5 ms·

This is only looking at river waste. The major contributor to plastic waste in the ocean is fishing gear. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/du

by sa1 5y ago

This is only looking at river waste. The major contributor to plastic waste in the ocean is fishing gear. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/dumped-fishing-gear-is-biggest-plastic-polluter-in-ocean-finds-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/dumped-f...

tfehring 5y ago
That's a good point, but "the major contributor" seems like a stretch. That article claims 640,000 tonnes/year of fishing equipment end up in the ocean, which is ~8% of the 8 million tonnes/year of overall plastic waste that end up in the ocean according to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/30/paddling-in-plastic-meet-the-man-swimming-the-pacific-garbage-patch https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/30/paddling-in-...
- sa1 5y ago
  This might be true, but it seems commonly described as the major contributor because it's 40-70% of floating plastic and macroplastics. On the other hand, microplastics sink to the ocean bed. https://hillnotes.ca/2020/01/30/ghost-fishing-gear-a-major-source-of-marine-plastic-pollution/ https://hillnotes.ca/2020/01/30/ghost-fishing-gear-a-major-s... I'm not sure which has more environmental impact.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    Plastics that do actually sink to the ocean bed are actually carbon sinks, a good thing as long as they don’t do so much damage to the ecology on the way down. The two major carbon sinks which really matter are building up global living biomass (i.e. replanting forests) and getting carbon locked in sediment on the ocean floor (by building up living ocean biomass that rains down on seafloor areas which are actively building up sediment.
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Yep... but politicians ban plastic straws and then brag how they're saving the planet, while those guys can do whatever they want.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- azinman2 5y ago
  It was meant to be just a starting point of removing one use plastics that are in the background of daily life. The trend ought to continue.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    Or it’s a meaningless gesture meant to appear to be doing something because it’s visible but only annoying people and building opposition for something otherwise quite important. It makes you feel good if you already like it, but really builds an easy win for opposition by demonstrably doing nothing of substance while making life a little more unpleasant. In other words it serves only to be divisive and give an opportunity for people to have strong opinions about something irrelevant; which is actually the point of much of politics, cement your support base by getting people riled up about inconsequential and thus risk free issues.
    - mitigating 5y ago
      "builds an easy win for opposition by demonstrably doing nothing of substance " It has some effect and if you want a big change sometimes it's better to start small. For example, if you wanted to get in shape you start by running a small distance. "In other words it serves only to be divisive and give an opportunity for people to have strong opinions about something irrelevant; which is actually the point of much of politics, cement your support base by getting people riled up about inconsequential and thus risk free issues." This is even more disturbing; you think that people on the left (and yes I'm just going to name the sides here) want to help the environment solely to anger the right? I have never met anyone who cares about the environment admitting to me their only and true motive is to anger the opposition. Is the reason you think this because that's your motive? For example "owning the libs". It is because you can't possibility be wrong about environmental policies that the other side must have another motive? Do pickup truck owners roll coal on cyclists because they think cyclists are out there riding just to shove that fact in their face? That they are putting all that physical effort as virtue signaling?

by sa1 5y ago

tfehring 5y ago

That's a good point, but "the major contributor" seems like a stretch. That article claims 640,000 tonnes/year of fishing equipment end up in the ocean, which is ~8% of the 8 million tonnes/year of overall plastic waste that end up in the ocean according to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/30/paddling-in-plastic-meet-the-man-swimming-the-pacific-garbage-patch https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/30/paddling-in-...

sa1 5y ago
This might be true, but it seems commonly described as the major contributor because it's 40-70% of floating plastic and macroplastics. On the other hand, microplastics sink to the ocean bed. https://hillnotes.ca/2020/01/30/ghost-fishing-gear-a-major-source-of-marine-plastic-pollution/ https://hillnotes.ca/2020/01/30/ghost-fishing-gear-a-major-s... I'm not sure which has more environmental impact.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Plastics that do actually sink to the ocean bed are actually carbon sinks, a good thing as long as they don’t do so much damage to the ecology on the way down. The two major carbon sinks which really matter are building up global living biomass (i.e. replanting forests) and getting carbon locked in sediment on the ocean floor (by building up living ocean biomass that rains down on seafloor areas which are actively building up sediment.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

Yep... but politicians ban plastic straws and then brag how they're saving the planet, while those guys can do whatever they want.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
azinman2 5y ago
It was meant to be just a starting point of removing one use plastics that are in the background of daily life. The trend ought to continue.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Or it’s a meaningless gesture meant to appear to be doing something because it’s visible but only annoying people and building opposition for something otherwise quite important. It makes you feel good if you already like it, but really builds an easy win for opposition by demonstrably doing nothing of substance while making life a little more unpleasant. In other words it serves only to be divisive and give an opportunity for people to have strong opinions about something irrelevant; which is actually the point of much of politics, cement your support base by getting people riled up about inconsequential and thus risk free issues.
  - mitigating 5y ago
    "builds an easy win for opposition by demonstrably doing nothing of substance " It has some effect and if you want a big change sometimes it's better to start small. For example, if you wanted to get in shape you start by running a small distance. "In other words it serves only to be divisive and give an opportunity for people to have strong opinions about something irrelevant; which is actually the point of much of politics, cement your support base by getting people riled up about inconsequential and thus risk free issues." This is even more disturbing; you think that people on the left (and yes I'm just going to name the sides here) want to help the environment solely to anger the right? I have never met anyone who cares about the environment admitting to me their only and true motive is to anger the opposition. Is the reason you think this because that's your motive? For example "owning the libs". It is because you can't possibility be wrong about environmental policies that the other side must have another motive? Do pickup truck owners roll coal on cyclists because they think cyclists are out there riding just to shove that fact in their face? That they are putting all that physical effort as virtue signaling?