the free distribution of plastic bags at checkout, a result of lobbying is that 10 U.S. states now have preemption laws preventing municipalities from regulating plastic at the local level. Plastic producers see their profits threatened and have taken a familiar tactic, forming the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition and the American Progressive Bag Alliance to fight bag bans under the guise of defending customers’ finances and freedom to choose.
You talking burn all the discarded plastics ?
I agree.. in modern power plants ofc... Think I said so before. But my memory is short. So I say it again.
Collect & Burn.. Recycling if its economical to do so
Seabirds found with more than 250 pieces of plastic lodged in their stomachs
If you think plastic in the oceans is bad, don't look up anything to do with the Fukushima reactor disaster. It will make you sick as to how that story has been covered up.
Horrifying pictures show majestic manta ray forced to swim in sea of plastic off tourist hotspot
We are eating plastic and covering the earth in plastic more and more every year...
Microplastics found in 90 percent of table salt
Microplastics were found in sea salt several years ago. But how extensively plastic bits are spread throughout the most commonly used seasoning remained unclear. Now, new research shows microplastics in 90 percent of the table salt brands sampled worldwide.
Of 39 salt brands tested, 36 had microplastics in them, according to a new analysis by researchers in South Korea and Greenpeace East Asia. Using prior salt studies, this new effort is the first of its scale to look at the geographical spread of microplastics in table salt and their correlation to where plastic pollution is found in the environment.
“The findings suggest that human ingestion of microplastics via marine products is strongly related to emissions in a given region,” said Seung-Kyu Kim, a marine science professor at Incheon National University in South Korea.
Salt samples from 21 countries in Europe, North and South America, Africa, and Asia were analyzed. The three brands that did not contain microplastics are from Taiwan (refined sea salt), China (refined rock salt), and France (unrefined sea salt produced by solar evaporation). The study was published this month in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The density of microplastics found in salt varied dramatically among different brands, but those from Asian brands were especially high, the study found. The highest quantities of microplastics were found in salt sold in Indonesia. Asia is a hot spot for plastic pollution, and Indonesia—with 34,000 miles (54,720 km) of coastline—ranked in an unrelated 2015 study as suffering the second-worst level of plastic pollution in the world.
In another indicator of the geographic density of plastic pollution, microplastics levels were highest in sea salt, followed by lake salt and then rock salt.
The new study is the fifth on salt published in recent years. Others have been done in Spain, China, the United States, and by a group from France, Britain, and Malaysia.
Australia started to test a network of drainage with mesh so that plastics and other pollutants do not reach rivers or sea...
As another article you posted earlier makes clear, it does not matter what the developed world does to curtail marine plastic pollution, as it overwhelmingly originates elsewhere. Third world countries do not, by and large, have municipal waste disposal, and thus a large amount of their waste is dumped in rivers and the sea.
It is seriously pathetic, ignorant, and asinine on all levels the amount of plastic these corporations are pushing us to use with no oversight, responsibility, or common sense in the way it is all distributed, consumed and discarded...Everything from a cheap plastic handle to paint a wall to freaking shirts and pants and generally people are not paying attention at all of how plastics have creeped into every part of our lives...I refuse to wear plastic clothing (polyesters, etc) might as well put a garbage bag over your chest and wear it for a shirt because that is exactly what they sell as polyester shirts in Macy's for instance and charge you 70 dollars for that plastic shirt, a garbage bag is much cheaper although not visually pleasing, but that is what you're wearing when you put on one of those pathetic pieces of clothing...Rant over...
Might I add that today at work I wore cotton and wool clothing 100% natural, the cotton shirt 120 dollars, the wool pants 300 dollars, just as over priced as that plastic (polyester) shirt is, but all natural and breathable on the skin...Perhaps over population has something to do with this as well, less natural resources means more synthetics and cheap knock-offs abound?...Out of the over 6 billion people on this planet I wonder how many have trashed a plastic bottle today?...I wonder how many people are wearing plastic shirts today?...
When are we going to stop making so much plastic waste?...
It's time to rethink Mardi Gras—without tons of plastic beads
Last year, the New Orleans sanitation department scooped up over 1,200 tons of waste after all the parades wrapped up. A lot of it was beads. In advance of the parade season, the city department of public works had made a concerted effort to clear clogged storm drains. They removed more than 3,000 tons of debris—including 46 tons of leftover Mardi Gras beads collected on just five blocks of St. Charles Avenue, the main parade route.
Separate names with a comma.